Item B1: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

He wondered what the people who supervised the parking lots in which the activities occurred would have to do differently under an OLCC license than under the ordinance. He also wished to know what role OLCC played on game days in that area and what the difference in the liability that someone would have versus someone who had an OLCC license. Councilor Zelenka disagreed with the assertion that the ordinance would increase public drinking as he believed it already existed. He felt the question lay in whether the City should acknowledge and regulate it given limited police resources. Councilor Zelenka wanted to know if the ordinance could be limited to non-profit agencies. He requested statistics on the drunken driving arrests on game days versus regular Saturdays. He added his feeling that two hours of drinking after the game was likely too long. Councilor Bettman commented that people could show up four hours prior to the game and drink. She felt that once the exemption was granted the capacity to regulate the drinking was reduced. She reiterated her opposition to the ordinance, adding that if the area around Autzen Stadium was made to be consistent with the rest of the City it would make enforcement simpler. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Municipal Court Sentencing Authority for Violations of Chapter 4 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager pro tem Jones asked Wayne Allen, presiding judge for the Municipal Court, to present a summary of the topic. Judge Allen explained that Municipal Court did not have the authority to order a defendant to a more expensive alcohol education or anger management program. He believed that a judge should be able to send a person to anger management classes or a one-day class on alcohol abuse for a fourth or fifth Minor in Possession (MIP). He noted the state court had the authority and in some cases it was mandated to require it. He said Municipal Court had spoken with the provider of alcohol education and it appeared that it would be possible to add a class. Councilor Bettman interpreted the wording in the ordinance to mean that the sentence or a portion of it could be suspended. Judge Allen replied that a sentence could inherently be suspended. He felt what was intended was to reduce a portion of a sentence rather than imposing a larger fine with the requirement that a class be attended. He noted that the MIP had a maximum penalty of $250. Councilor Bettman said she had an issue with the language. It sounded to her that a judge could merely suspend the sentence without any collateral action. She asked that the wording be reviewed before the ordinance came back before the council for action. Ms. Jerome ascertained from Councilor Bettman that her intention was to clarify the language so the ordinance would give the authority to reduce or suspend a sentence only in the case where collateral action such as an anger management class was being required. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, she closed the public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 6 Work Session