CC Minutes - 11/10/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chief Hill said that the ordinance was not designed to address only dollars and staffing, but rather to serve as another tool to reduce the number of such incidents. He said that such incidents placed officers at risk as they were becoming increasingly confrontational; officers were being injured and response times were an issue because the situations placed other citizens at risk by reducing the number of officers to respond to other calls for service. Chief Hill emphasized that it was not the department's intention to place an unfair burden on landlords. He said that the department was more than willing to work with property management firms and landlords to address the issue. He said, however, that the question for him was, at what point should the landlord take action when his or her property was occupied by tenants who require repeated police responses, while acknowledging the burden should be on the tenants to take responsibility. Lieutenant Carolyn McDermed reviewed data from a 60-day period about the number of addresses that would fall under the ordinance, and reported that 15 addresses had two more police responses during that time. Regarding the issue of delays in responses to priority calls because officers were responding to problem parties, Lt. McDermed said that during a recent police response where police were on site for 24 minutes on a Friday night, 25 priority 1, 2, 3, and 4 service calls for were received by dispatch. A priority 1 represented a life threatening emergency requiring an immediate response; a priority 4 call represented a situation where a suspect was present and the police were likely to apprehend him/her. At the request of Lt. McDermed, Sergeant Rick Gillam described some of the police responses to incidents in the west University neighborhood. Mr. Torrey asked councilors to comment on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Farr termed the magnitude of the problem of repeat responses alarming. He did not think taxpayers should carry the burden of the needed police response or should have to await for priority assistance elsewhere while police respond to an unruly party or fight at a nightclub. Mr. Farr said that the City must respond to such incidents with an ordinance acceptable to the community. He asked what authority landlords would have to act within six days of receiving a notice from the City. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that it would depend on the rental contract between landlord and tenant. He pointed out that many rental agreements require tenants to comply with all laws or be subject to eviction so there may be options for landlords. Mr. Farr feared that landlords would not have adequate choices or sufficient legal resources to respond to the City's notice. He preferred an ordinance focused on tenant liability rather than landlord liability that still gave the landlord some responsibility to mitigate the situation if it continued to exist. Ms. Taylor said that she had recently raised a related topic about making landlords responsible for whom they rent to, not for paying for the costs of police responses. Her focus had been on neighborhoods of single-family residences where landlords were renting houses to too many people, and the added traffic volume changed the character of the neighborhood. She questioned making landlords financially responsible for the police responses. She wanted to see an attitude where landlords were proactive in ensuring their tenants did not cause problems, but did not know how to encourage it. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m.