CC Minutes - 07/18/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

demonstrate good faith in complying with the ordinance. She said that the effort was fairly staff- intensive, and would be targeted toward the 31 businesses or a subset of the 31 with unknown benefits. City Manager Jim Johnson said that staff thought most of the problems that arose could be addressed administratively rather than through changes to the ordinance. Ms. Taylor asked what the City could do administratively. Mr. Johnson said that in some cases it was more clear what was happening with a building permit than with others. Generally, the City had to believe people when they applied for a building permit. The City had to believe that the property owner's intent was to follow through as stated. In some cases nothing could be done, unless that proved to be untrue. Ms. Taylor asked about the penalty for not following through with construction. Mr. Johnson said there was no penalty through the regular permit process; citizens could decide not to proceed with projects and let their permits expire. Ms. Taylor asked if a penalty could be established. Mr. Lidz suggested that the council could establish a time parameter for the completion of such projects for purposes of the no smoking ordinance. Alternatively, he pointed out, under the existing ordinance the City could define through administrative rule what constituted a reasonable pace of construction and penalize those who did not pursue construction in good faith. Ms. Taylor thought it unfortunate the council created such a loophole. She asked if the ordinance exemption could be repealed. Mr. Lidz said the council could do so, but it could have an impact in that, relying on the existing ordinance and its extension, property owners had invested money in a building permit and construction. Ms. Taylor said that the property owners could still use the area constructed later, but for the time being they must comply like all others. Ms. Taylor thought it unfair that those who complied had to be in competition with businesses who did not have to for the time being. She asked what else could be done. Mr. Johnson suggested the issue for the council was how much staff and council time should be spent to catch the very few who might have the wrong intent. He added that he thought the vast majority of those who applied for building permits intended to construct an outdoor seating area. Ms. Taylor was not interested in their intent; she wanted to correct something she thought the council had done wrong. Ms. Taylor asked if the extension time could be reduced. She determined from staff that the ordinance did not prohibit food and beverage service from occurring in the covered area, and asked how that protected employees. Mr. Kelly wanted to be fair to businesses that were complying with the law. He did not think the council erred in developing the extension, but it was being abused by a small minority. He was not seeking a monetary penalty but rather compliance with the ordinance. Responding to Mr. Johnson's comments about the few businesses involved, he thought the issue was significant to businesses who were in compliance, and for that reason justified an expenditure of staff resources. Mr. Kelly supported the administrative approach suggested in the council packet. Referring to the staff memorandum on the topic, he suggested that staff should check to ensure both the owner and manager had given permission for the modifications. He was willing to use contingency funds for enforcement, but suggested to save money the first check of a business could be done by volunteers, such as members of Tobacco Free Lane County. Ms. Nathanson said that City needed to make a good faith effort to both the businesses and the public to stick to what it had set up in establishing the ordinance, and to keep faith with the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 4 Work Session