OCR Text |
Show ? po'a(B Kite Eta VMm Dssogts )GARV,BLODCETT S,.p.ii.,h : 'ferraes to mobile may be put to "signing of a revised ot likely that the f will be signed by , . Barlow, ilever the resolut.on changing the ordinance can be signed in the following manner: 1. BY THE elected mayor (which is not likely). 2. By the mayor pro-tem in the absence of the mayor. 3. BY MEMBERS of the City Council who voted in favor of the revised ordinance. or-dinance. This can be done only in the absence of the mayor. Attorney Layne B. Forbes said the best and most logical method of getting the resolution resolu-tion signed is to have the mayor leave the meeting early and then have the council coun-cil appoint a mayor pro-tem to sign the document. MAYOR BARLOW has steadfastly refused to sign the resolution because "I don't feel that the rate increase is fair or justified, and I'm not - going to sign any document that I personally oppose as much as I oppose this particular par-ticular action." He totd the council last week, however, that he did not object to the council members who voted for the rate increase to sign the resolution if they want. MAYOR BARLOW did not indicate at that time if he would be willing to step down to allow the appointment of a mayor pro-tem for this purpose. pur-pose. ; The issue of the resolution signing has been placed on the city council agenda for tonight following a heated debate a week ago when Mayor Barlow asked that the issue not be placed on the agenda at that time. CITY MANAGER Grant P. Petersen said he was going to put the ordinance signing on the agenda as requested by the council the previous week, but that the mayor told him to "leave it off for now because I have some new developments." develop-ments." When asked by Council-woman Council-woman Phyllis Southwick last week why the issue was not on the agenda, Mayor Barlow replied: "BECAUSE THERE'S a law suit pending which could affect each resident of the city $300 to $400." Questioned further about the alleged law suit, the mayor said "he would rather not talk about it at this time." l THINK you should bring it out in the open," said Councilwoman Southwick. "It's your obligation." But the mayor refused to elaborate. ATTORNEY FORBES said later that "the figures used by the mayor are a little misleading. There could be some legal ramifications, however." He said the biggest concern about the new rate proposal is the constitutionality (or discrimination) in a rate classification in which one group of persons has a rate increase and another sector of the population does not. "I THINK this is a much bigger concern to the council and myself than how to go about having the resolution legally signed," the attorney said. "I have done a lot of in-depth in-depth research on both matters mat-ters and I believe that both can be resolved at Wednesday's Wednes-day's council meeting." MAYOR BARLOW terms his refusal to sign the resolution resolu-tion as a "pocket veto" while council members who voted for the proposed water rate increase claim it's nothing more than a "stall tactic." The mayor indicated last week that he wants to settle the drawn-out, controversial issue but he reaffirmed his stand that he feels the rate increase as being "unreasonable and unfair." "RATES SHOULD be such as to operate the city's water system but 1 think to raise these people's rates in a separate classification is not justifiable," he said. Mayor Barlow, in answer to a question from the press, said he "did not intend to refuse to sign other city ordinances or-dinances or resolutions." THEN AFTER a brief pause added: "Unless they are rate increases that I don't agree." The proposed fee increase would bring water rates for mobile home parks in line with rates charged apartments apart-ments and single-dwelling residences within the city. MOBILE HOME parks would be charged an initial fee of $5.95 per month for the central meter entering the park, which would also allow up to 16,000 gallons of water to be used each month. Then each occupied mobile lot would be assessed another $4 per month-similar to single-dwelling residences and apartments-that would allow each mobile unit to use an additional 9,000 without an additional charge. THE MAYOR argues that because of lack of dish washers, clothes washers, etc., mobile home units use only a fraction of the water used by larger families living in homes and larger apartments apart-ments and that mobile home users should not be assessed the same rate. Because of the delay in getting get-ting the resolution passed--it was voted effective Jan. 1, 1979--Attorney Forbes said the revised ordinance will have an effective date of April |