New Search
<br />' ` CITY OF EUGENE <br />.. <br />INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM <br />CITY ATTORNEY -CIVIL DEPARTMENT <br />To: Dave Reinhard Date: February 23, 1999 <br />Subject: Review of Administrative Actions under EC 5.050 <br />You have asked for clarification of the proper questionfor consideration when the City <br />Manager's designee proposes an .administrative action under Chapter 5 of the Eugene Code. This <br />issue is easiest to discuss in the context of an example. The example you present is that of the <br />proposed closure of Stewart Road. The Eugene Hearings Official recently held that, in adopting an <br />administrative order for the road closure, the question for consideration is "what do each of the <br />criteria listed in 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 question is that .proposed by the City. Each of the criteria in section 5.055 should be <br />considered in context of the proposed action - a road closure. <br />EC section 5.055 states that "[t]he administrative action ofthe city manager or the manager's <br />designee shall be based on consideration of [nine listed criteria]." Therefore, if the proposed <br />administrative action is for the closure of Stewart Road, each criterion must be considered in light <br />of the proposed closure. If the criteria do not support the road closure, it is not justified. <br />If you have any additional questions, please call me at extension 5080. <br />- ~ HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C. <br />-- City Attorneys <br />~. <br />Emily N. Jerome ~ <br />ENJ:cmc <br />