New Search
r t° p ri ~ ? i:j C.i <br /> I <br /> CITY OF EUGENE <br /> I TER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM <br /> i <br /> CITY ATTORNEY -CIVIL DEPARTMENT <br /> To: Dave Reinhard Date: February 23, 1999 <br /> Subject: Review of Administrative Actions under EC S.Q50 <br /> You ave asked for clarification of the proper question for consideration when the City <br /> ~ Manager's de ignee proposes an administrative action under Chapter 5 of the Eugene Code. This <br /> issue is easie t to discuss in the context of an example. The example you present is that of the <br /> proposed clos re of Stewart Road. The Eugene Hearings Official recently held that, in adopting an <br /> administrativ order for the road closure, the question for consideration is "what do each of the <br /> criteria listed n section 5.055 tell us should be done with regard to the problems existing on Stewart <br /> Road?" The Hearings Official rejected the City's approach, which asked the question: "do the <br /> criteria listed in section 5.055 tell us that Stewart Road should be closed?" We believe that the <br /> proper questi n is that proposed by the City. Each of the criteria in section 5.055 should be <br /> i considered in context of the proposed action - a road closure. <br /> EC se tion 5.055 states that "[t]he administrative action of the city manager or the manager's <br /> designee sha 1 be based on consideration of [nine listed criteria]." Therefore, if the proposed <br /> administrativ action is for the closure of Stewart Road, each criterion must be considered in light <br /> i of the propos d closure. If the criteria do not support the road closure, it is not justified. <br /> If yo have any additional questions, please call me at extension 5080. <br /> - HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C. <br /> City Attorneys <br /> ~ ~ , <br /> ~~~~,~.~J <br /> 7 <br /> Emily N. Ji'rome ~ <br /> I <br /> ENJ:cmc <br /> <br /> ii <br /> <br />