CC Minutes - 06/26/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Marilyn Nelson responded to a question asked at the work session of June 10 by Ms. Nathanson regarding the court remodel project, saying that to increase hours of construction work and work on weekends would increase project costs prohibitively. The court proposed to use the Council Chamber to replace the courtroom for the two-month construction period, which would result in no delays and would incur no other costs. She noted that the jury pool also was convened in the courthouse, and staff made arrangements with Lane County staff to use Harris Hall for that purpose. Also in response to a question submitted earlier by Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Nelson discussed the City's use of the Lane County Road Crew. She said that the scheduling of the crew was a staff concern, and in the past staff had explored ways to expand the existing crew. The City had worked with Lane County and the Public Works Department to develop a work crew of its own four years ago. The effort had been successful, but only ten persons per day could be accommodated two days a week at a cost of $60,000 annually. Expansion of the work crew would be cost- efficient, because it was much cheaper to have people work on a work crew than to hold them in jail. Continuing, Ms. Nelson said that staffing for the crews was an issue for the City on weekends. She suggested there was a potential the City could work with other Lane County cities and special service districts to put another crew together. Ms. Nathanson thought that sounded great, noting the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) continued to look for opportunities for jurisdictions to pool resources. Ms. Nathanson asked if the council could influence the scheduling of the County's Road Crew. Judge Allen explained that the Road Crew was a jail of sorts. There were 17 jail beds for those who most needed them, and those beds were always used. He termed jail the most important sanction the City had. If the City was to assign a person to the Road Crew and that service did not occur for six weeks, the sanction did not have the same impact that more immediate service did. It was common that the person did not show up for service and was then recycled through the court system. Judge Allen believed that the delay in scheduling was an advertisement to the community that the system was broken. He said the court system continued to be backed up. He emphasized that more road crews were needed, adding that Springfield shared Eugene's need. Mr. Farr said that when he saw the road crews at work he believed it was a sign the system was working. He said that the judge's appointment was a very important council responsibility. He was very proud of the staff the judge assembled and the job Judge Allen did. Judge Allen said that the review was nice, but thanks to the City he had the ability to do what he did. Most judges did not have the ability to be creative and presiding judges often did not have authority over other judges in terms of cases assigned. He said that Eugene's court system functioned, as it allowed him to do the right thing. He praised the City staff for the work it did. Mr. Kelly also expressed appreciation to Judge Allen for the work he did and for accommodating the community's needs. He agreed with Mr. Meisner about getting Judge Allen's point of view on criminal code changes, and suggested that the judge's review be institutionalized in some way. Mr. Kelly noted his interest in community relations and improving attitudes and outcomes on all sides, and part of that was the University of Oregon student-Municipal Court relationship. He asked the judge to share his thoughts. Judge Allen said that he had spoken to the student leadership about some changes of concern to them. He thought the Busted Program had been MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2002 Page 2 Work Session