CC Minutes - 07/12/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

· Lee: The proposed ordinance is an improvement over the original proposal in that property owners are not held responsible for the costs of graffiti abatement. With regard to the costs associated with abatement, business owners do pay taxes and therefore assist in paying for graffiti removal. With regard to the definition of "graffiti" included in the ordinance, agree that it is too broad. The ordinance could be "abused," resulting in the imposition of unjust fines. (City staff members could abuse the ordinance, but the "check "on that would be the City Council and Municipal Court. In response to concerns issued by councilors, the next draft of the ordinance will state that the ordinance does not pertain to handbills and is specific to exterior surfaces.) Mr. Lankston stated that the revised ordinance would be presented to council for a public hearing on July 26, and council action was scheduled for August 9. B. WORK SESSION: PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL REVENUE SHARING PACKAGE PROPOSAL Referring to an agenda item summary, copies of which were included in the meeting agenda packet, City Manager Jim Johnson explained that the action requested of the council was to provide policy direction regarding a City of Eugene service package for the City's potential allocation of the revenue-sharing component of the proposed Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) revenue measure. He said the proposed service package reflects previous council discussions regarding implementation of the Safe Community goal, including expanded community policing implementation and prevention services focused on youth. For the purpose of discussion, Mr. Johnson referred councilors to several attachments to the agenda item summary, including 1) City of Eugene Safe Community proposal: Community Policing and Prevention Services; 2) list of programs not proposed for funding; and 3) tally of responses to the council survey regarding Community Policing and Youth Services/Prevention proposals, including council comments. Councilors issued the following comments and questions concerning the revenue-sharing package proposal (staff responses are in parentheses:) · Meisner: The revenue-sharing package proposal accurately reflect the council's discussion regarding this matter. With regard to outcome measures component of the PSCC proposal, hope the City will participate in implementing those measures. Unclear at this point how much control the City would have over its own programs. Would like the City to have full control over its own programs. In addition, the proposal may be difficult to "sell" to Eugene taxpayers given that the City would be contributing a disproportionate amount of the shared revenue, while receiving a considerably low level of services in return. · Kelly: Pleased that youth activities are included in the proposed package. With regard to the outcome measures, care must be taken in terms of how the measures are crafted; particularly those related to youth activities, as some outcomes may be difficult to measure. With regard to item 4(d), homeless camping services (page 29 of the agenda packet), that was not recommended as part of the revenue-sharing package, the services are provided via a contract with St. Vincent dePaul and do not want them left as a contingency item. Will make a motion to amend the revenue-sharing package to include homeless camping services. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m.