07/16/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Haws to accept the third option - e accept the decision and remove the Cross. In making the motion, Councilwoman Beal said she was opposed to spend.ing any more public funds in this manner. She felt if the 17,000 voters had substantial interest in the case they should appeal the decisiOn. 'Assistant Manager said the motion would preclude financing of an appeal by other parties. He said if the Council didn't wish to spend any more money, it might want to allow the city's name to be used in an appeal if private funds were available. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to substitute for the motion that the Council m.ight consider appealing the court order if other parties petition use of the city's name and if no city funds are involved. Councilman Keller was opposed to the motion. He noted the $19+ million "budget recently approved by city voters and said he had a difficult time rationalizing re- jection of a request for $2500 to support the opinion of 17,000 of those voters. He said it was obvious the Cross meant something, was of some value, to those 17,000 voters and to ignore them seemed unfair. Mayor Anderson expressed the same opinion. He felt there was an obligation to the voters who supported the Charter amendment and that some form of litigation should be continued even to the point of the city's financing it. Councilman Murray recalled nothing in the Charter amendment about the expenditure of city funds. Just because 17,000 people voted in favor of the Charter amendment didn't necessarily mean they wanted expenditure of public funds to carryon litiga- - tion for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Keller noted the expenditure of city funds to help citizens of the community, deferment of assessment pa~ments, for instance, which was not authorized by a vote, so he didn't think that was pertinent. Actually a lot more money was spent without asking the taxpayers than when it was voted upon. In fact, he said, if a vote was taken every ti me an expendi ture 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 would include the question of whether the citizens 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. He felt that .if 17,000 people were interested they could raise the funds for an appeal and come to the Council with a request 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. Jack Gardner, attorney representing the city in past court actions on the Cross e 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. 4-0+ 7/16/75 - 21