Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

found the regulation:, could alhw 8 reduction in the setback and rerouting of the watcnvay while enhancing the waterway's functions. The situation arose in oniy the small lots, rather than the large parcels. Me Kelly suggested rephrasing might help with better understanding and asked for a diagram illustrating .Mr. Bj6rklund's remarks. He also suggested a GIS nm of real world exampks would also be use ful Ms. HeUman suggested that staff could address the density issue in a memorandum but she would bring it up at the public hearing. She asked what happened if the Hoard nf County Commissitmers refused to take action. fvk Bjorklund said there was no guarantee of adoption, but if the C\mnty did not adopt something, it would have fai1ed to have rnet its periodic review obligations. The board could decide to adopt somet.hmg different. Staff"\vould initiate the board adoption pwcess fnHmving council action. B. VO'[ERS P AM PlILET Ms. Bettn::an. seconded by Ms. Ortiz, for the purpose of directing and informing the pub- lic that the Eugene City C\)uncl.l has placed Measure 21-06 on the b8Hot, \-vbat ihemeas- un: is, "when the election is, where and hmv to 'v\)te, and important dates and deadlines: moved to direct the City Manager tn expedite a neutral infomlational mailing in a k;nnat consist.ent 'Nlth previous City informati@al mailings describing City measures, to be mailed no latCf than October 5. The infcirmation shaH include the question and summary of the bal10t memmre, and a copy ~)fthe chmier amendment. The informa1ion shan also include ekctlon time1ines and logistics, including the dates that ballots and Voter's Panl- phlets arc mailed, and a \Veb address, and other points of access to review the Pnhce Commission's rcpoti of July 25. This motion also al10cates up to $20,000 to complete the mailing from the Council C\)ntingency Fund. Ms. Heitman said a precedent existed in past City mailings regarding past ballot rneasures. She believed that the date of October 5 could be achieved. She said she would not object if the mailmg ~Kellrrcd a fc\v days either beforc or after that date. Ms. Walston suggested the poknti81 of an insert in The Register-Guard and the Eugene lj/f'ek!r.fvls. HeHman believed that would reduce the number of people who received the information. j'vls. Oriiz supported the motion because it represented what had been done in the past. The council was not askmg fix anything speciaL Ms. Solomon asked vihat the existing City policy was, and hmv the motion diffi.:red from policy. She asked why the council \-vas discussing the issue if it was the ease that such infc\rmation was provided in the past. ivts. Walston recalled that the issue was discussed on August 8 when thc resolution to place the mca~;ure on the ball()t was adopted. Hmvever, there \vas no motion to go t~~H'ward at that time. Staff beJicved, on the advice of the attorney, that it would be difficult to produce a neutral piece because of the fact the ejection involved a charter amendment and staff could not point to facts such as what would be purchased, as occurred with a bond measure, t~Jr example. Cit.y Attorney Glenn Klein clarified there was no existing policy about such mailings, but there \vas past practice. In most cases, the City prepared some sort of pamphlet or brochure. He h(ld advised on August 8 that he did not think the City could do a traditional explanatory pamphlet bet.:ause the measure was not factual to the same extent as a bond measure. The kind of information Ms. HeHman rnentioned in her MINUTES ..Eugene City Council \\iork Session September 21 , 2005 Page ()