CCMIN070291 - Laserfiche WebLink

29-1 Ms. Emily Wagner, 520 Rowell Lane, Chairperson of the Residential Subcommittee, stated that the process the Committee went through for the last 10 months was extremely fair and equitable. She disagreed with the comments that the minority positions were not allowed sufficient time to present their views or that their reports were ignored. She did not think anything would be gained by further studying the matter and urged the Council to prepare the issue for the November 1991 ballot. Mr. Marty Inderbitzen, 62 West Neal Street, felt the process over the last 10 months was fair and equitable and that the citizens would simply have to agree to disagree on some facets of the Ridgelands issue. He urged the Council to direct Staff to work with the Committee during the coming months in a real effort to put the issue on the November 1991 ballot. Ms. Diane Habener, 3624 Manchester Street, urged Council to concur with Staff recommendation to put the issue on the June 1992 ballot. She indicated that the process was going along very well until the final meeting and that it would be unwise to speed up the process too much. Mr. David Glenn, 5650 Foothill Road, indicated that he had attended all the meetings in the last 10 months and that at all those meetings, people were told there would be time to discuss what the other subcommittees had discussed. However, at the last meeting, he stated that the system broke down, and there was no opportunity for the subcommittees to discuss or present their views. He suggested that more meetings be held with the Planning Commission and City Council before a final decision is made on when to put the issue on the ballot. Mr. Mercer asked Staff what the timeframe for putting the issue on the November 1991 ballot would be should the Council decide on that. Ms. Acosta replied that Staff would be able to write the ballot language for the November election by the August 9th deadline; however, Staff would have difficulty in providing the pro and con analysis that the situation warranted. Mr. Tarver stated that his preference is to defer the ballot presentation even further than Staff's recommendation of June 1992. He indicated that he attended most of the Committee meetings and felt that the communication system broke down early and that there was no movement toward consensus. He felt that the goals that the Committee set out for land use and financing options were never really discussed in detail. He urged Council not to rush the - 11 - 7-2-91