|
<br />e
<br />
<br />.....
<br />
<br />51-B
<br />
<br />4/12/71
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />-I
<br />
<br />J
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />J
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />n
<br />'I
<br />I,
<br />H
<br />Ii
<br />Ii
<br />i'
<br />,I
<br />,
<br />"
<br />,:
<br />:1
<br />I'
<br />,I
<br />:i
<br />I
<br />"
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />
<br />,I
<br />I'
<br />i!
<br />j!
<br />Ii
<br />I,
<br />j!
<br />"
<br />:,
<br />j:
<br />I;
<br />,
<br />
<br />3/31/71
<br />
<br />I:
<br />I'
<br />d
<br />
<br />still operate in the black, and that the San Diego System operated in the black.
<br />
<br />i'
<br />,i
<br />\[
<br />:I
<br />'I
<br />I.
<br />
<br />Mayor Anderson agreed, and said the Erie Pennsylvania system is self-sufficient
<br />because of a unique siTIuatio~, The mills are located so that the buses can do double
<br />duty in the city, He did feel, however, that the paragraph could say that economic
<br />self-sufficiency should not be a priority, but it could be an objective, He
<br />suggested that it be worded: "Recognizing that economic self-sufficiency should not
<br />be a priority objective for a transit system, local government must be prepared to
<br />meet costs of a transit system,"
<br />
<br />Mr, Pearson said he could accept that change, and felt he could sell it ,to the Eugene
<br />Commission and possibly to the coordinating committee,
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal said she could accept this amendment,
<br />
<br />Mayor Anderson pointed out that this was a policy statement, and should be worded so
<br />that it is perfectly understood by the public.
<br />
<br />Councilman McDonald agreed, and said the San Diego system had been a combination
<br />city and school system, and that it had run $750,000 in the red per year.
<br />
<br />Mr. Teague said that the City should have a goal of trying to make the system
<br />self-sufficient. He felt the Council agreed on this point.
<br />
<br />Vote taken on motion to accept Mass Transit Study Report, as amended in Paragraph 2.
<br />(First paragraph on this page, Mayor's statement). Motion carried unanimously,
<br />
<br />V, Discussion, Budget Committee Members to be Freeholders
<br />--:- The Ci ty Manager iiidicated"that a, question had' been raised" wi th regard to the eli-
<br />. ,___::::c...gLbi ~'1ftY;'-9L;H?Y\Bfi"'a.n-H~,dges , .who~riils":re'cen-tly ~-app~j.pted to the Budget Commi ttee.
<br />According't'o'state statute, a budget comini ttee member must be a freeholder; that
<br />is, he must own property in the City in which he resides. Mr. Hodges does not own
<br />property, and under this statute, does not qualify.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr felt the Council should make its position clear, in that it disagreed
<br />with such a qualification because it was discriminatory in nature. Discussion
<br />followed to determdne what course of action should be taken.
<br />
<br />Manager stated that work on the budget was the 'number one item of concern for
<br />the City at this time, and that this should not be jeopardized.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. Gribskov that, whereas the City Council found the
<br />State Statute requirements for qualification for membership on a city budget
<br />committee discrimdnatory in nature, the Council therefore, recinded the appoint-
<br />ment of Brian Hodges to the budget commdttee and requests the City Attorney to
<br />investigate the possibi1i ty of filing a declaratory judgment suit.
<br />
<br />Mr, Mohr was asked to nomdnate another citizen to the budget committee in Mr.
<br />Hodges' place.
<br />
<br />At the last committee meeting the City Attorney advised City Councilmen that action
<br />to rescind Mr, Hodges appointment would undermine its standing, if it wished to
<br />test the state law requirement that a budget committee member must be a freeholder,
<br />If the Council wishes to institute legal action, Mr. Hodges should continue, and if
<br />it is not possible,to get a decision prior to final approval of the budget, another
<br />appointment will be required to remain within the requirements of the law.
<br />
<br />The City Attorney said he had checked with Mr, Hodges, and he is prepared, at Council
<br />direction, to move into court with appropriate procedures. The City Attorney's
<br />office has already prepared for the case so that it can move with haste, if this
<br />is Council direction,
<br />
<br />Councilman Mohr felt the Council's natural move would be to implement its stated policy.
<br />The Council position was that they felt this was a discriminatory requirement.
<br />
<br />There was Council discussion whether Mr. Hodges presence on the Committee might jeopardize
<br />approval of the budget. It was pointed out that the requirement is only for a full
<br />budget committee for final approval of the budget, Therefore, no. problems are anti-
<br />cipated.
<br />
<br />In answer to Mr. Hershner, the City Attorney said Mr. Hodges would be the party plaintiff
<br />and the City the party defendant. The suit would be filed on an agreed statement of
<br />controversy.
<br />
<br />Mr, Mohr said that, based upon the stated policy of the Council, the Oregon law referring
<br />to requirements of budget committee members was contrary to the policy of this City,
<br />and he would move that the Council direct the City Attorney's office to file a suit of
<br />controversy. Mrs. Campbell seconded the motion,
<br />
<br />"
<br />,
<br />:'
<br />
<br />The City Attorney said they would attempt to have a decision in time for adoption of the
<br />budget,
<br />
<br />4/12/71 - 5
<br />
<br />...
<br />
|