Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lee concurred with Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding the effect of the ordinance on those <br />not responsible for causing the police response. He asked how much a person would actually be <br />penalized by the City for the police response: was it the $1,500 indicated as the cost of the police <br />response to a large party? Mr. Lehman said that as currently drafted, the liability as to the <br />responsible parties was joint and several, meaning each was responsible for the whole. He said <br />that the ordinance did not address individual liability. Mr. Lee said that the size of the fine, <br />depending on the cost of the response, could force some students out of school, and that was <br />something he had to consider. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that there should be a distinction made between apartments, houses, and <br />commercial establishments. He would like a process with more steps, acknowledging that it was <br />a more complicated approach. Mr. Rayor said the second notice should go to the tenant and the <br />landlord, and the third time the notice could go to the landlord, giving the landlord the needed time <br />under State law to evict the tenant. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly indicated his concurrence with other councilors' comments. He said that the first <br />question the council needed to respond to was, is it right for the taxpayers to pay for repeated <br />responses to loud parties and bars. He said it was not right, and he was interested in cost <br />recovery. However, he wanted to recover those costs from the responsible individuals. Mr. Kelly <br />agreed that a distinction needed to be made between responses to commercial establishments <br />and responses to private parties, because it was clear in the first instance the responsibility lay <br />with the owner of the commercial establishment, while responsibility for a private party in a rental <br />was harder to assess. He would first focus on the individuals at the private party actually cited by <br />police on the scene. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the council received e-mail communications from the Rental Owners Association <br />of Lane County, and he encouraged staff to take advantage of its willingness to be involved in <br />discussion of the ordinance. He agreed there was a point at which a landlord had responsibility, <br />but it was important to determine that point in a dialogue with the association. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he would narrow the ordinance to violations of the criminal code, Section 4, not <br />the Eugene Code. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 8 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />