Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hill did not think it necessary to vote on every little issue. He supported seeking consensus but felt a two.thirds vote would work. Mr. Hoobyar asked for a vote on consensus with a fall back to a two.thirds majority. The group voted in favor of a consensus model with a fall back to a two-thirds majority, 7:3. In response to a question from Mr. Howard, Mr. Hoobyar explained that consensus did not necessarily mean unanimity. He said consensus meant that everyone in the group could live with the result. Mr. Spain suggested that it might be good to list the final vote by stakeholder category given that the property owners were being assessed for the improvements. Ms. Damron had no objections to having her vote listed by her name and stakeholder group. She felt it was possible that it could make a difference with the City Council. Mr. Hill sugg~sted it be left up to the individual. Mr. Hyman pointed out that the group already agreed on its decision.making process. Ms. Rojas noted that the property owners were not the only ones who were paying for the improvements as the community paid for half of the cost. 3. Clarifying the Stakeholder Group's Opportunity to Influence Decisions Mr. Hoobyar reported that City Councilor Gary Pape had positively asserted that the group's process had a great deal of potential for influencing the City Council's final decision as this was why the council had formed the group in the first place. Mr. Hoohyar recalled that some people had concern that the similar process that the Crest Drive area residents had undergone had been disregarded. He related that he had communicated with Kathy Samnpa, chair of the Crest Drive Community Organization. She had indicated that she believed the stakeholder process had moved forward, that staff had affirmed that the exception rule could be applied to the Crest Drive area, and the community organization was generally satisfied with the process at this point 4. Problem Identification Mr. Hoobyar summarized the conversation thus far. He averred that concerns with how ODOT would proceed with Beltline Highway were real. He noted a great deal of discussion on ending the major improvements at the eastern boundary of the Post Office or at the treatment plant. Ms. Vaughn responded that his perception of the discussion had been accurate. She questioned whether property owners concerns were solely based on the design of the project or whether part of the concern they had was due to the expense. She asked them to consider what objections they would have if they MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group- Public Works Department August 30, 2005 Page 4