Council deadlocks 3–3 on application to use laser bird deterrents at North and Southeast Ponds

The Newport City Council considered action item 6,463, a recommendation from the Department of Utilities to execute an application for use of laser bird‑deterrent systems at North and Southeast Ponds. After substantial discussion and public comment the motion to approve the application failed on a 3–3 tie.

Department staff explained the technology is a visual deterrent intended to reduce resident goose populations that contribute droppings and water contamination at a shallow reservoir that serves much of the city’s water supply. Chief of Police Ryan Duffy and Utilities staff described the approach as non‑lethal and part of a larger set of best‑practice measures (fencing, noise makers, egg oiling and other harassment techniques) that are sometimes used when other methods are not appropriate for an embankment dam site. Staff said the city would tell the state it planned to use the funds for laser deterrents should the grant be awarded.

Public comment included a lengthy statement from Lois Vaughn Eberhard, who raised ecological concerns and cited an ornithologist (Dr. Charles Clarkson) who warned of indirect effects and possible acclimation by birds; she also noted the company materials described an effective range up to roughly 1,600 yards and observed the devices can be Class 3B lasers. Eberhard and other speakers urged further study of ecological impacts and questioned whether goose droppings are the principal source of impairment given other watershed runoff sources.

Councilors asked detailed technical and environmental questions. Staff said some state best‑practice guidance covers similar harassment methods and that the embankment dam’s constraints limit use of other deterrents. They noted funding would come from a state “penny fund” if approved and that the current vote was to approve the application, not to final‑authorize installation. The council conducted an initial voice vote and then a show of hands: tied at 3–3, the motion failed.

Because the council vote failed, the administration said the city will not move forward with the application via a council‑approved authorization at this time; staff clarified the current vote was for an application to the state and that future approvals would be required before any installation occurred.