Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Johnson said that the staff notes related to the item included background on the policy <br />issues, an analysis of the proposal, and alternative options. He called the council's attention to a <br />graph prepared by staff illustrating the effect of 90- and 100-foot tall flagpoles on the butte. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that there were three possible courses of action: 1) the council could install a flag <br />on the butte immediately; 2) the council could refer a measure regarding a flag on the butte to the <br />voters; or 3) the council could let the issue be referred to the ballot in the fall by citizens. He said <br />the council should consider the most reasonable course of action to take and the best decision it <br />could make without drawing the issue out. Mr. Fart said that the best approach would be to <br />place a flag on the butte as called for in the Stewart Family's compromise proposal, and let <br />opponents of the flag attempt to refer its removal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fart moved to place an American flag sized 10 feet by 19 feet on a 90- <br /> foot flagpole on Skinner Butte, assuming the Stewart Family will provide an <br /> endowment to support its maintenance; on holidays and other pre- <br /> determined special occasions a larger flag would fly on the pole. <br /> <br />The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked why the suggested flag was sized as proposed. Mr. Johnson responded <br />that the sponsor wanted it to be seen from everywhere in the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee expressed appreciation for the unanimity of the veterans' organizations. He expressed <br />concern about the staff resources it would require to maintain a large flag. He said that the issue <br />was related to designating a memorial in the community. He said that to merely place a flag on <br />the butte did not honor the public's views. He said there should be a vote on the issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the council needed to make the decision. She did not want to <br />refer the decision to the voters. She believed a vote would create a schism in the community. <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov pointed out that the council was acting at the behest of a donor. At the <br />time the council approved the removal of the cross, she had been council president when the <br />council received a request to place a flag on the butte and had been part of the body that <br />rejected the request at that time to allow the community time to heal. She agreed that there had <br />been more controversy than she anticipated regarding the proposal. Ms. Swanson Gribskov <br />favored a small flag on the butte. She was concerned about the issues of flag size and lighting, <br />and the staff resources lighting would require. She asked how large a standard flagpole would <br />be. She said that such a flag would be preferable as it was the same as other flags. Such a flag <br />would not fly all night and require illumination. It would not likely be subject to vandalism. <br />Mr. Johnson said that there was no standard flag size. People generally buy flagpoles to fit their <br />surroundings. Flag poles were generally from 80 foot on down. A 90-foot pole was substantially <br />more expensive. The sponsor's intent was that the lights would be placed up the pole fairly far to <br />reduce the impact of illumination. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Johnson said that the halyard would <br />be inside the pole, making it more difficult to be vandalized. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that 90 feet seemed too high to her. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 3 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />