|
<br /> 2-0 "'IIIl
<br /> \ a>
<br />e
<br /> 6/22/70
<br />I Council Chamber
<br /> Eugene, Oregon
<br /> June 22, 1970
<br /> Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - called to order by His
<br /> Honor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30p.m. on June 22, 1970 - in the Council Chamber, with the
<br /> following Councilmen present: Messrs. McDonald, Teague, Purdy, 'Gribskov, Mohr and Williams;
<br /> Mrs. Hayward; and Mrs. Beal.
<br /> Minutes of meetings held May 25, 1970 and June 1, 1970 as mailed to Council members were approved.
<br /> Public Hearing, Budget - Mayor Anderson announced a hearing on the 1970-71 Budget. There was no
<br /> one present who wished to be heard either in favor of or in opposition to the budget. The hearing
<br /> was closed. Further action will be taken under "Ordinances."
<br />e Public Hearing, Creation of a Mass Transit District ~ Under state law the City Council has authority,
<br /> by adoption of resolution, to take action tocreate a Mass Transit District. The resolution is
<br /> transmitted to the Governor, who will appoint a Board of Directors. Many letter.s have been received;
<br /> in regard to this matter, and the city of Springfield held an informal meeting, in which they sup-
<br /> ported adoption of the Mass Transit District Resolution. A letter was received from Governor
<br /> McCall in which he said he was aware of the problem and would act promptly if and when a resolution
<br /> was received from the city of Eugene. The League of Women Voters forwarded a statement supporting
<br />I the idea of a Mass Transit District, but saying they would prefer another .method be used. They
<br /> were not in favor of the formation of another service district, but felt the urgency would over-
<br /> ride that consideration.
<br /> " Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the Council adopt thedresolution requesting the
<br /> creation of a Metropolitan Transit District, and that it be referred to the city of Springfield
<br /> and Lane County for support and comment.
<br /> .
<br /> Mr. Al Urquhart, 1960 Agate Street, urged the Council tQ support a Mass Transit System. He pointed
<br /> I, out that this move would be consistent with the goals adopted by the City Council in 1967, and
<br /> !;
<br /> , that this would be a major step to alleviate air pollution.
<br /> ,
<br /> :1 Sarah Lawson said that the people from Springfield had chartered a bus totbring interested people
<br /> to the meeting. Most of these people have no other means of transportation.
<br /> .
<br /> Mr. Harry Hermiston, 3921 Virginia Street, Springfield, and Mr. William F. Stone, 225 North 41st
<br /> Street, Springfield, also spoke in support of this motion.
<br /> Mr. Kenneth Omlid, 350 Cherry Drive, .Chairman of the Lane County Commissioners, supported a mass
<br /> transit system but felt that the system should be publicly owned and operated. He objected to
<br /> authority being in the hands of a seven' man board, without:the vote of the people. He felt that
<br /> " the people should have a vote on the type of tax adopted.
<br /> I
<br />~ Mr. Omlid felt that it was unfortunate that this problem had not been solved before it became a
<br /> L crisis, and said that the County had provided for a November ballot measure. He felt that the
<br />I I'
<br /> voters-would sanction a small tax subsidy involved. .
<br /> Mr. Charles Potterf, 2685 Floral Hill, said that the formation of this district frightened him,
<br /> " and that he felt it. would be something he would have: to pay for , but would have nothing to say
<br /> " about.
<br /> "
<br /> In reply to.Mr. Potterf's -quest,ion, the City Manager said' that thi.shad nothing to do with the
<br /> airport, but provided for a transit. s5!rvice .within the metropolitan district.' After'its f,ormation
<br />e it would be operated by a-Board appointed by the Governor, and the City would have no responsibility'
<br /> or authority for its operation.
<br /> ': .,
<br /> .
<br /> , ~ Councilman Williams asked for clarification on the thirty-day referendum period. The City Attorney
<br /> I, explained the referendum and how it could be used.
<br /> I
<br /> "
<br /> I, .
<br /> Ii There was further discussion by the Council of the use of the referendum by voters, and how they
<br /> could go about this.
<br /> Mrs. Hayward said that she was concerned about keeping a mass transportation system in operation,
<br /> and that she felt this was an overriding consideration.
<br /> Ii
<br /> In answer to Mrs. Hayward's question, the City Manager said that to attempt to keep the Emerald
<br /> . 'Transportation System in' operation until after the November election 'would be a fairly expensive
<br /> operation because of several problems, the major one being the 'salary rate of drivers, and the
<br />I purchase of new equipment. It would cost approximately eighty or ninety thousand dollars for a
<br /> six to eight month period. For a short period the system could keep running with a small subsidy.
<br /> .
<br /> In answer to Mrs. Hayward, Commissioner Omlid said that the County would propose to put a measure
<br /> on the ballot and that the district would have to be decided through a cooperative effort of the
<br /> Council of Governments and could be within the urbanized boundary.
<br /> ':
<br /> "
<br /> .
<br /> , . .
<br />e . , '6/22/70 - 1
<br /> . . .
<br /> "
<br /> ,
<br /> ....
<br />
|