CC Minutes - 06/10/02 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

concerned that penalties be stepped according to the severity of the offense. However, raising the maximum fine allows the judge more discretion. There was the potential that such a penalty would be imposed in an egregious situation. Responding to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Nelson clarified that the Busted Program was not community service, but rather a diversion program. Councilor Bettman asked for further information about the role of the Eugene Police Department in enforcement action on behalf of the railroad, if that was an additional amount of monitoring on the part of the City, and if the City was reimbursed. She added that the information could be provided in the form of a memorandum. Councilor Rayor thought the penalties needed to be reconsidered in light of the 1999 minor in possession ordinance. He pointed out that those penalties had been worked out with the cooperation of the student body. Lieutenant Stronach said the intent of recommending the State maximum fines was to give the judge discretion to assess the fine he or she felt most appropriate. Ms. Nelson added that at the time the minor in possession ordinance had been adopted, the City did not have the Busted Program. The program had been developed for second-time offenders with a condition on the sentence and a reduced fine. Councilor Meisner said that the ordinance before the council was directed against those who provided, sold, or gave alcohol to minors and the visibly intoxicated. It was not directed against the minor. In the case of allowing, it was focused on the person who exercised control of the property, and he did not understand why the judge should not have maximum discretion. Councilor Meisner did not necessarily want to mandate a mandatory minimum fine for first offenses, preferring to give the judges discretion to look at the particulars of each case. He said that the ordinance before the council was not a minor in possession ordinance. He supported the ordinance. Councilor Nathanson concurred with Councilor Meisner's analysis. She thought the new approach being described seemed to be effective and useful. She thought the intent of the ordinance was to solve problems, not to collect money. Councilor Nathanson expressed appreciation for Mr. Buzbee's testimony, and said she was happy to know that programs developed with student assistance were working and had the attention of those who violated the law. She was gratified the City was working with the University to solve problems. Councilor Kelly said he would feel more comfortable if the stepped penalties were retained and scaled appropriately. He asked Ms. Nelson if she thought there would be strong staff push back if the ordinance were revised to accommodate the stepped approach. Ms. Nelson said no. She did not think the judges would object to the change, but it would be a limitation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 9 Regular Meeting