CC Minutes - 06/12/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

increase the number of those in the gathering from 10 or more to a higher number, such as 25 to 30 people; 2) consider incorporating a provision in the ordinance that allows the City to return the fine if those cited were acquitted in court; 3) ensure the appeal is not designated by the City Manager to be heard by a Eugene Police Department representative for the sake of neutrality. Mr. Rayor said the ordinance had been improved by the changes made. He asked how the police would determine which of several roommates might be liable for the police response. City Attorney Alan Leiman indicated a notice recipient must be present at the subsequent gathering that gave rise to the liability for the fee to be charged. If a roommate was not present, that individual was not liable. Mr. Rayor questioned how roommate turnover might be addressed. Mr. Pap~ agreed the ordinance was improved. He regretted the Police Commission had lacked time to prepare a recommendation to the council on the ordinance. He suggested that staff also solicit input from Lane Community College and Northwest Christian College students. Mayor Torrey said he had appreciated the input of the leadership of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon. He said that due to that input, action on the ordinance was postponed until the students returned for fall term. While he recognized the importance of the issue addressed by the ordinance, Mr. Lee said that the fines should not be so high that students were unable to pay tuition and were forced out of school. He suggested fines be capped. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Johnson clarified that the ordinance did not apply unless someone was arrested as a result of a complaint. Enforcement was typically complaint- driven. Ms. Taylor asked if the police responded in large numbers. Chief Hill said that the size of the response depended on the size of the gathering. Ms. Taylor said she was very concerned about the number of and variety of offenses covered by the ordinance, and some, such as endangering the welfare of a minor, were ambiguous and could be misinterpreted. Chief Hill responded that the offenses mentioned in the ordinance were specific statutes mentioned in the Eugene Code and State law. Ms. Taylor was also concerned about the time period mentioned in the ordinance, as she did not think a response every 90 days was a response to habitual behavior. She preferred a shorter time period. Ms. Taylor also believed the fines were too high, and suggested they be lowered to reflect those in the Berkeley ordinance. She did not want to make someone pay a fine for a situation that was not their fault. She said that sometimes people attend parties without invitation, and sometimes law-abiding people become noisy and bothersome to their neighbors, and if it happened only occasionally, she did not think a penalty was called for. Mr. Fart asked if the ordinance included an exemption if the tenant was the party calling for the police response. Chief Hill said yes. In response to Ms. Taylor's comment about the breadth of the ordinance, Mr. Kelly thought the scope of the ordinance had been narrowed and improved. He emphasized the fact that the ordinance was designed to address repeat calls to an event where things were sufficiently out of hand that someone was arrested or cited. He did not think that such gatherings were casual. While he agreed that a tenant might not always have control over who attended their party, that party had ultimate control by being the one to call the police. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 2000 Page 2 Work Session