CCMinutes - 02/09/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

proliferating. She asked who paid to remove the cell towers when they were no longer needed and who was liable if they were found to cause a health hazard. She thought the current ordinance needed to be updated. She felt the same way about housing standards. Many councilors and citizens were interested in the subject and she thought a discussion was past due. She had used the City's housing program when she lived in an apartment and found it very effective in ensuring that complaints were addressed. She acknowledged fiscal constraints but believed a way could be found to make such a program pay for itself. She wanted cell towers and housing standards higher on the list. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by placing cell towers as a high priority. Mayor Torrey determined that Ms. Taylor was seeking to amend the top five items on the priority list by including cell towers. Mr. Kelly called for a point of order, saying the motion on the table was to adopt the entire work program. While some of the low priority items would not receive as much attention as the high- priority items, he believed the council could move items from one part of the list to another. Mayor Torrey concurred, but said he believed Ms. Taylor was attempting to move the item to the top of the list, where it would receive more effort. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Coyle that staff was asking the council to delete an item from the top priorities if it wished to add an item. City Manager Taylor said the five top priorities would more than absorb the resources set-aside. Staff would work on the other items as time and money allowed. He recommended that if the council wanted an item to be raised in priority, it delete another item from the list. Ms. Taylor suggested that some of the elements of Item 5 on the priority list could be deleted. Mr. Kelly said he would be happy to ~horse-trade items" but lacked sufficient information to do so. He did not know how much staff effort was involved in the items before the staff, and recalled that he had previously requested a scope of work for the items. Mr. Kelly suggested that as motions were offered adding items to the list, they be worded to direct staff to return with a supplemental funding request if necessary. Ms. Taylor accepted Mr. Kelly's suggestion as a friendly amendment to her motion. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly. She did not know, without more information, how to evaluate the magnitude of each item, and said staff had refused to provide the council with the information. Ms. Bettman was supportive of the amendment as she did not think it would take much staff time, given the subject was already scheduled for a work session. She asked how such work sessions impacted the work program. City Manager Taylor said the work session would occur, but because of the prioritized nature of the City's various legal commitments and ongoing work, amendments to the ordinance would be difficult to accomplish. Based on an analysis of what the division was committed to now, the work program items recommended by staff were those the council had resources to accomplish in the next 18 to 24 months. Ms. Bettman suggested that if the University of Oregon had approached the City now with a project such as the Autzen Stadium expansion, the department would not have been able to have spared the staff resources because the expansion project was not on the work program. Mr. Coyle disagreed, pointing out that the cost of processing such project applications was underwritten by fees rather than by the General Fund. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 4 Work Session