09/09/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" ~. required that the fees charged by towing companies for removal of illegally . parked cars be posted both on the tow truck and in the business offices of the towing firms. This would establish that fees are firm and not subject to negotiation. Mr. Packard suggested that the council ask staff to report back in 90 days on how the ordinance has worked to see if the problems found in the past have been alleviated or if tighter regulation is needed. Responding to a question from Councilor Smith, Chief Packard said that the ordinance does not propose regulation of towing fees and will leave the setting of fees up to the industry. Ms. Smith said that she preferred that the council not regulate fees. She hoped that the proposed ordinance and the public expres- sion of concern would move the industry to become better organized and more responsive to the needs of the public. Responding to a question from Councilor Haws, Chief Packard said that under the proposed ordinance, private, non-commercial parking lots would not be required to post signs. In response to further questions from Councilor Miller, Mr. Packard said that parking lots of apartment buildings which are made available to the public would be required to post signs under the ordinance. City Attorney Les Swanson elaborated on this by citing paragraph 1 of Section 5.540 of the proposed ordinance which defines parking facility. Public hearing was opened. William Bain, Lane County Assessor, 1755 Balboa Street, spoke in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Bain discussed the towing of the car of an appraiser from 'his . office and of ensuing negotiations with the towing company over the fee for release of the car. He said that during fee negotiations, the tower raised the fee. Mr. Bain felt that there is a high risk of harmful confront at ions in the current towing situation. He felt that the proposed ordinance was a start, but that the council might find a stricter ordinance needed. He pointed out that police have not been informed prior to the towing of cars, although this is required by ORS 98.182. Mr. Bain also suggested that towing firms be required to provide 24-hour phone answering, with messages giving information on the whereabouts of and procedure for claiming towed cars. Alan L. Ludwick, 1717 Centennial Boulevard, Springfield, stated that he was an attorney representing Emerald Towing. Mr. Ludwick said that he had only just received notice of the proposed ordinance and had had only 24 hours to review it. Mr. Ludwick said that several points not covered by the ordinance had been raised, such as the amount of towing that is done, the alleged negotiation of fees, the suggestion of 24-hour phone contacts, and the question of prior notification to police of towing. He said he would not address these issues at this time, since they are not covered in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Ludwick then went through the ordinance section by section and made the following suggestions. In Section 3.460, paragraph 1: Change the words "machine-lettered" to "readab 1 e. II In paragraph 2: Change the word "owner" to IIdriver.1I Regarding this section, he also felt that the second sentence was unnecessary, since current practice is not to charge a fee if the car has not yet been hooked up for towing. Mr. Ludwick also wondered if the requirement of being readable G . MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1981 Page 11