Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

hire an office to monitor the lots on game day. Chief Lehner said that the options were not fully fleshed out and staff had hoped to get the options narrowed to one or two viable options that could be researched in more detail, including the requirements imposed. He suggested the requirements could be as simple as a permit that spelled out the basic restrictions on sales, use by minors, and control of parties. He believed the ordinance would give leverage to the property owner rather than the City. He said staff could come back with some research on Option 3; he characterized Option 2 as a fall-back, saying the two options were essentially the same except for the permit, and the City would still have to figure out how to get to the issue of increasing property owners’ share of the responsibility associated with such events. Ms. Solomon looked forward to seeing more detail about the proposed ordinance. Mr. Zelenka said since the ordinance was originally enacted, several changes had been made to the area such as the construction of the practice field and the Moshofsky Center, reducing the amount of land available for parking and tailgating, which pushed the use out to the surrounding neighborhood. He thought that the ordinance needed to be updated. He hoped the UO would volunteer to comply with the ordinance and consider incorporating it in its code of conduct. He wanted to see a continuum of options within Option 3 that at the low range mandated that property owners must secure permits so that they knew the rules and passed them on to the renters and at the high range mandated the property owners to pay the City for the costs of enforcement. He believed that those who cause the problem should pay for it. Mr. Pryor said if the City went to some type of permitting system he did not want it be an onerous, expensive permitting system; rather, he hoped to create a system that placed a modicum of responsibility on property owners and UO and which tracked what was occurring. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to draft an ordi- nance establishing requirements for private property owners or managers that must be met in order to permit drinking at pay-for-use lots. Mr. Clark suggested that the council was concerned with the public safety issues associated with how people behave when they drink too much, and there were existing laws for that. It made him uncomfortable when the City established a new bureaucratic system as he thought it would be self-perpetuating and its purpose could change over time with entirely different outcomes. He continued to support Option 2. Mr. Poling said he was leaning toward support of Option 3 until he heard Mr. Zelenka’s comments about fees for enforcement. He thought that would defeat the purpose of what the council was trying to accom- plish. He suggested that the council consider proceeding with Option 3 and direct staff to immediately contact the UO to determine if it would voluntarily obtain a permit if it could not be required to get a permit. If it was not willing to do so, the council could drop Option 3 and fall back to Option 2. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment with the proviso that the fallback would not be automatic. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Sergeant Kerns clarified that the UO paid for the costs of police security inside the stadium and for traffic control. Staff did not currently monitor the properties in question, and generally officers designated for traffic control responded to those calls. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Clark voting no. C. ACTION: HUD REVENUE BONDS MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 5 Work Session