Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson said there was precedent for the City to use its reserves for General Fund-related <br />expenditures. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Carlson that there had been transfers from many reserves to fund <br />major tasks; Mr. Carlson cited the AIRS upgrade as an example of where several different <br />reserves were employed to fund the project. He noted that the Facility Reserve was a relatively <br />new reserve fund, but had been used in 2001 for a lawsuit settlement. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the potential shortfall in the fiscal year 2004 budget and suggested the 2004 <br />budget review would be more fruitful if the committee knew that part of the $2.4 million was <br />available for use. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed on a vote of 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, <br /> and Ms. Bettman voting yes. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for the vote on the main motion. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting <br /> no. <br /> <br />C.WORK SESSION: Cell Towers <br /> <br />The council was joined for the item by Jerry Jacobson of the Planning Division and Pam Berrian <br />of the Information Services Division. Planning Director Jan Childs was also present. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ indicated a potential conflict of interest as the partial owner of a property in Springfield <br />with a cell tower on it. City Attorney Katherine Brotherton indicated no conflict existed. <br /> <br />Mr. Jacobson reminded the council that staff provided it with a status report on cell tower siting <br />issues in December 2001. He said that the amount of permit activity had decreased since that <br />time. Staff had established a telecommunications fee that allowed the City to retain a consultant <br />to verify statements made in the land use applications. The fee covered the cost of the <br />consultant services. Mr. Jacobson said that since December 2001, Lane County had adopted <br />the City's telecommunications ordinance for the urban transition area, as well as an ordinance of <br />its own to apply to rural areas in the county. <br /> <br />Mr. Jacobson requested council direction on the following issues: 1) should the City begin a <br />process of considering revisions to the Land Use Code concerning telecommunication devices, <br />and 2) if so, which areas of this section of the Land Use Code are most important to consider, <br />such as setback requirements, separation from other towers, and zoning district requirements? <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey solicited council comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked staff and the members of the Council Committee on Telecommunications for <br />developing an ordinance that was a national model. He thanked the citizens group that had <br />provided high-quality background information on the topic to the council. Mr. Kelly said he was <br />convinced it was time to make adjustments to the ordinance and profit from what Lane County <br />and other jurisdictions had done. He noted that he had received many constituent calls about <br />cell tower applications, and it was a community concern to be ignored at the council's peril. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />