Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly referred to Section D in the ordinance regarding exemptions where the prohibition did <br />not apply, and suggested a section regarding travel to and from businesses be added that <br />paralleled the section regarding travel to and from residences. He was concerned about the <br />ordinance's effect on employees, for example, who were delivering goods to and from a <br />business. <br /> <br />Referring to the ordinance related to penalties, Mr. Kelly suggested a stepped penalty so there <br />was a lower maximum fine for a first offense. Mr. Prozanski pointed out that the court had the <br />discretion to set appropriate penalties; the penalties proposed made the City's penalties <br />consistent with the State's. Mr. Kelly acknowledged judicial discretion but wished the State <br />maximum for the first offense could be reduced as well. He asked that alternative language be <br />provided for council consideration. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly endorsed the 18-month evaluation. <br /> <br />Regarding the publication of "johns'" names and the posting of photos on the Web, Mr. Kelly said <br />he did not support the approach at this time because of the Iow rate of recidivism among such <br />individuals. Arrest and penalty appeared to be a sufficient deterrence. Lt. Kerns clarified that <br />the intent of publication was to deter new customers from soliciting women. In response to a <br />follow-up question from Mr. Kelly, Lt. Kerns said Portland did not publish the names of "johns," <br />but other communities did. He added that Portland's strategy was not nearly as comprehensive <br />as the one under consideration in Eugene. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the publication of the names of "johns," and suggested it would be a <br />mistake to assume that because a person was not arrested more than once that they did not <br />offend again. He said police staff had indicated to him that once arrested, offenders become <br />"wise" to police attempts to control prostitution. He said that residents see the same offenders <br />repeatedly. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner endorsed a public hearing but he was unsure that those residents who participated <br />on the task force would attend as they were "burned out" at having to repeatedly make their case <br />before various government bodies. He encouraged the council to read the accounts of their <br />testimony in the background materials. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor indicated she would support holding a public hearing, but was not sure of her support <br />for the ordinances. She said if there is not money for treatment, the effort would be useless. <br /> <br />B.Work Session: An Ordinance Adding Additional Chemicals to the List of Hazardous <br /> Substances Regulated Under Amendment IV to the Eugene Charter of 197'6; and <br /> Providing an Effective Date <br /> <br />Glen Potter of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department joined the council for the <br />item. He said that the draft ordinance before the council would add certain substances to the <br />local list of reportable chemicals under the Toxics Right-to-Know Program, and would reduce the <br />reporting thresholds for other, already listed chemicals. The ordinance reflected action recently <br />taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Emergency Planning and <br />Community Right-to-Know Act, which is one of the lists used as a basis for the City's list in the <br />charter amendment establishing the City program. Mr. Potter said that the charter amendment <br />initially provided for the automatic addition of such substances to the list; the Court of Appeals <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />