Laserfiche WebLink
Meisner suggested that youth offenders could be referred to a youth counseling program rather <br />than to court. He preferred something beyond a preprinted postcard. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson would have preferred that staff had come to the council with the objectives <br />behind the ordinances so that Eugene could design a solution specific to this community. She <br />did not think the examples from other communities were necessarily a good fit for Eugene. She <br />supported Option 1, and was not interested in exemptions. Ms. Nathanson did have concerns <br />about how enforcement was handled, and hoped that staff was not looking at business licensing <br />as the only funding mechanism. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the positions of Springfield and Lane <br />County, Ms. Bohman said that Springfield had not been formally approached about the topic by <br />Tobacco Free Eugene. The Lane County Commission had a general discussion of the issue but <br />has not pursued regulation. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson wanted more information about penalties and enforcement. She shared the <br />University's concerns about multiple entrances and questioned if it was fair to ask large <br />institutions with wide public access to bear responsibility for smoking violations. Ms. Bohman <br />said that information from the Oregon State University indicated that the issue was not a major <br />one and there had been no enforcement problems. She said that the fine could be applied either <br />to the establishment or smoker. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to check on the issue with Lane <br />Community College staff to determine if it shared the concerns of the University of Oregon staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ questioned why the State of Oregon had not taken on the issue, suggesting that the <br />director of Intergovernmental Relations be directed to carry the issue to the State legislature. He <br />asked why Benton County had not adopted a similar ordinance. Mayor Torrey said Benton <br />County was considering adopting the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said that he wanted to cut youth off from sources of tobacco and did not want to make <br />the product more of a forbidden fruit for youth, but he was somewhat concerned about the <br />penalties involved. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Pap~. She did not want to focus on the penalty to a great degree but <br />thought the council should move ahead with the ordinances. She agreed with Mr. Pap~ about the <br />need for action at the State level. She did not think it was necessary to ask County or Springfield <br />to adopt similar ordinances. She thought the trend toward banning smoking would continue to <br />spread. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that the council should recognize that there were restaurants that had already <br />taken steps to separate smokers and nonsmokers. He noted that an election had been held in <br />Corvallis after the passage of the ordinance to delete the element of the ordinance related to <br />bars; that measure had been defeated. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee asked if the City had percentage figures for the number of employees affected by <br />secondhand smoke in Eugene. He wanted a sense of the impact of the proposed ordinances. <br />He asked how many bars would be affected by the ban. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee noted the relationship of better educated populations to the passage of such ordinances, <br />and questioned whether the City should actually direct its lobbyist to attempt to affect change on <br />a statewide level, noting that there were many people already working on the issue at that level. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 19, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />