CCAgenda-3/08/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman agreed with Judge Allen about the need to ensure the traffic team was at full strength. She noted the Police Commission's support for that priority following its community survey, which indicated strong community concern about the topic of traffic safety. She agreed with the need for judicial discretion. Ms. Bettman was also interested in the subject raised by the mayor, and confirmed with Ms. Nelson that the State had raised the unitary assessment amount. Ms. Bettman asked if the City's decision to adopt a higher fee schedule would result in more uncollectible fines. She wanted to know more about that before the hearing, as well as the budgetary impact of the proposals. Ms. Bettman asked if any other Oregon communities decided not to adopt the new State minimums. Ms. Nelson said not to her knowledge. Judge Allen said that the issue was a source of frustration for all Oregon judges. At an Oregon Municipal Judges convention, the judges had been briefed on the legislative action. None of them favored the legislation, which did not make sense to them. However, all the judges assumed that they had no choice, which was why it had taken Eugene so long to suggest that there was another approach. He said that if Eugene took the recommended approach, he would consider writing to other Oregon municipal judges and let them know that they had a choice. Ms. Bettman suggested that if a large number of municipalities decided against adopting the mandatory minimums, the only effect of the legislation was to increase the fees the State received from municipalities. Ms. Bettman asked under what authority the City could refuse to adopt the mandatory minimums. She assumed the issue was governed by the State. Ms. Brotherton indicated the issue was governed by OCT 2.477, regarding the City's delegation of authority to a municipal court judge to establish bails, fines, and penalties, as long as they were within the maximums set by State law. She said the statute stipulated the mandatory minimums, or base penalties, could not be reduced more than 25 percent. The statutes contained an explicit provision that allowed cities to adopt their own base penalties, and thus they would not be subject to the statute. Ms. Brotherton believed legal counsel reached a reasonable interpretation of a somewhat clear law. Ms. Bettman asked if the City could be challenged by the State on the issue. Judge Allen said it was possible, but he did not think it mattered to the State as long as it continued to receive its assessment. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation that staff brought the item to the council. He found the explanation clear and thorough and commended staff and Judge Allen for recognizing the importance of judicial flexibility. Even more than the dollar amount, he would regret the loss of the City's alternative service programs. City Manager Taylor indicated the public hearing and possible action was scheduled for February 9, 2004. C. WORK SESSION: Hospital Property Update City Manager Taylor introduced Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle. Mr. Coyle provided the staff presentation, first briefly reviewing the history of the item before the council. He called the council's attention to correspondence between Roy Orr of McKenzie-Willamette/Triad and City staff, and concluded from that correspondence that there were no hospital development opportunities in the preferred geographic area. He invited questions. Mayor Torrey asked what staff wished the council and mayor to do. Mr. Coyle said that staff would need direction from the council about any further incentives it wished to discuss. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2004 Page 4 Work Session