Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l\'! s. Oshorn nuted the council's adoption of a moratorium on new outdoor smoking faciln.ies that expired <br />on October 31. She said in order to av()id having the moratorium expire 'vvithout slandards in plaec, the <br />council must adopt a Hew ordinance with new standards by September 30 or enact an ordinance in October <br />\vith an nnmdiate effective date. She said if the moralOriulJl expired, the City would not be inhibited <br />from enacting tighter standards and requiring busincsses with outdoor sm~)kiHg D1eilities to make <br />additional modifications. <br /> <br />]\115. Osborn noted tlwt some councilors expressed interest in whether some of the changes being <br />contemplated (~uuld be accomplished through administrative rule rather than through ordinance. <br />Background information on that issue \vas included in the council mceting packet City Attorney Jerry <br />Lidz was present to answer questions about that issue. <br /> <br />M3.yor Piercy called for council questions and cnrmnents. <br /> <br />tyi;;. Taylor was not interested in grandtathering any establishments' outdoor smoking h,cilities. She did <br />n~)t understand why a councilor would prd{~r using administrative rules as opposed to an ordinance as <br />administrative ruks \verc easicr to relax. Mr. Lidz clarified that approach was suggested by a councilor <br />rather than staff. Prom a legal perspective, he recommended an ordinance that set a stand<1rd while <br />allO\ving the City Manager to act administratively to implement the ordinance as there were some <br />dements probably better addressed by administrative rules, such as modification:, to the 25 percent ruk <br />made nccessary by physical circumstances. Other than that, he had no reason to bdieveit \\ias better to <br />act administratively rather than through an ~mlinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said anolher legal opinion that exi:,ted suggested it would be more straightforward and <br />defensible to make the changes being contemplated through the City's administrative rules. He proposed <br />that rather than di~,cuss the ordinance's potental legal v11lncrabilities in open session, the council discuss <br />them in 3n executive ,"esslon. Be suggested that the council also be given an opportunity to extend the <br />moratorium to the end of the year. <br /> <br />fvlr. Kelly was comi{:dabk with the overall direction staff was taking. He did not want indoor areas that <br />happened to bll outdoors under the current defi.nition to be grandfathered forever. He thought a year was <br />a reasonable amount of time. Mr. KeUy thanked staff for responding to questiDrlS and for seeking <br />clarification ii'o;:a the council about its previous comments. <br /> <br />Mr. KeJIy suggested that ~;on1ehow the implcnl<:ntation of the original ordinance failed t,) uJpture the <br />council's original intent that in general, smoking was prohibited in \vork places but one could smoke in <br />outdoor areas, and he hoped wh3kver \vas proposed would rdum to and clarify thm origin<;] intent. <br /> <br />lVIr. Pape recalled that the council's goal in adopting the ordinance had been to protect the public, <br />particularly youth, and employees from second-hand smoke, rather than to stop people ii'om smoking, He <br />rernindcd the council that people had the right to smoke. Mr. Pape \-vas concerned that the council's f<.wus <br />'vvas on physical structures, and suggcsted the City remind employers that employees were not required to <br />go into <1reas where smoking \vas allowed. He understood that a window !l1 a \vall or dnor that allowcd <br />physical vlcwing or the area in question complied with OLCC regulations. ~ds. Osborn said thc City had <br />experienced some entixcement issues related to situations IV here mal1<1gers had instruc:ed employers to <br />sign "',!<livers about bcing in a srnohng environment when that was not the choice of the employee, but <br />they felt compelled to do so. J\k 1>ape thought the City needed to deal with that issue and require the <br />employer to inlonn the employees ()f their rights through its administrative l1lks, Ms. Osborn clarified <br />that. City had addres,"ed those situation when they arose. <br /> <br />~.lINUTES-Eugene City Council <br />\Vork Session <br /> <br />September 12, 2005 <br />Page 11 <br />