Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> B provided a $50 minimum and $750 maximum fine per violation and a process for <br /> citizens to request investigations by City staff. It also contained the <br /> e provisions regarding signs, notification, and the commemoration, he added. <br /> C. Miscellaneous/Council Questions <br /> Mr. Potter said the task force had reached several conclusions regarding <br /> economic impact, and he noted three of those conclusions: 1) that clarity <br /> would help reduce the potential for negative economic impact; 2) that most of <br /> the economic impact that might occur would revolve around regulation of <br /> components rather than of entire systems, since it was unlikely entire systems <br /> would be manufactured in this community; 3) that penalties and enforcement <br /> procedures would have a bearing on the potential economic impact of an <br /> ordinance like this. He said other i nformat i on on econom; c impact was <br /> included in the report and in Appendices AA and BB. <br /> Mr. Potter said the council had asked the task force for advice on whether <br /> proposed changes should be referred to voters or acted on by the council. He <br /> said the task force had felt that the issue depended on the changes being <br /> considered, and lacking full consensus on that, had left that decision to the <br /> council. <br /> Mr. Potter said Appendix EE contained information from the two public hearings <br /> held by the task force. He said both hearings had been very well attended, <br /> with about 75 persons at the first hearing and a full house in the Council <br /> Chambers for the second hearing. In addition to that testimony, he said the <br /> City had received a number of letters, petitions, and phone calls about the <br /> issue, and the majority of the testimony offered had favored a broader, rather <br /> e than a narrower ordinance. The City at a press conference today had received <br /> approximately 900 letters identical to that in Appendix FF, he added. <br /> Ms. Ehrman asked why Proposal A had not been reviewed by the City Attorney. <br /> Mr. Potter said that had not been requested. Ms. Wooten said she had not been <br /> aware of a need for review by the City Attorneys, and after being informed of <br /> that, she last week had requested a review. Ms. Miller said City Attorneys <br /> had done a cursory review of the proposal and could answer questions about it. <br /> Responding to questions, staff said the appendices were labeled with letters, <br /> not with Roman numerals. <br /> Mr. Holmer asked whether the task force had addressed the issue of commercial <br /> irradiation and whether that was a specific and defined category. Mr. Potter <br /> said the task force and the City Attorney' s Office had researched food <br /> irradiation, but the question being addressed had concerned the City's legal <br /> authority, which was appropriate as proposed. Mr. Holmer said he favored <br /> establishing a definition of "commercial" that woul d provi de limits on <br /> individual irradiation. <br /> Ms. Ehrman asked about the rationale for the board qualifications in Proposal <br /> B. Mr. Potter said the qualifications had been included in an attempt to <br /> broaden the support for an appointed, rather than elected, board. Ms. Ehrman <br /> asked whether concern had been expressed about limiting the board to a narrow <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 4 <br />