Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/1987 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber December 7, 1987 6 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Debra Ehrman, Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Robert Bennett, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten. The City Council met for dinner at 5:30 p.m. at BJ's Restaurant. Because of the size of the audience, Mayor Brian Obie announced that the work session would be moved to the Council Chamber. He noted that display of signs was prohibited in the Council Chamber. 1. NUCLEAR FREE ZONE TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT Mayor Obie opened the work session of the Eugene City Council at 6:15 p.m. He apologized for any inconvenience and thanked the audience for accommodating the change in location. Mayor Obie noted that the council could give direction at a work session. He e said the City to date had implemented a number of provisions of the Nuclear Free Zone ordinance, including posting of signs, notification of appropriate officials, and sponsoring an observance on August 6. Mayor Obie recognized the amount of task force involvement and said councilors had received the final report. He complimented staff on the preparation and form of the final report. Mayor Obie said some questions had been answered by the task force process, and others had arisen. The Mayor recognized task force Chair Gerry Gaydos and commended his work, as well as that of the task force, of which several members were present in the audience. He expressed appreciation for their work. Mr. Gaydos thanked the Mayor for his comments and for the opportunity to serve. He recognized the assistance and presence of Vice Chair Steve Johnson and task force members Ronna Friend, David Zupan, Dean Baker, Nancy Willard, and Martha Evans. Mr. Gaydos said the task force process had been arduous and had taken longer than the original timeline, he thought with good reason. He noted that many issues in the report were the subject of strong feelings and support tonight and concerned many citizens of Eugene. Mr. Gaydos said the final report had been condensed from the task force process, and he offered to answer questions. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 1 Jody Miller of the Intergovernmental Relations office introduced the staff presentation. She said the task force had recommended two proposals, and e staff requested direction in three areas: 1) which version of the ordinance the City Council preferred; 2) whether to refer a proposal on the scope of the ordinance to voters; and 3) if referral to voters was favored, in what form it should occur. Ms. Miller said another work session and action could be scheduled for January. She also said staff had begun research on a tentative recommendation for a referral to voters, but more work was needed. She noted that the deadline for a May election would be March 17 or sooner if a local voters' pamphlet were to be used. Glen Potter of the Intergovernmental Relations office presented the final report from the Nuclear Free Zone Task Force. He noted that the Nuclear Free Zone Task Force had been appointed last February and had been asked to review the ordinance passed by voters in November 1986. Mr. Potter said the City Council's charge to the task force was included in Appendix F of the report, and he reviewed task force responses to that charge. Mr. Potter said the task force early on had reached consensus to proceed with the provision for notification of public officials, the Ci ty Council had approved, and notification had been made in April. He said annual notification would continue under either of the two proposals in the report. Mr. Potter said placement of Nuclear Free Zone signs at city entrances also had received the approval of the task force and council, and the City had installed signs on City and county rights-of-way. He said negotiations still were occurring for authorization to place signs on State rights-of-way. e Mr. Potter said the task force had been asked to advise the council on an appropriate City response to questions about legal issues, administrative issues, and the effects of the ordinance on other programs, in particular economic development. He said the report indicated that the task force had been unable to reach consensus on all of the legal and administrative issues, although agreement had been reached on many. Ultimately, he sa i d, the two versions recommended tonight, Proposals A and B, had been drafted as separate proposals, and the full task force in November had taken action to refer both proposals to the City Council. A. Proposal A Mr. Potter said Proposal A was presented by five task force members who were interested in retaining as much of the ori gi na 1 ordinance language as possible, while seeking to address what they saw as the obvious legal problems raised early in the review process. The group named this draft the "Minimally Revised Version" of the ordinance (MRV). He said Proposal A would ban the design, development, testing, production, maintenance, and storage of nuclear weapons; nuclear weapons systems; delivery systems; command, control, and communication systems; defensive systems; and components of any of those. The definition of "de 1 i very system" included land, air, and sea craft whose primary intended purpose was to deliver a nuclear weapon to its target. The definition of "command, control, and communications systems" included remote sensing, electronic communications and data processing hardware and software e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 2 - .- whose primary intended purpose was to arm, launch, release, target, guide, trigger, or detonate a nuclear weapon or to operate a defensive system. Mr. e Potter said the proposal defined "defensive systemll as a system to counter strategic ballistic missiles or their elements in flight, and would include anti-ballistic missiles, launchers, and radars, plus other defensive weapons. The definition of IIcomponentll included items whose primary intended purpose was to contribute to the operation of a nuclear weapon; command, control, and communication system; delivery system; or defensive system, or items peculiarly adapted to one of those systems. He said Proposal A prohibited active participation in planning for the prosecution of nuclear war, unlike Proposal B. Other provisions of Proposal A restricted nuclear power production and transportation of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials to the extent allowed by existing State and Federal laws and banned food irradiation in Eugene. Proposal A would establish a seven-member, elected nuclear free zone board that would work with the City to ensure compl iance with the ordinance and would help educate the organization and the community on nuclear-related issues. With regard to enforcement, Proposal A provided for a $50 minimum fine for violations, with no maximum, and allowed the City to seek injunctions against violations in appropriate cases. Mr. Potter sa i d the proposal reta i ned the provisions in the original ordinance for signs, notification, and an annual commemoration, as did Proposal B. B. Proposal B Mr. Potter said Proposal B had been drafted by the City Attorney's Office at the request of councilor and task force member Rob Bennett, who had requested retaining as much of the one-time task force consensus as possible while avoiding issues that had generated questions of clarity for the City e Attorneys. Mr. Potter said Proposal B would ban the design, development, testing, manufacture, production, maintenance, and storage of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons systems, and their components. The definition of IInuclear weapons systems" included weapons; guidance, propulsion, and triggering devices if they were destroyed when the weapon was used; launching devices for nuclear weapons; and mechanical systems that directly transmit signals to nuclear weapons. The proposal did not address defensive systems, he said. Mr. Potter said Proposal B defi ned "componentll as something specially manufactured, assembled, or refined for use in a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapon system. It called for a nine-member, appointed Nuclear Free Zone Board that would consist of individuals who support the concepts embodied in the ordinance. The duties of the board would be similar to those in Proposal A, except that Proposal A would make the board responsible for a funding plan for its own work, which was not true of Proposal B. Mr. Potter said both Proposals A and B would regulate transportation, storage, and power production to the extent allowed by State and Federal law and would ban food irradiation. He said Proposal B expressly delegated to the City Manager the authority to issue administrative rules to regulate the activities covered by the ordinance and the authority to issue declaratory rulings as to whether certain activities would or would not constitute violations. Proposal e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 3 B provided a $50 minimum and $750 maximum fine per violation and a process for citizens to request investigations by City staff. It also contained the e provisions regarding signs, notification, and the commemoration, he added. C. Miscellaneous/Council Questions Mr. Potter said the task force had reached several conclusions regarding economic impact, and he noted three of those conclusions: 1) that clarity would help reduce the potential for negative economic impact; 2) that most of the economic impact that might occur would revolve around regulation of components rather than of entire systems, since it was unlikely entire systems would be manufactured in this community; 3) that penalties and enforcement procedures would have a bearing on the potential economic impact of an ordinance like this. He said other i nformat i on on econom; c impact was included in the report and in Appendices AA and BB. Mr. Potter said the council had asked the task force for advice on whether proposed changes should be referred to voters or acted on by the council. He said the task force had felt that the issue depended on the changes being considered, and lacking full consensus on that, had left that decision to the council. Mr. Potter said Appendix EE contained information from the two public hearings held by the task force. He said both hearings had been very well attended, with about 75 persons at the first hearing and a full house in the Council Chambers for the second hearing. In addition to that testimony, he said the City had received a number of letters, petitions, and phone calls about the issue, and the majority of the testimony offered had favored a broader, rather e than a narrower ordinance. The City at a press conference today had received approximately 900 letters identical to that in Appendix FF, he added. Ms. Ehrman asked why Proposal A had not been reviewed by the City Attorney. Mr. Potter said that had not been requested. Ms. Wooten said she had not been aware of a need for review by the City Attorneys, and after being informed of that, she last week had requested a review. Ms. Miller said City Attorneys had done a cursory review of the proposal and could answer questions about it. Responding to questions, staff said the appendices were labeled with letters, not with Roman numerals. Mr. Holmer asked whether the task force had addressed the issue of commercial irradiation and whether that was a specific and defined category. Mr. Potter said the task force and the City Attorney' s Office had researched food irradiation, but the question being addressed had concerned the City's legal authority, which was appropriate as proposed. Mr. Holmer said he favored establishing a definition of "commercial" that woul d provi de limits on individual irradiation. Ms. Ehrman asked about the rationale for the board qualifications in Proposal B. Mr. Potter said the qualifications had been included in an attempt to broaden the support for an appointed, rather than elected, board. Ms. Ehrman asked whether concern had been expressed about limiting the board to a narrow e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 4 ----- ------ view. Ms. Wooten said a diversity of views would be included on the board, but it probably would not include support for the construction of nuclear weapons, e etc., in Eugene. She said the qualifications were comparable to those for the City's human rights commissions. Mr. Holmer asked about the range of views among those who met the qualifications. Ms. Wooten said she thought a broad range and diversity of opinion existed within that scope, and she thought it was unfair to characterize the qualifications as limiting. Mayor Obie asked about task force discussion of the two proposals and other proposals that had preceded the current recommendation. Mr. Gaydos said the task force had held only very brief discussion of the Minimally Revised Version, which had been proposed after other task force discussions. He sa i d the same was true of Proposal a, submitted at the request of Mr. Bennett. Mr. Gaydos said a variety of other proposals had been discussed at the subcommittee and task force levels. He said the issue involved definitions of broad categories and of components. Some discussion had been held about tryi ng to narrow the broad categories so that the components of those categories could be more easily defined, he sa i d. Other discussion had favored retaining both the broad categories and the components of the original ordinance, which included nuclear weapons components that would be destroyed and transportation devices, such as airplanes, trains, trucks, etc. Mr. Gaydos said discussions on many occasions had broken down while trying to address the scope of components covered by the ordinance. He said the two proposals contained similar definitions of "nuclear weapon," but opinions had varied about whether the scope of the ordinance should extend beyond the actual weapons. He said no consensus had emerged from task force discussions, and that was the reason for the two proposals. He added that background in the minutes of the meetings might offer some assistance. e Mayor Obie asked about the major differences between the proposals. Mr. Gaydos said some differences included scope, selection of the board, and enforcement provisions such as a maximum fine. He said he thought the proposals conta i ned genera 1 similarities, such as pre-emption issues and provisions that already had gone into effect. Mayor Obie asked whether any discussions had suggested eliminating the scope provisions and trying another approach. Mr. Gaydos said that may have been discussed at the subcommittee level, but the task force had not addressed eliminating scope. Ms. Ehrman asked City Attorneys whether any problems had been identified with Proposal A, and specifically whether a maximum fine was needed. City Attorney Kathleen Pierce said the jurisdictional limits of Municipal Court probably would result in a maximum fine of $2,500. She added that all other City ordinances included maximum fines. Ms. Pierce said City Attorneys had done a preliminary review, and the major concerns were in the area of scope. She noted that the declaratory ruling and rule-making provision had been included in Proposal a in an effort to address any remaining clarity problems. Ms. Pierce said Proposal A included prohibitions against planning and prosecuting nuclear war; command, control, and communications systems; and defensive systems, which were not included in Proposal a. She said City Attorneys felt they had neither the technical expertise nor a clear enough understanding of the drafters' intent to determine whether the provisions presented constitutional problems. She said attorneys doubted that the definitions in e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 5 Proposal A would present constitutional problems, although they felt the definitions were sufficiently unclear to prevent a determination about what e was and was not included. Ms. Pierce said the prohibition against planning and prosecuting nuclear war might involve free speech guarantees in the First Amendment and in the Oregon Constitution and might present vagueness problems. She said the provision was similar to one in the original ordinance, which Ci ty Attorneys in their original opinion had identified as a potential problem. She added that the provision had been amended slightly, but attorneys still were not sure what was meant to be regulated by the prohibition, nor were they sure what was included in the definitions of command, control, and communications systems or defensive systems. Ms. Pi erce said the two proposals also differed in their definitions of delivery craft and of components, with Proposal A requiring a subjective determination of their primary intended purpose. She said the additional steps in that process might create problems of enforcement or interpretation. Respondi ng to Mayor Obi e I s question, Ms. Pi erce said City Attorneys had assisted with development of the language for the board's qualifications. Mayor Obi e asked whether the qual ifi cat ions presented any concerns about excluding certain persons. Ms. Pierce said the qualifications were within the City's authority for limitations on membership of an appointed advisory group. Mayor Obie said Proposal B went beyond the current norm in terms of authority de 1 egated to the Ci ty Manager. Ms. Pierce said the declaratory ruling authority was different than other City ordinances, but the rule-making powers were included in other ordinances. She said a repeated concern during task force process had been the need for clarity, and the authority had been included in order to allow the City to issue a binding ruling about whether e certain business activities were prohibited. Mr. Holmer asked about a process of review or appeal for declaratory rulings. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said that process would occur through a writ of review in Circuit Court, and the current ordinance provided for no internal review process. Mr. Sercombe added that other con st itut i ona 1 concerns originally expressed by City Attorneys concerning pre-emption had been addressed by parts of both proposals. He noted that the declaratory ruling authority by the City Manager was unique, and he added that a number of compromises about the board and pre-emption issues earlier had been adopted by task force consensus and now were included in Proposal B. Mr. Holmer said he would like to see City business handled by City officers, and he asked whether it would be possible to draft language establishing a review of the declaratory ruling by Municipal Court, rather than Circuit Court. Mr. Sercombe said if that review were included, it would not preclude further appeals to Circuit Court. He added that the City jurisdiction might be limited by charter. D. Council Discussion Mayor Obie asked what direction the council favored. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the council was willing to work on developing a single proposal. She added that she favored including the request for investigation provision from Proposal B in Proposal A, unless it already was included. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 6 Ms. Bascom said she found the qual ifications for the boa rd useful for increasing the chance of implementing the ordinance as its supporters had e hoped. She said she thought some of the difficulties experienced by the task force had occurred because some members had not been supportive enough of the original concepts in the ordinance. Ms. Bascom said she thought an appointed board would be effective in carrying out the ordinance, and she urged the council to adopt that provision, which she thought was supported by task force discussion. Ms. Bascom said she knew it was frustrating for the council and the task force to continue waiting for resolution and implementation. She added that she hoped citizens would recognize that concerns represented honest disagreements by people who were not IIwar-mongers.1I Ms. Schue asked about the process the council wanted to use. She said she did not think the council would adopt Proposal A without some modifications. She asked whether the council favored referring one or two choices to voters or simply adopting a version. Mr. Miller said he shared the frustration over a lack of compromise. He said he leaned toward supporting Proposal B because although he hoped to rid the world of the threat of nuclear holocaust, he believed disarmament would have to include all nations and not be unilateral. He said he thought Proposal B sent a message in favor of finding some way to put an end to the madness, while working together and allowing some research that was needed until we could face the reality that we had to find another path of resolving our disputes. Mr. Miller said he favored more discussion about whether to begin implementing one version of the ordinance or whether to refer one or two versions to e voters. He noted that a voters' pamphlet might be available soon, and he reminded the council of the time and effort already contributed by the task force. Mr. Holmer said he strongly believed in the initiative and referendum process. He noted that he and Councilor Ehrman had voted in favor of implementing the original ordinance. He said he thought the task force had been created for good reasons and in order to improve the ordinance. He said the report offered two alternatives, and he favored continuing the initiative process by referring both proposals to voters and adopting whichever version was adopted or favored by the greatest majority. He said the people had created the ordinance, and he favored placing the decision back in their hands. Ms. Ehrman said she agreed with Mr. Holmer that regardless of the council's decision, the issue should go back to the voters. She asked whether, if both new proposals were defeated, the original ordinance would remain in effect. Ms. Ehrman said she did not want to delay implementation of the ordinance. She said she favored making some minor changes, such as the provisions regarding the board and the fines, and then referring the proposal to voters. She also said it should be made clear that the original initiative would be repealed and that the new version would be a replacement. Ms. Ehrman added that if forced to choose, she now favored Proposal A. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 7 Mr. Bennett said he supported Proposal B, which he thought many task force members would agree attempted to make the ordinance clearer and more e enforceable. He said he strongly felt that Proposal B was in the best interests of the community. He said attorneys could not agree on the interpretation of the existing ordinance or the MRV, and that sent the wrong signals, making it very difficult for the average citizen to understand what was covered by the ordinance. He said part of the narrowing of the scope presented in Proposal B was a serious effort to create an ordinance that avoided those difficulties in understanding and interpretation. Mr. Bennett said the ordinances were very similar in areas other than scope, and he thought the portions of Proposal B other than scope reflected many of the compromises that had occurred on the task force over a long time. He said he did not think it would make sense for the council to try to redraft the ordinance, because the task force had made a serious contribution in that regard. He said he thought that contribution should be respected, adding that minor amendments or adjustments to either proposal were acceptable. Mr. Bennett said he thought a major issue was scope, and he favored the council's taking a position in favor of one approach to scope. He said he thought if the council failed to take a position, it would not respect the efforts of the task force to address a livery di ffi cul t" issue. Mr. Rutan said he and other councilors had spent a lot of time learning about nuclear free zone ordinances. He said the complex nature of the issue was the reason for the task force's involvement. He said the legislation that had been passed by voters, according to City Attorneys and others, had serious constitutional and 1 ega 1 flaws and a number of areas that were extremely unclear. He sa i d the council had appoi nted a task force to deve lop an ordinance that could in good conscience be adopted and enforced. Mr. Rutan e said he did not find that Proposal A, the MRV, addressed many of the original legal issues and flaws. He said Proposal A differed from the rest of the laws in the City of Eugene, and based on evidence he had seen, was substantially and substantively different than nuclear free zone ordinances across America. He said an attempt was being made to IIblaze new ground, II which he did not think was needed. Mr. Rutan said he thought the council could live up to the intent of the voters with Proposal B. He said he thought Proposal A was clearly ambiguous in a number of areas, was clearly anti-business, and would send out that signal "loud and clear." Mr. Rutan said he did not favor repeating the work of the task force, but he was willing to redraft the ordinance if necessary to make it enforceable, consistent with other City ordinances, and reflective of the voters' intent. He said he favored submitting two proposals to voters rather than attempting to readdress the issue of scope. He said he supported Proposal B as reflective of voters' intent and the most enforceable of the proposa 1 s. Ms. Wooten said it was instructive to hear how others viewed the report from the task force. She agreed with Mr. Bennett about the amount of work by the task force in learning about very technical information. Because of that, she said she highly recommended that the council not try to mix proposals. She said some minor adjustments might be made, but she strongly recommended against delving into the substance of either proposal. She said she thought the task force had examined thoroughly almost every aspect of every question imaginable as it pertained to these and many other versions. Ms. Wooten sa i d e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 8 she recommended that the council consider the proposals as they stood and that both proposals be submitted to voters. She said she understood City Attorneys e to have stated that issues of constitutional vagueness and lack of clarity had primarily been eliminated from Proposal A, the MRV, and that proposal did reflect the original intent of voters. She said she thought it would be insulting to and second-guessing the voters' intent not to refer a "cleaned up" version to them. She said she also supported submitting Proposal B to voters, adding that she had worked a long time in an attempt to reach a consensus and she thought some of the progress toward consensus was included in Proposal B. She said she thought consensus items in Proposal B had some merit, but she now supported Proposal A, having seen the task force process disintegrate. Ms. Wooten said she would support one change in referring the MRV to voters, and that would be a change from an elected to an appointed board, with the criteria established and recommended by the task force. Ms. Bascom suggested submitting the issue of scope to voters (as treated in both proposals), since that seemed to be the largest subject of dispute, and adopting the remaining part of Proposal B. Ms. Schue said that if a choice was offered to voters, explanations would need to be made clear. She asked about the potential support for additional amendments to the MRV. She suggested offering a council position and another option, and allowing community debate. Mr. Mill er said he favored leaving Proposa 1 s A and B intact for voter referral. He also said he would favor allowing voters to vote for only one proposal. He said he had no preference about taking a council position before an election. e Mr. Holmer said he wished to clarify that of the two versions, he preferred Proposal B, although only in comparison to Proposal A. Ms. Wooten suggested postponing a council decision until the first meeting in January. She urged that a procedure be adopted as soon as possible, noting the March 17 election deadline. She said she heard general agreement about submitting both proposals to voters, and remaining questions were 1) whether to endorse one version; 2) whether to make minor amendments to either version; and 3) when to place the question on the ballot, which she assumed would be at the May primary. Ms. Bascom said she agreed with the suggestion to postpone a decision. Councilors held a straw poll on whether to refer both proposals to voters. Councilors Ehrman, Holmer, Schue and Wooten supported the idea; Councilors Bennett and Rutan opposed it; Councilor Miller was undecided; and Councilor Bascom said she favored referring the issue of scope. Mr. Bennett said he did not favor referring both proposals to voters unless the counci 1 took a position in favor of one. He also said he was not interested in submitting the issue of scope to voters, because it would not refl ect the task force IS progress toward consensus and because of the difficulty in explaining the issues. He said he thought the community would 1 i ke the counci 1 to take some leadership with respect to the scope of the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 9 ordinance. Mr. Bennett said the scope in Proposal B was as restrictive as that of any ordinance in the United States. He asked whether good reasons e exi sted to go beyond that and whether good reasons exi sted that other communities had not tried to adopt similar ordinances. He said he hoped the council would address that issue and would take a strong position in favor of one proposal or the other. Mr. Miller said he favored adopting Proposal B and then deciding whether to submit both versions to voters. He said he would support referring both versions, if only one vote was allowed and with the knowledge that one would replace the other, and if a document were available to explain the issues. He said he favored allowing the community to be heard, and he thought they might agree to the statement made by Proposal B. Ms. Wooten said she respected and appreciated Mr. Bennett's statements about the importance of elected representation and counci 1 1 eadershi p and she thought it was possible for the council to take a position on either Proposal A or B. She said she thought taking a position would be responsible and important to the community as it pertained to an election on this issue. She noted that the original ordinance had been passed by an overwhelming majority, and if the council wanted to assume the people had not known what they were voting on, then they could choose between the legally revised MRV and Proposal B, which she said substantively changed the spirit and the letter of the law. She said the council was obligated to allow that choice, particularly because an existing ordinance was in effect. She said the council should move forward as quickly as possible without undermining or insulting the voters who had passed the law. She said voters should be offered a chance to tell the council whether they had understood the original measure, but that choice must be e available to them. Ms. Schue said she agreed with Mr. Bennett about the content of the proposal, but she also was concerned about the political issue of how to keep faith with the citizens of Eugene, who already had spoken once on the issue, while arriving at a comfortable solution for everyone. She said she was not sure about taking a council position, and she favored submitting both proposals for a choice by voters. Ms. Bascom said she thought it would be acceptable for the council to adopt portions of Proposal B, while referring the issue of scope to the voters. She said she thought that would keep faith with the voters, and she did not find it too complicated for voter referral. Mr. Miller said City Attorneys reported that the council could not submit a ballot measure compelling a choice between two proposals, but must allow votes for both, votes for either, and votes for neither. He noted that if both proposals were submitted, they both could pass. Mr. Sercombe said the ballot would be written so that if both proposals passed, the proposal with the most votes would prevail. Mr. Miller said he would find it more logical to present one proposal for voter approval or rejection, rather than two. He said he did not believe it would be an affront to voters to adopt Proposal B, because he agreed with others that it represented the language in the original ballot title. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 10 Ms. Wooten said that if Proposal B was referred and defeated, the original ordinance would go back into effect, and no progress would have been made in e addressing the legal issues. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the council could refer to voters only the scope portion of the ordinance. Mr. Sercombe said it could be done by referring an entire ordinance. Mr. Bennett said he was comfortable acting on Proposal B if a council consensus could be reached. If a proposal were referred to voters, he said he favored including a council recommendation. Ms. Schue said she had not realized that the council could not submit an either/or ballot, so she needed to reconsider her position. Mayor Obie asked about the current status of the original ordinance. Mr. Sercombe said the council had not repealed the current ordi nance, which remained on the books but was not being enforced pending further council action. Ms. Pierce said some portions of the ordinance had been enforced, such as the notification and signs, but the regulation of prohi bi ted activities had not been enforced. Mr. Sercombe added that the council had amended the provision regarding the nuclear free zone board, delaying its appointment date. Ms. Ehrman said it appeared that the council had to choose one proposal or the other to refer to voters, so she did not see any point in postponing a decision. She said she was tired of delays, she had not voted for the task force, and she did not favor postponing action. e Mayor Obi e sa i d he understood that both proposals could be submitted to voters, and the one passing with the most votes would prevail. Mr. Sercombe confirmed that and said if neither proposal passed, the original ordinance would remain in effect unless it first had been repealed. Mayor Obie said he saw a need for a council consensus in a recommendation. He also said he would classify both proposals as "minimally revised versions," and he saw no significant differences between the statements they made. He said he was concerned that the community could not come together over minimal differences and perhaps was losing sight of the larger message that was being attempted. Mayor Obie said he could support submitting one or two versions to voters, or he would support submitting a version combining the two proposals or a new version with a broader statement and less scope along with the MRV. Ms. Wooten said she favored taking action to resolve the issue on January 11. She said attempts at combinations would increase the problems, and she strongly recommended against dealing with the substance of either proposal, in particular with scope, because it was a never-ending process. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to set a meeting date of January 11, 1988, for final action on the two pro- posals in the report from the Nuclear Free Zone Task Force. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 11 Mr. Bennett asked whether additional discussion was needed. Mayor Obie said he thought it might allow the council to deve lop and agree on a single e recommendation. Ms. Wooten asked about the number of votes for council agreement. Mayor Obie said agreement meant sufficient votes for submitting a ballot measure or amending the ordinance. Ms. Ehrman said she would vote against the motion because she thought the council could proceed now. The motion carried 5:3, Councilors Wooten, Bennett, Holmer, Schue, and Bascom voting aye; Councilors Ehrman, Miller, and Rutan voting nay. The Mayor adjourned the work session at 7:55 p.m., and a regular meeting followed the break. ?;E SU~ Mic ea~~lea n ' City Manager (Recorded by Leslie Scales) mnccde07 e e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 12