Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pryor did not think it was staff’s intent to provide an unfair advantage to the UO. Chief Lehner said at <br />this time, staff did not know how much of the ordinance could be legally applied to the UO and what the UO <br />might volunteer to do by way of compliance with the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz noted that generally, the City enforced general criminal laws on UO property and did not require <br />the UO go through the permitting process. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz supported either Option 2 or 5. She thought people needed to be accountable and noted she had <br />no idea what happened there until she attended a game, and “then she was appalled.” It seemed to her like it <br />was a big party, and that was okay. She wanted the City’s laws applied equally, and wanted to see a permit <br />approach as opposed to an expanded area approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka thought there was a problem related to disorderly conducts on the part of a minority of males <br />from 30 to 50 who did not appear to think the rules applied at Saturday football games. He was concerned <br />about unequal enforcement between the UO and adjacent property owners. He did not favor Option 5 and <br />thought the expanded area was “just punting.” He found the right balance in Option 3 as it placed <br />responsibility back on the property owners. He wanted to include the UO in any approach selected and <br />wanted the UO to police its back yard in the same manner as everyone else. <br /> <br /> Mr. Poling noted that Option 3 also included the expanded area. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling pointed out that the council action only directed the manager to proceed to a public hearing, <br />which provided time for additional input. He added that he did was not a proponent of repealing the UO’s <br />exemption; he wanted to be fair. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling commended EPD staff for the work it did controlling the situation at the UO in light of how <br />many people attended football games. <br /> <br />In fairness to those who tailgated at UO games, Mr. Poling pointed out that the council was discussing a <br />very few number of the people who participated in tailgating each week. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling noted his concerns about the fees and permitting necessary for Option 3 and indicated he wanted <br />to hear more. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said the council frequently discussed cultural events during meetings, but he was unaware of any <br />other cultural event in Eugene that drew more than 60,000 people. He said that if the City chose to proceed <br />with changing that, it should proceed with caution. He continued to support Option 2, noting the reduction <br />on parking available at the UO that was not envisioned in the 1984 ordinance. Option 2 merely took the <br />City back to that time. He feared that the City would chip away at nonprofit organizations’ fund raising <br />mechanism by imposing fees. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought fees would be complicated and difficult to enforce but she wanted to do more thinking <br />about the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor acknowledged the additional complication created by Option 3 and said he would want to know if <br />the UO would participate; if not, the option was moot and he would be inclined to support Option 2. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon asked what requirements a private property owner would be signing on to, and what would be <br />considered a violation. She also asked if the fees that would be collected would generate enough revenue to <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br />