|
<br /> "'lIIl
<br /> 2/L
<br />e
<br /> ~ 6/22/70
<br /> Ii !
<br /> I
<br />I I COMMITTEE REPORTS
<br /> I
<br /> II Meeting held June 10, 1970:
<br /> II
<br /> II "Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Purdy, Hayward, Teague, Beal, Mohr Williams; City
<br /> 'I
<br /> I; Manager and staff; and others.
<br /> I:
<br /> I! 1. Items from Mayor and Councilmen
<br /> !!
<br /> 1\ A. Mass Transit System - With the prospect of the immediate demise of the bus system
<br /> the City of Eugene, Lane County, the City of Springfield and others, met to work
<br /> Ii out a method to keep the system operating until a permanent method could be devised.
<br /> I
<br /> 1/ Springfield and the County have been unable to contribute to the subsidy during this
<br /> interim period. During the past month, the operation has been continued by the pre-
<br /> sent owners with a subsidy by the city of Eugene to cover operating losses. The
<br /> continued only through the month of June. There are several alternatives possible:
<br /> 1) Call a special election within the city to determine whether the city itself
<br /> should get into the bus business. This would require a charter amendment, and would I
<br /> ,
<br /> Ii I
<br />e require that a financing program be approved at the same election; 2) Call a special :
<br /> II
<br /> Ii election or consider at the November general election the question of County operation
<br /> 'I and a funding program; 3) The City Council adopt a resolution providing for creation
<br /> I: of a Metropolitan Transit District. This would require transmittal of the resolution
<br /> I to the Governor, who would appoint a Board of Directors for the District. The District
<br /> il
<br /> I' would consist of the entire County of Lane, but the Board of Directors could create
<br /> Ii
<br /> a service district within Lane County. The Board would have a wide variety of finan-
<br />I It cing authority, and would be subject to referendum.
<br /> "
<br /> II Neither the City nor the County would be well-advised to try to operate the present
<br /> ,I
<br /> il system for an extended period of time. It might be possible to continue for an
<br /> " interim period under the present system.
<br /> I,
<br /> I;
<br /> II Mayor Anderson and Councilwoman Hayward agreed that the present system should be
<br /> "
<br /> d
<br /> If utilized until another system could get into operation.
<br /> Kenneth Omlid, County Commissioner, said that the County could set up a special
<br /> Ii Mr.
<br /> Ii service district for transportation. After consideration, it was decided nothing could
<br /> Ii
<br /> Ii be done before the middle of August, and this would not be sufficient time to properly
<br /> I' inform the public. Therefore, the County felt it should wait for the November general
<br /> " election to present the question to the people. It concerns only a very few people,
<br /> Ii
<br /> Ii but it is very important .to them, and to the community. To be a successful operation,
<br /> it must' have the support of the people.
<br /> II
<br /> Mr. Pat Teague, Springfield City Manager, said that they were not in a position to
<br /> i assist in funding a transportation system during this period. He felt there was
<br /> .
<br /> I some question whether an election would be successful, since all agencies involved
<br /> ,
<br /> ,I have Budget problems.
<br /> II
<br /> I
<br /> Ii "
<br /> Councilman Teague was concerned that the city of Springfield and Lane County were I'
<br /> II unable to participate in interim financing, and wondered if they would not work out :1
<br /> II ,
<br />I I: something to assist in the meantime.
<br /> Ii Mr. Omlid said that the County could not legally subsidize private industry, and if
<br /> it was city-owned, there would be no problem.
<br /> Ii Mr. Teague said that any assistance from Springfield was impossible right now, and I
<br /> ;i that the Council might find it possible to contribute after July. It was dependent I
<br /> I'
<br /> d upon the budget election.
<br />- I! Councilman Mohr said that the City had just received a Mass Transit Study which he felt
<br /> I: i
<br /> II the City should subscribe to and undertake. He felt the Council had a commitment "
<br /> ,
<br /> to maintain public transportation as a service to the community and that it had a i'
<br /> ii priority equal to police and fire protection. He suggested that the city initiate the
<br /> 'I necessary action to establish a transiT district.
<br /> I,
<br /> I:
<br /> I' Councilman Williams suggested that possibility number one be eliminated. He felt
<br /> I! the system would operate with a loss, and that there was no possibility of a "
<br /> il federal subsidy to offset this loss. He felt the operating loss should be spread "
<br /> Ii over the entire area to be served. He said that two and three would accomplish the
<br /> I, same thing, but that option nu~er two would provide for a vote of the people, and
<br /> ;1
<br /> , number three would require a referendum.
<br /> I
<br /> I!
<br /> II In answer to Councilwoman Hayward, the City Manager said that a resolution could be
<br /> it adopted by the City Council at any regular meeting. The Governor would then have
<br />I I: sixty days to appoint a Board.
<br /> II
<br /> I, There was further discussion on the length of time required for proposals and whether
<br /> ii
<br /> II or not the city should purchase the system in the interim.
<br /> II
<br /> Ii Mr. Fred Dyer, State Department of Transportation, said that there would be money
<br /> I: available July 1 to assist in mass transit, and that the Council should determine
<br /> 11
<br /> I: what option it wishes to take, and get in touch with the administrator of the
<br />e program.
<br /> i! "\
<br /> I.
<br /> ,
<br /> "
<br /> I 6/22/70 5
<br /> -
<br /> ~
<br />
|