07/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilm~n Murray recalled nothing in the Charter amendment about the expenciture of city funds. Just IJecause 17,000 people voted in favor of the Charter anandriicnt didn't necessarily mean they wanted expenditure of public funds to carry onlitiga- e tion for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Keller noted the expenditure of city funds to help citizens of the com~unity, deferment of assessment payments, for in:=;tance, which :iC1S not clU thoLi zed b'J a vote, so h0 didn't think that ~~s .r.ert:n.ent .. Act1.:a.Lly a lot [,:ore [,IOIlO'-] ii..':!3 S;h~.Jt ,'11 tilout uskiIl~7 l::c t ,.. aXp3.Y(~.rs tt26tn h'r_2!'~ .2.:: -:";dS voted upon. In fact, he said, if a vote was taken every time an expendicure was made there probably would be no money spent. He felt an obligation to those people who were interested enough to vote on the Charter amendment. Councilwoman Shirey said she would concur with the vote of the people although she disliked the entire issue and disliked spending the money. She hoped if the issue was continued, if an appeal was filed, the people would be presented with another ballot measure that tvould include the question of whether the citi.zens intended to SPend public funds for this purpose. Councilman Haws' said he would like to see the city drop the issue and get on with more important things. lie felt that if 17,000 people were interested they could raise the funds for an appeal and come tu the Council wi th a l:equest to use the city's name. Councilwoman Beal commented that she didn't think the 17,000 voters would vote favorably on spending the money for further court costs. Councilman Bradley asked whether the city could give away the property on which the Cross was located with the idea the issue could be rendered moot. Assistant Manager answered that past legal opinions have stated the Butte by Charter amend~ ment was dedicated for public park purposes so that the city has no authority to divest itself of ownership. (e Jack Gardner, attorney representing the city in past court actions on the Cross case, noted the urgent need for a decision at this time because of the lO-day period from June 23 (date of the court order) in which to file court action or the Cross would have to be taken down. Councilman Keller 'said he didn'~ agree at all with the idea that expenditure of funds for appealing this decision had to be justified with a vote. fle felt to tell those people who voted favorably on the Charter ameI.dment to "go raise your own funds" was practically unconstitutional. Mayor Anderson added that he thought if city funds were used to build some sort of beautiful landmark, something aesthet- ically pleasing, and the court ordered it removed, the city would go to any ends to preserve that particular f!ffort if it had been authorized by the voters. He said that while he didn't sha~'e the opinions of the Cross "preservationists" he did think the city was obligated to carry the "brunt of the battle" even to the extent of financing an ap?eal. Councilman Bradley said the issue was not so much whether the Cross should be taken down, it was probably I..hether a higher legal opinion should be sought. Vote was taken on the motion to consider appealing the court deci- Comrn sian if other parties seek use of the city's name and no ci ty fllnds are involved. Motion defeated, Council members Murray, Beal, and 7/9/75 Haws voting aye; Council members Keller, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey Approve voting no. \ . Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to independently and actively appeal the decision, or to join wi th other li tigallts and appeal, whichever is "in the best interests of city funds." Motion carried, Council members Keller, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council m~~bers Murray, Beal, and Haws voting no. ~e,L 7/14/75 _ 15