HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/14/02 Work Session MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall
October 14, 2002
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Betty Taylor,
Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Scott Meisner.
Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. He noted that Councilor Scott Meisner was
ill and was excused from the meeting.
A. Items from the Council, Mayor, and City Manager
Mr. Fart said that things were going great in the Bethel area. He noted the opening of the new
alternative high school, transportation improvements, the new police station, the new fire station,
and the establishment of a branch library, among other exciting developments. Mr. Fart said he
visited the new skatepark in Bethel the previous week and it was being fully used. He thanked
the mayor for his assistance in realizing Bethel's goals.
Mr. Pap~ congratulated City Manager Jim Carlson, Finance Director Cindi Hamm, and Pam
Berrian and Kitty Murdoch of the Central Services Department for receiving national recognition
for their work.
Mr. Pap~ asked City Manager Jim Carlson about the potential of opening the City's pools earlier
than 6 a.m. Mr. Carlson said he would look into the issue but indicated that the hours a City
facility was open was a business decision.
Mr. Kelly asked the council to sign up to work a one-hour shift at the City's booth at the Chamber
of Commerce's upcoming Business to Business Expo.
Mr. Kelly noted a recent article in The Register-Guard regarding to the use of video cameras in
City police cars and asked if any follow-up was planned regarding their use. He suggested that
the subject could become a budget issue in coming years. Mr. Carlson indicated a memorandum
on the department's plans for the use of video cameras in police cars would be forthcoming.
Ms. Nathanson noted the council's recent interviews for members for City boards and
commissions. She referred to the Human Rights Commission's advisory committee structure,
which provided a sort of training ground for service on the commission itself. She suggested that
a subcommittee structure could be established for the Planning Commission to serve the same
purpose and expand the opportunities for citizen involvement for those talented applicants for
whom there were no immediate opening. She acknowledged the additional staff burden but
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 1
Work Session
suggested that such subcommittees could be assets, and could be formed on a temporary basis
in lieu of department advisory committees. She suggested the concept be extended to other City
committees as well.
Ms. Taylor requested more information about the City's plans to privatize custodial services at the
library.
Ms. Taylor noted that she had recently returned from a National League of Cities Human
Development Steering Committee meeting, where she learned from other members that while
they thought the City's domestic registry proposal was a wonderful idea, they would not have
gotten far with the subject in their home cities. She suggested it was an example of how far
ahead of other communities the City was in some ways.
Ms. Bettman said that the City developed a shod-term strategy for improving traffic flow and
pedestrian safety on South Willamette Street. She thanked the neighborhood organization for its
persistence and staff for using its expertise to reach a recommendation that was acceptable to all
parties. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the cooperation of local businesses in the process, and
thanked the Tsunami Bookstore for hosting meetings and Down to Earth for making sacrifices to
accommodate the suggested improvements to the nearby intersection. She anticipated a much
safer environment for pedestrians on the street in the future.
Ms. Bettman was also concerned about the privatization of custodial services at the library. She
questioned whether the City would lose the ability to run the building in a environmentally friendly
fashion or the ability to screen employees. She said that contracted employees would not be
answerable to the City but rather to a private firm, and the City would not have the ability to
regulate their behavior or appearance outside a contract setting. She was not convinced that
contracting for custodial services for the library was in the best interest of the public.
Ms. Bettman noted the council would be considering amendments to the Land Use Code soon
and requested the relevant ordinances as soon as possible.
Mr. Rayor asked for a summary of the recent court judgment regarding the Public Employees
Retirement System (PERS). Mr. Carlson referred him to the PERS Web site for a copy of the
actual ruling and indicated he would provide a summary of the judgment. He reported that a
meeting of those clients involved in the lawsuit had occurred earlier that day. Mr. Carlson said
that the City continued to work toward resolution of the litigated issues as well as working with
the PERS Board to institute reform. He noted that the ruling was a Circuit Court ruling, and
further appeals could occur.
Mr. Carlson reported that the council would hold an executive session later that day, if time
permitted.
Mayor Torrey noted the Committee on Homelessness and Youth would be meeting on October 22
and invited interested councilors to attend.
Mayor Torrey hoped the councilors would invite the incoming councilors to attend meetings of the
committees to which they were to be assigned. He noted that a council vacancy existed on the
Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) and that a majority of councilors indicated an interest in
discussing a different approach to that committee. A work session on the topic would be
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 2
Work Session
scheduled in time to effect changes before January 1. Mr. Carlson noted that a joint meeting with
the ClC was scheduled on November 12, 2002, and that might be an appropriate time to discuss
the issues involved.
Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mayor Torrey indicated he would ask staff to provide
her with the results of the council poll. He noted that no councilor had expressed willingness to
serve on the ClC.
Mr. Carlson reported that the City had received only one application for the citizen positions on
the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority and the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission, and he anticipated that the recruitment process would be reopened.
B.WORK SESSION: Assessment Bond Fund Reserves
The council was joined by Financial Services Director Cindi Hamm for the item. Ms. Hamm said
that staff was bringing the item to the council's attention now because activity in the assessment
program was winding down and bonds were being retired, prompting a review of the reserves.
Staff had determined there was money in excess of what was required to operate the
assessment program. The council could appropriate the excess money for any General Fund
purpose.
Ms. Hamm provided background on the how the assessment bond funds worked. She
emphasized that the City actively managed its funds to ensure it had the lowest interest costs
possible and the highest interest earnings. She said that there were approximately $560,000 in
one-time funds available from the River Road/Santa Clara bond reserve fund. Staff estimated
that another $400,000 to $500,000 would be available before 2010. Ms. Hamm said staff
recommended that as those moneys became available, they be used to purchase the site for the
Santa Clara fire station and to implement the recommendations of the Santa Clara/River Road
Urban Services Committee. Staff also projected that about $4.6 million in one-time money would
be available for other purposes from the in-City Assessment Bond Reserve, and recommended
that those moneys be used to first make the assessment management fund whole ($100,000), to
upgrade the City's assessment management software ($50,000), to increase the Facility Reserve
balance to implement the Downtown Space Plan ($2,460,000), and to invest in the delayed
assessment program ($2 million).
Ms. Hamm explained the staff rationale for the recommendation, pointing to the council's policies
for the use of one-time funds, and noting that the moneys were proposed to be used in areas
related to the original source of the revenues. She said that the item was not time-sensitive. Ms.
Hamm reminded the council that it was scheduled to discuss the Santa Clara fire station site on
October 28, and at that time staff would ask the council to appropriate funds to purchase the site
from the River Road/Santa Clara funds. The council could also choose to decide on the use of
the funds through the fiscal year 2004 budget review.
Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions.
Mr. Kelly commended the staff materials. Regarding the in-City reserves, he questioned the $2
million figure for the delayed assessment program, noting that former City Engineer Les Lyle
suggested that the fund be capitalized at the level of $500,000 to $1 million. He was concerned
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 3
Work Session
about putting $2.4 million in the Facility Reserve at a time when the council was facing a
challenging budget year. Mr. Kelly preferred that the Budget Committee discuss the issue.
Regarding use of one-time moneys, Mr. Kelly suggested that the council have a discussion on
the possible use of those funds over a period of years (as was done with the standard insurance
payment) when it heard the six-year financial forecast and was considering potential service
reductions.
Ms. Taylor thought the Santa Clara/River Road funds should be used in those areas of the
community. However, she preferred to refund the remaining amount in the assessment reserves
to those who originally paid the assessments. She also wanted to discuss how the City could
spend the money, suggesting that transportation system maintenance was one underfunded area
to consider. She did not want to set aside money for buildings when the City was discussing
cutting services.
Mr. Pap~ was concerned about the staff recommendation to take one-time moneys that had
accumulated over a long period of time to construct buildings. He preferred to go to the voters
for the money to construct facilities. He supported the construction of the fire station in Santa
Clara and hoped that the proposal could go forward. He determined from Mr. Carlson that the
consultant report regarding fire services had not been completed yet.
Ms. Bettman liked the idea of postponing action on the staff recommendation pending more
council discussion on how the additional funds should be used in terms of the City's budget
priorities. She agreed that the Santa Clara money should be spent in that area and favored
using it for the fire station site.
Ms. Bettman referred to the one-time nature of the assessment reserves and said the council
tried to be consistent about the use of such moneys and avoid spending them on ongoing
services. However, it appeared to her that the City kept coming up with "pots of one-time funds,"
and although staff had offered some good recommendations, the proposed expenditures did not
rise to the level of some of the City's other priorities. She believed the money involved was
sufficient to be allocated over several years for services. If additional needs for police services
arose, she found the reserves to be an attractive revenue source.
Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Carlson that staff proposed the $2 million fund balance in part
as a response to the changes the council made in assessment policy in conjunction with the
County. Those were new costs that had not existed before. The Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) contained projects staff anticipated would be needed over the six years, and staff had
analyzed the expected deferred assessments for those projects to determine the needed
amount. Ms. Bettman suggested that the number was inflated because not all property owners
would take advantage of the deferral. Mr. Carlson clarified that staff only analyzed the projects in
the CIP, not the entire universe of possible assessment projects.
Mr. Rayor clarified the costs of the assessment software program with Ms. Hamm, determining
the funding was net of that investment.
Mayor Torrey said that the City had been criticized for asking the voters to fund a new police and
fire station rather than building up reserves for that purpose, which led the City to increase its
Facility Reserve. He determined from Mr. Carlson that the council and future councils had the
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 4
Work Session
authority to reallocate the funds in the reserves for other purposes. Mr. Carlson said that the
council could leave the money in the bond reserves as well.
Mayor Torrey favored the staff recommendation as he believed that it would put the council in the
position of dealing with budget shortfalls from a position of strength. He said that if the money
was put "up for grabs" in the budget cycle, it would be allocated. He preferred not to use the
funds until necessary.
Mayor Torrey called for another round of council comments.
Mr. Kelly suggested going back to the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Services Committees for
feedback on the staff recommendation. Mr. Carlson pointed out that in fiscal year 2004 and
beyond, staff proposed to use some of the money to implement the recommendations of the
committees. Mr. Kelly acknowledged that fact, but expressed concern about the delay in
implementation and reiterated his suggestion to test the recommendation with the committee.
Regarding Mr. Carlson's statements regarding the source of the estimate for the delayed
assessment fund, Mr. Kelly suggested that staff prepare a shod summary of the origin of the
estimate.
Speaking to the mayor's comments regarding the criticism the council received, Mr. Kelly said if
he thought the City had the potential within the established ten-year time frame to save the bulk
of the needed money for new facilities, he would agree. He said that, barring a change, he
questioned how much the voters would distinguish between a bond measure of $30 million as
opposed to one for $26 million, for example. He suggested that part of the money could be
directed to the Facility Reserve, and the remainder could be used to offset budget reductions.
Ms. Nathanson said that, in terms of asking the River Road/Santa Clara residents what they
wanted, she suspected that staff had developed lists of unfunded potential park site acquisitions,
and the City did not need to start with a blank slate given the work that had been done.
Ms. Nathanson referred to the reserves and said that she believed the uses proposed by staff
were appropriate. She recognized that in the past she had advocated for Budget Committee
involvement in major new initiatives or major budget decisions and continued to believe that was
appropriate in many cases; however, in this instance, she supported the staff recommendation as
the money involved was not hidden and the committee could discuss its use in the future. She
noted that the council had the purview to make such adjustments.
Ms. Bettman objected to the staff recommendation to direct money to the Facility Reserve
because while the money might be available for reallocation, it would not be in the manager's
proposed budget. That would put the Budget Committee in the position of "chipping away at it"
to plug holes in the budget that were created because the money was not available for allocation
when the budget was created.
Ms. Bettman also objected to the Facility Reserve because while it was prudent for businesses
and homeowners to save for a large capital expenditure, the tax system and the high cost of
facilities meant that what could be saved was negligible in the face of the total cost. She could
not see arguing to the public that it should support a new police station when the City had spent
the last ten years cutting police officers, or that the City should build a new fire station when it
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 5
Work Session
could not afford to staff it. She said that funding services should come first, and if there was
money left over, it could be saved to build facilities. Otherwise, the council could go to the voters
and request new facilities. Ms. Bettman said that if the reserves were restricted to a new police
station or city hall she would not object, but that was not the case; the money could be used by
any future council for any purpose. She wanted to use the money to restore basic core services.
Mr. Rayor thought the proposed use of the money was prudent. The money would be saved for
the future, which he thought appropriate until the City had more control over employee fringe
benefits, which was the City's main cost driver. Until benefit reforms were instituted, he did not
want to expand services in the usual way.
Mr. Carlson recalled that the financial element of the Downtown Space Plan assumed that
funding would be a combination of own-source revenue and bond measures. That was the
approach taken to the fire station and forensics and property control building. He believed that
the use of one-time resources were a good source of money for facilities reserves to build
downtown spaces. The City would not save enough money in ten years to build a new police
station or city hall, but had the potential of significantly reducing the amount the voters were
asked to provide.
Mayor Torrey concurred with the statements of Mr. Carlson.
Mr. Pap8 said he preferred not to use one-time money to support ongoing services but was
conflicted about the proposal to put the money in the Facility Reserve. He suggested that the
council adopt the staff recommendation and direct Mr. Carlson to highlight the existence of the
funds to the Budget Committee in his presentation of the fiscal year 2004 budget.
Mr. Kelly responded to Mr. PapS, saying that there was a difference between what was
theoretically possible and what was likely to happen. He was concerned that, even if the
manager highlighted the money, the Budget Committee would be reluctant to use it to avoid
further budget reductions.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare
a request for Supplemental Budget #1 that appropriates $2 million for the
delayed assessment program, $100,000 to reimburse the Assessment
Management Fund for prior expenditures, and $50,000 as a contingency for
the SPA/ARS software upgrade, and moves $2,460,000 to the Facility
Reserve. Funding for these appropriations should come from reducing the
reserves in the In-City Assessment Bond Fund reserve.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to strike the words "and move
$2,460,000 in the Facility Reserve."
Mr. Farr said he would oppose the amendment. He trusted the manager's judgment, and pointed
out that the council could reallocate the funds at any time.
Ms. Taylor supported the amendment, saying that if the money was not made available to the
Budget Committee it would not be spent on services at all. She preferred that the City use the
money to avoid drastic service cuts. If money was left, the committee could vote to put it in the
Facility Reserve.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 6
Work Session
Ms. Nathanson said there was precedent for the City to use its reserves for General Fund-related
expenditures.
Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Carlson that there had been transfers from many reserves to fund
major tasks; Mr. Carlson cited the AIRS upgrade as an example of where several different
reserves were employed to fund the project. He noted that the Facility Reserve was a relatively
new reserve fund, but had been used in 2001 for a lawsuit settlement.
Mr. Kelly noted the potential shortfall in the fiscal year 2004 budget and suggested the 2004
budget review would be more fruitful if the committee knew that part of the $2.4 million was
available for use.
The amendment to the motion failed on a vote of 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor,
and Ms. Bettman voting yes.
Mayor Torrey called for the vote on the main motion.
The main motion passed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting
no.
C.WORK SESSION: Cell Towers
The council was joined for the item by Jerry Jacobson of the Planning Division and Pam Berrian
of the Information Services Division. Planning Director Jan Childs was also present.
Mr. Pap~ indicated a potential conflict of interest as the partial owner of a property in Springfield
with a cell tower on it. City Attorney Katherine Brotherton indicated no conflict existed.
Mr. Jacobson reminded the council that staff provided it with a status report on cell tower siting
issues in December 2001. He said that the amount of permit activity had decreased since that
time. Staff had established a telecommunications fee that allowed the City to retain a consultant
to verify statements made in the land use applications. The fee covered the cost of the
consultant services. Mr. Jacobson said that since December 2001, Lane County had adopted
the City's telecommunications ordinance for the urban transition area, as well as an ordinance of
its own to apply to rural areas in the county.
Mr. Jacobson requested council direction on the following issues: 1) should the City begin a
process of considering revisions to the Land Use Code concerning telecommunication devices,
and 2) if so, which areas of this section of the Land Use Code are most important to consider,
such as setback requirements, separation from other towers, and zoning district requirements?
Mayor Torrey solicited council comments.
Mr. Kelly thanked staff and the members of the Council Committee on Telecommunications for
developing an ordinance that was a national model. He thanked the citizens group that had
provided high-quality background information on the topic to the council. Mr. Kelly said he was
convinced it was time to make adjustments to the ordinance and profit from what Lane County
and other jurisdictions had done. He noted that he had received many constituent calls about
cell tower applications, and it was a community concern to be ignored at the council's peril.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 7
Work Session
Mr. Kelly suggested that the council needed to balance competing and challenging interests.
There was a clear community desire for cellular phone service and a desire on the part of
industry to provide that service to the community. There was also resident concern about
property values and visual and noise pollution. He hoped the ordinance tune-up could help
address those issues.
Ms. Nathanson noted her service on the Local and State Government Advisory Committee to the
Federal Communication Commission, which put her in a position of hearing about what was
occurring at the national level. She said that Eugene's ordinance had been groundbreaking at
the time it was adopted. It was a risky ordinance and the City was still paying the price of its
adoption. She said that on the national level, there were tremendous battles being played out in
regard to telecommunications, and local governments were often on the losing end. She cited
the Anne Arundel County ordinance as an example, which was intended to ensure that
telecommunications towers did not interfere with public safety communications. The ordinance
had created a legal problem forAnne Arundel County. The telecommunications Industry argued
that local government was getting in the way of progress. She said that if the City made
additional adjustments to its ordinance, which she supported, many issues would be ultimately
raised, including that of home rule.
Ms. Bettman also thanked the councilors and staff involved in the development of the City's
telecommunications ordinance. She said that things had changed to the point where it was
appropriate that the City revisited the ordinance and made adjustments. Ms. Bettman asked if
every application would be reviewed by a consultant. Mr. Jacobson responded that the City had
the ability to retain a consultant on any application submitted, and he believed that such reviews
would be routine in the future given the generally controversial nature of such applications.
Ms. Bettman asked how the City could manage conflicts between cell towers and residents as it
implemented nodal development and residential and commercial uses were increasingly
proximate. Mr. Jacobson said that the placement of towers was according to zone; nodal
developments with a variety of zones would complicate the issue. For example, the Verizon
tower was in an area zoned commercial, but it was surrounded by a mix of uses, including
residential. Because the ordinance was biased against cell towers in residential areas but not in
mixed use areas, that became an issue. The level of controversy regarding an application was
directly related to the amount of residential development nearby.
Ms. Bettman hoped the City Council would choose to move forward with a reexamination of the
ordinance, and that reexamination include setbacks and height standards so that conflicts could
be further minimized.
Ms. Taylor was glad to hear about the consultant evaluations. She expressed her thanks to Ms.
Nathanson for her ongoing work on telecommunications. She commended the work the citizen
group had done and wanted the council to consider the points the group raised with the goal of
incorporating them into the ordinance. She thought the setback issue important and supported
requiring cell tower owners to provide a bond to ensure the tower was removed when no longer
in use.
Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Jacobson that the focus of the discussion was on cell towers,
which had been the major concern of residents, but the ordinance addressed such elements as
antennas as well. Mr. Jacobson confirmed that the federal 1996 Telecommunications Act
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 8
Work Session
precluded the City of Eugene from banning cell towers altogether. He further confirmed that the
City had never received a land use permit application for a cell tower in a residential zone, and
that such facilities required a conditional use permit.
Mr. Farr said he supported the current ordinance but he was concerned about what the City did
to make business difficult to do inside Eugene. He noted the high unemployment rates in Oregon
and said Eugene was a leader in making business difficult. He supported a review of the
ordinance to consider changes that might be needed, but was worried because of his concern
about the potential legal challenges that might arise from the passage of a stricter ordinance.
Mr. Rayor observed that he was seeing antennas in many places around the community,
including on the City's parking garages. He wanted to institute additional livability standards in
terms of where a cell tower or antenna could be located.
Mayor Torrey determined from Mr. Jacobson that the City could not regulate potential health
impacts but could regulate the aesthetics of a cell tower. He assumed that one would want to
avoid more intense radio frequencies for health reasons. He asked if the industry had a need for
dispersal and distribution, or if a company just needed "a spot in the community." Ms. Berrian
responded that dispersal depended on some degree to the spectrum a company purchased from
the Federal Communication Commission as well as topography. Some companies can install
fewer towers because their spectrum was "line of sight."
Mayor Torrey determined from Mr. Jacobson that the County's ordinance included a different
setback than the City's ordinance. Mayor Torrey questioned the City's goal in reexamining the
ordinance: was the City was attempting to limit cell towers or balance their impacts to the degree
possible. He said that the question must be answered.
Speaking to Mr. Farr's concerns, Mr. Kelly said that in addition to the business climate, the City
needed to be concerned about Eugene's liveability. He had received many calls from citizens
concerned about cell tower applications. He thought the City could model its ordinance on
ordinances successfully adopted elsewhere. He did not envision going beyond where other
communities had gone.
Mr. Kelly highlighted his priorities for the ordinance tuneup, including extending the setbacks to
resemble those of Lane County and codifying the consultant review. He also supported
incorporating several of the citizen group's recommendations, such as changes to the process of
looking for alternative sites in a way that made the location of such a site more likely, and taking
additional steps to improve the likelihood of successful colocation.
In terms of the concerns expressed by staff about increased costs to develop code changes, Mr.
Kelly suggested that the increased use of consultants could help to leverage staff time and save
money.
Ms. Nathanson wanted the City to track the Anarundel County situation as she wanted the
council to consider changing the ordinance to stipulate there would be zero tolerance for any
interference with public safety communications. She also wanted to address the issue of
abandoned equipment and who was responsible for removing equipment when a company went
out of business. Ms. Nathanson said that she would like to hear more about the administrative
fees. She also was interested in further discussion of aesthetic considerations and how towers
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 9
Work Session
could be better concealed. Ms. Nathanson called for council discussion of potential regulation of
telecommunications equipment in the right-of-way.
Ms. Nathanson cautioned the council to be careful as it proceeded in light of the upcoming
legislative session.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to
pursue amendments to Ordinance 9.7550 for inclusion in the 2003 Land Use
Code amendments process.
Ms. Bettman supported further examination of the issues raised by Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Kelly.
She noted that the Planning Commission was processing Land Use Code amendments on an
annual basis, and could include the ordinance in that process.
Mr. Fart indicated opposition to the motion as he did not think the timing was right. He
determined from Ms. Childs that the City's amendments to Chapter 9 relative to the topic had not
been challenged in court. Mr. Fart reiterated his remarks about his concerns about the council
acting to make it more difficult for a person to do business in Eugene.
Ms. Childs determined that Ms. Bettman was referring to calendar year 2003 rather than fiscal
year 2003.
Mr. Rayor asked if the commission could accomplish the work required. Ms. Childs did not think
the ordinance review could be easily bundled with the other code amendments. She thought it
would be a major project for the commission, particularly if it were to follow-up on all the
suggestions that had been made by the council. Ms. Childs said that the lack of challenges to
the City's ordinance had been the result of hard work and consultation with many parties. She
believed that changes that were perceived as strengthening the ordinance would be challenged
by the industry.
Mr. Rayor supported the motion on the floor as he thought the issues mentioned by other
councilors were problems that needed to be addressed.
Ms. Childs said the ordinance could be improved upon, but reiterated that it was not a small
project. She suggested that the desired examination be initiated as a stand-alone project.
Mayor Torrey called for a final round of comments.
Mr. Kelly suggested the intent of the motion was to ensure the work was done in a similar time
line as the other code amendments and that it enjoyed the review of the commission. He asked
if the use of a consultant to leverage staff time made sense. He also asked if the project could
be completed in one year. Ms. Childs said that if the council allocated funding for a consultant,
the work could be done over the next fiscal year; otherwise, staff would have to request council
direction on items to be dropped from the commission's work program.
Mr. Kelly offered as a friendly amendment, which Ms. Bettman accepted, dropping the reference
to "2003" and substituting the phrase "over the next year."
Ms. Taylor thought it urgent the City do something to address the problem of cell towers. She did
not think fear of a legal challenge should deter the City from doing the right thing.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 10
Work Session
Ms. Nathanson said that the City should tread carefully in the matter or it could be viewed as
obstructionist. She said that the ordinance would draw the attention of the industry and the State
legislature, with consequences to Eugene and beyond.
Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion to
indicate that the council was interested in looking at improvements and
changes to the City's telecommunications ordinance and to direct staff to
return to the council with a plan and timeline for processing amendments to
the ordinance.
Mayor Torrey called for comments on the amendment.
Mr. Kelly suggested the amendment was in reality a substitute motion. Ms. Nathanson perceived
the amendment as giving staff more time to do the needed work.
Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment because there was no time line established for the
ordinance examination. She believed that residents were very concerned about the placement of
cell towers and those concerns must be addressed soon. She said that in terms of the economy,
businesses wanted to locate in Eugene because there were a lot of people living there, and the
council needed to keep the livability of residents in mind. The council needed to stand up for
residents who stood to see the value of their largest asset, their house, diminished by the
location of a nearby cell tower.
Mr. Kelly determined from Ms. Nathanson that the issues mentioned in the council's discussion
were implicit in her motion.
Mr. Kelly indicated reluctant opposition to the motion because it was his perception that even with
very directed motions to staff, momentum flags and projects were not started. Speaking to Ms.
Nathanson's concerns about the State legislature, he suggested nothing would occur before the
next session but research by a consultant.
Mr. Pap~ asked if the City experienced any issues with abandonment of equipment or
interference with public safety communications. Mr. Jacobson said no.
Mr. Pap~ acknowledged Ms. Childs' comments about the size of the project and suggested that
the issue be deferred to the council's goals process.
Mayor Torrey deemed the motion on the floor a substitute motion and called for the vote.
The substitute motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Pap8
voting yes.
Mayor Torrey called for a vote on the original motion.
The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no.
Mr. Rayor asked for the opportunity to offer a motion to the body.
Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct staff to highlight to the
Budget Committee for its information the Assessment Bond Fund Reserve
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 11
Work Session
distribution as approved earlier in the meeting. The motion passed
unanimously, 7:0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James R. Carlson
City Manager pro rem
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 12
Work Session