07/27/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

prohibitive activity should not have greater restrictions than ordinary activi- ties. He suggested a restriction should be as narrow as possible in defending . specific interests such as traffic. He opposes adoption of this ordinance. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Sercombe stated that the law is grey as ~o what the City can do. In regard to Mr. Guldin's suggestion of one all-encompassing permit, there could be problems with events that have been scheduled previously. The mall permit applies only to gatherings on the mall. Insurance costs can be waived. The hold-harmless agreement is primarily to remind event sponsors and organizers of their duties. Police costs, particularly in the case of commercial events which require overtime costs to the City, should be reimbursed to the City. This is not an attempt to bankrupt anyone nor to prohibit First Amendment rights. Parades will have no greater restrictions than other special events. No t h i n gis' required for parades involving fewer than 100 people which take place on side- walks. The parade permit applies to large events requiring traffic management. Ms. Smith stated she could either vote now on this item or could ask staff to develop different language. Ms. Miller stated that she would like to have this item set over for further work on the ordinance. Ms. Wooten noted agree- ment. Consensus was to have this item brought back at a later date with more specific language. Ms. Smith stated that she would like to have the speakers' suggestions addressed regarding insurance and p~yment for police. Ms. Miller stated that she feels the City Attorney's Office has done lots of work on this ordinance and it is an improvement over the current ordinance. The changes that have been made are e good, but there are others to be made. She said that some changes just came out on Friday. People who do not have the latest version are addressing a different ordinance. There has not been adequate time to review the new proposal. She said that regarding insurance and indemnity provisions, Mr. Sercombe had stated that there was no difference from the current ordinance. Perhaps there should be something noted stating common law negligence. In regard to police costs, she would like to hear from the police on what costs are involved and see if there is a difference between parades charging admission. She said there should be better coordination between the mall use permits and parade permits. This needs review. c Ms. Wooten stated that she would also like more details on how the City averages costs for extra police services and what kind of history there is on costs for police services for various groups. She would like a one-year history. She also would like to know if issuance or denial should rest with the police or with the City Manager's Office. Times specified in the ordinance to not allow parades should perhaps be reconsidered for Saturdays and Sundays. She woul d also like to know what IIreliable informationll consists of. She feels this should be clprified. Mr. Obie said that when this comes back he would like a memo stating why there are parade permits. He would like to know if Mr. Sercombe could consider exempting those that are political in nature. Ms. Smith said that'she would like copies of the ordinance presented with various options for change so the council can make the decision. e. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 27, ~981 Page 4