Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman felt there was a risk that a new revenue source would result in administrative movement in the budget over the years of Road Fund money and other resources out and increasing the TSMF piece. She noted that projections were based on FY08 and would change in terms of single-family accounts if some of the discounts or waivers were enacted. She said the inequity was also reflected in a flat-based component of $1.90 per month and flat administrative component which assessed a big-box store the same as a single- family home. She said those components should be based on use of the system. She felt the City should increase its efforts with the legislature so when there was money available it could be used for maintenance and preservation of the existing system. Ms. Solomon said using a percentage for bike paths was a point of deliberation at the subcommittee level as there was recognition of the need to dedicate a small percentage, preferably less than five percent, for bike paths. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Corey said there was no other funding source for maintenance of off-street bike paths except some grant funds. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. C. WORK SESSION: Sign Code Enforcement City Manager Taylor introduced Land Use Supervisor Mike McKerrow to discuss Sign Code enforcement. He said the issue was raised by Ms. Ortiz. Mr. McKerrow presented an overview of the Sign Code since its adoption in 1968. He said the Sign Code did not regulate sign content but did regulate the number, size and location of signs based on the district in which they were located. He said enforcement was done on a complaint basis unless there was a safety issue and complaints had to be submitted in writing. He said about 30 sign complaints were received each year, with many of those from competing businesses hoping for a level playing field. He explained enforcement procedures and used photographs to illustrate examples of prohibited portable signs and approved directional signs for businesses that did not have street frontage. He said an exemption for portable signs in general was within the Downtown Activity Zone if certain size and location standards were met. Mr. Kelly said he wanted a change to the Sign Code to allow portable signs with some restrictions because he was concerned both about supporting small businesses and by the fact that enforcement was complaint- driven and often based on an antagonistic situation between two businesses. He said a small business would not have the resources to go through the variance process required for directional signs and suggested that portable signs could be allowed with restrictions such as reasonable size, no blocking of sidewalks, and removal during nonbusiness hours. He noted that one option was to include Sign Code issues for prioritiza- tion in the next code update process and asked if that process would allow the council to see all suggestions, not just those recommended to move forward. Mr. McKerrow said the Planning Division would need to answer that question. Ms. Taylor asked why complaints had to be in writing. Mr. McKerrow said that was a policy decision based on availability of staff resources, need for consistent enforcement, barrier to frivolous or vindictive complaints, and need for complete information. Ms. Taylor said it seemed that if an illegal sign was noticed the code should be enforced. She noted that Sign Code enforcement was cut from the budget after Measure 47 and she did not approve at the time. She MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 8 Work Session