Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

Mr. SameI' was concerned that the group was jumping ahead into the agenda. He recommended the group take care of the housekeeping elements of the agenda prior to getting at the meat of the conversation. 2. Decision Making Process Mr. Hoobyar explained that consensus was a more difficult process and took more time but resulted in a better buy-in of the members. He said the group could try for consensus and fall back on a majority vote or a super.majority vote oftwo.thirds or three~quarters should consensus not work. In response to a question from Mr. Howard, Mr. Hoobyar assured him that staff members did not have a vote. Mr. Howard suggested the group keep it simple and use a majority vote. He asked thatthe record include how individuals voted. He thought the council would find this information useful in interpreting the recommendation. Ms. Damron suggested there be a distinction between motions that move the group forward in the process and votes on the final recommendation. She advocated for consensus approval of the final recommenda. tion accompanied by a majority and minority report. Ms. Vaughn did not believe there should be a great deal offocus on how individuals voted. She wished to avoid a political process as she preferred a more holistic and free process in the formulation and approval of a recommendation. Mr. Hoobyar wanted to have the capacity to take a straw vote at different points in the process. Ms. Rojas said the group needed to consider that smaller decisions might be needed to move the process forward. Mr. Hoobyar responded that this was what he intended to determine with a straw poll. Mr. Hyman did not understand why the group would want their votes listed by name. Mr. Hoobyar noted that this was only one suggestion. Mr. Samer underscored that the reason the group was convened was to come up with a recommendation for an alternate design. He averred that a super majority was needed in order to "put the issue to bed." He supported a consensus process with a super majority as a fall back for the final recommendation. Mr. Hoobyar noted that he had heard both at this meeting and the previous meeting that the focus should be on rebuilding the road until the Post Office or the Wastewater Treatment Facility. He asked how the group wanted to make a decision on what option it wished to "run with." Ms. Vaughn said her concern would be satisfactorily addressed by Mr. Hoobyar's suggestion of frequent check-ins with the group. Mr. Hoobyar asked how the group would know when it had resolved an element of the plan. MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group- Public Works Department August 30, 2005 Page 3