Laserfiche WebLink
advocates. He emphasized that there was always a judge in the Municipal Courtroom to ensure that <br />advocates were not violating the law by acting as attorneys. <br />Mr. Poling had not initially favored giving up the temporary exclusion reflected in Section 8.476. <br />However, based on information provided by staff and the overall nature of the approach being taken, he <br />supported deleting the section. <br />Mr. Poling believed the ordinance was not perfect or necessarily the solution to downtown's problems, but <br />it was a tool to address problems downtown. Because downtown was where the problem was occurring, <br />Mr. Poling thought the council needed to take action to address it. He acknowledged that many positive <br />things occurred downtown and he appreciated the changes that were being made, but he also believed the <br />DPSZ would have positive benefits. <br />Mr. Poling determined from City Attorney Klein that City Manager Ruiz could return to the council with <br />an ordinance to extend the sunset period. Mr. Poling thought that was necessary given unanticipated <br />delays in the hiring, training, and officer deployment process. <br />Ms. Solomon asked how the City could offer advocacy for individuals cited for a DPSZ violation but did <br />not provide similar services for those cited elsewhere in the community. She feared the council's action <br />would open the door to a larger advocacy program. Chief Kerns indicated that the City offered advocates <br />for targeted groups, such as those who spoke only Spanish. Speaking to the question of how to prevent <br />expansion of the service, Chief Kerns suggested that City could not expand the service without the <br />authority of the council. He said the City was not obliged to provide an advocate in other processes just <br />because the council chose to do so in this circumstance. <br />Ms. Solomon asked if the advocacy program would go away when the ordinance expired. Chief Kerns <br />said yes. Ms. Solomon determined from Chief Kerns that the City's current contract for advocacy service <br />called for payment by the hour and he anticipated that approach would continue. <br />Ms. Solomon asked if the City received had complaints about a lack of advocacy services. Chief Kerns <br />said no. Ms. Solomon suggested the advocacy services element of the ordinance was a solution in search <br />of a problem and she could not support the expenditure. <br />Mr. Brown could not support the ordinance for reasons he had stated before. He termed the revisions <br />made to the ordinance "lipstick on a gorilla." He did not think the statistics provided to the council <br />demonstrated the program's effectiveness. He believed criminal activity had been shifted. Some crimes <br />were down in the DPSZ but they were up outside the zone. There had been an increase in assault inside <br />the DPSZ. Mr. Brown suggested the number of sex offenses in downtown in the last 2 -1/2 years did not <br />warrant their inclusion in the list of crimes for which one could be excluded. <br />Mr. Zelenka supported the revisions to the ordinance, particularly the addition of advocacy services and <br />the elimination of the temporary exclusion. He appreciated the council's willingness to consider changes. <br />He had not supported the initial ordinance because of concerns regarding its constitutionality. He had <br />been concerned that Eugene Police Department statistics indicated 60 percent of those excluded were <br />homeless. He speculated the remainder of those excluded were low- income and lacked education. Mr. <br />Zelenka continued to be concerned that the DPSZ would move crime out of downtown and into other <br />areas. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council December 8, 2010 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />