Laserfiche WebLink
environmental conditions because there were so many opportunities to engage in them in the downtown <br />area. He averred that to be effective in reducing behavior crimes, they had to have enough officers to <br />fluidly move where the behavior was happening. ' <br />Ms. Taylor asked if any of the jail beds would be used for people who were not dangerous. Chief Kerns <br />responded that there were so few jail beds that almost all of them had high risk offenders in them. He said <br />the jail beds that the City leased were for defendants convicted of violent crimes. He added that there <br />were no jail beds for non - violent offenders currently, though this could change with the opening of the <br />Springfield jail. <br />Ms. Taylor thought the idea of "wet beds" would be attractive to some people. She asked if this was a <br />punishment. Chief Ferns replied that it was an alternative to the emergency room and other more <br />expensive services. He said only a unique, discreet group of people would qualify for it. Mayor Piercy <br />echoed this, noting that there were significant savings for services in case - managed apartments directed at <br />people with substance abuse issues. <br />Mr. Poling agreed that "wet beds" were a good idea. He felt it would provide a safe out and would allow <br />the funds to be invested in rehabilitation services that could help a person to get out of that type of <br />situation. Regarding adding jail beds, he asked if the $420,000 that they were estimated to cost had come <br />from the County. Chief Ferns affirmed that this was the County's cost estimate. Mr. Poling asked if the <br />chief had entered into preliminary conversations with the City of Springfield regarding Jail beds. Chief <br />Kerns responded that the Municipal Court had discussed this with Springfield and it was not yet known <br />whether the beds there would represent any significant savings. <br />Mr. Poling noted that the Lane County Sheriff s Office used to keep a record of its calls for 90 days and <br />asked if the EPD did this type of thing. Chief Kerns replied that they did not. He added that some crimes <br />were not even recorded. <br />Mr. Poling asked the chief to elaborate regarding the City's interaction with the OLCC. Chief Kerns said <br />the City could not regulate the sales of alcohol; only OLCC had that authority. He explained that the <br />OLCC would write an administrative rule that would enable Eugene to have an ordinance to prohibit the <br />sale of certain types of beverages in certain areas of town. <br />In response to follow -up questions from Mr. Poling, the chief explained that staff was currently discussing <br />possible changes with OLCC. He noted that the City of Portland had been granted an administrative rule <br />and it was considered a "success story." <br />Mr. Poling remarked that the Downtown Exclusion Ordinance was going to sunset soon. Chief Kerns <br />confirmed this. He said he would report back to the council on its effectiveness in the fall. <br />Continuing, Mr. Poling commented that CAHOOTS did a great deal for the community and was an <br />organization that did not receive enough recognition for the job that it did_ He wondered whether <br />CAHOOTS had a way of breaking down the amount of activity or crime they responded to in the <br />downtown area currently. He requested this information, if it was available. <br />Ms. Ortiz appreciated all the work that the committee had done. She noted that they had been a diverse <br />group of people. She agreed that CAHOOTS did a lot of work. She believed that if CAHOOTS had more <br />resources, it could provide more services. She recalled that the whiteaker Neighborhood had experienced <br />issues related to the sales of malt liquor during the previous summer and the EPD had engaged in a pilot <br />MINUTES Eugene City Council January 27, 2010 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />