Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Councilor Wooten, stating that the work involved was temporary, asked why it <br />would be necessary to recheck those individuals each time they worked. Chief <br />Packard stated that he was surprised to hear any opposition to the code amendment, <br />stating that it was the responsibility of the City to perform a minimal check on <br />those individuals performing the security services for events attended by local <br />citizens. Ms. Wooten asked if the fee could be established on a per check <br />basis. Chief Packard said the check performed on the temporary personnel was <br />primarily a check of existing records which could change on a weekly basis while <br />the checks for Merchant Police I and II were more involved. He did not feel <br />the $3 fee will cover the costs of performing the review. <br /> <br />Councilor Holmer asked what consistency existed in the personnel used for the <br />security services. Mr. Thompson estimated that he would use 60 to 70 individuals <br />on a continuing basis to cover about 25 events during the year. In response to <br />a question by Mr. Hansen regarding the $3 fee, Ms. Grondona stated that the <br />license fee would lapse after 30 days. She added that an individual would no <br />longer be considered a temporary employee if he or she worked more than seven <br />days during a 30-day period. While he supported the records check process, Mr. <br />Hansen felt that the ordinance needed some clarification. <br /> <br />In response to a question by Ms. Wooten regarding Mr. Hansen's suggestion that <br />the fee cover a 30-day period, Ms. Grondona stated that the suggestion could be <br />incorporated administratively. Mr. Hansen commented that Section 2 of the <br />ordinance did not clearly specify that intent. <br /> <br />CB 2673--An ordinance concerning merchant police; amending <br />Sections 3.005, 3.010, and 3.314 of the Eugene Code, <br />1971; and declaring an emergency. <br /> <br />Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be <br />read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous <br />consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this <br />time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />Council Bill 2673 was read the second time by council bill number only. <br /> <br />Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved <br />and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present <br />voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance <br />No. 19254). <br /> <br />C. Objection to the Posting of a Notice to Abate Nuisances in the <br />1900 Block of Highway 99 North (Big Apple Area) (memo, background <br />information distributed) <br /> <br />City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Assistant Superintendent <br />of Building Inspection Larry Reed presented the staff report. Reviewing his <br />June 11, 1984 memorandum to the City Council, he stated that the appropriate <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />June 11, 1984 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />