Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Obie stated that the City is sincere in trying to move forward on this <br />project, but they are running into a deadline and should not miss the ~ <br />opportunity to come closer to a consortium. Commissioner t'Hooft stated ... <br />he felt the problem with the City's stand is that it would create separate <br />prime sponsors under a superstructure. <br /> <br />Mr. lieuallen said that there has been a difficulty in determining exactly <br />what the issues are as both agencies see them. If one continues down the <br />.present road, two separate prime sponsors are inevitable. <br /> <br />'Ms. Schue stated she felt it would be highly unfortunate if we ended <br />up with the option that neither agency wanted--having separate prime <br />sponsors. The residency is an important part and, under either coopera- <br />tive model, would be better than under prime sponsors. She does not <br />understand why Lane County is not willing to compromise. Mr. Delay stated <br />he hopes that whoever represents the council to the commissioners would <br />make it very clear that they would like to work together. There are <br />serious but legitimate differences in the approach to this matter. Having <br />a consortium with separate operations would be working toward the goal of <br />a full consortium. The Department of Labor report shows definite room for <br />improvement. He stated he felt the City should give the staff proposal a <br />try to get this program operating. He will support the motion and hopes <br />,Lane County will reonsider its decision. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; motion carried 7:1, with Councilor Lieuallen <br />voting no. <br /> <br />Mayor Keller stated that either Ms. Smith or he would convey the council's e <br />decision to the board of commissioners. <br /> <br />Mayor Keller indicated that Items V, Equal Opportunity Report for 1978-79; <br />VI, Revision of South University Charter; VII. Cone/Breeden Case Update; <br />and X, Residential lot Size Reductions, would be removed from this agenda <br />and placed on the April 9 agenda. <br /> <br />III. AMENDMENT OF TRESPASS ORDINANCE (memo and ordinance distributed) <br /> <br />Mr. Allen introduced Stan long, City Attorney, to make a presentation. <br /> <br />Mr. Long stated there were numerous issues to be considered in the devel- <br />opment of this ordinance. Case law indicates that some shopping malls are <br />private, and owners have the right to prohibit even First Amendment <br />activities. Various decisions from the courts using State law have <br />indicated that certain activities could occur on such private property. <br />In the last session of the legislature, a senate bill would have made <br />areas like the downtown mall and Valley River Center quasi-public places. <br />The Eugene legislative committee did not support this legislation because <br />it had gross technical problems. At the same time, there was a court <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />4/2/80--8 <br />