Laserfiche WebLink
justice, but she envisioned that those issues would be addressed by the courts rather than through an <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr pointed out that unruly gatherings frequently occurred on publicly owned property with <br />disconcerting impacts on passersby and suggested that might be a topic of future council discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling suggested a two-year sunset might be better for the purpose of seeing the results of the <br />ordinance. He asked that the council be provided with a copy of the County’s social host ordinance and a <br />comparison of the two ordinances. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown advocated for a clear definition of “host” and suggested criteria be developed for that purpose. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought the definition of an unruly gathering was too vague. She was concerned about the <br />proposed fines because parties could grow in size without any single person being responsible. She <br />thought the ordinance should be focused on problem solving rather than fining people. Ms. Taylor was <br />also concerned about passing new laws when the City could not enforce the ones currently in place. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark shared Ms. Taylor’s concern about passing new laws. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz agreed with Ms. Taylor that “unruly gathering” needed to be better defined. She questioned if <br />the ordinance would result in savings for the City’s “Party Patrol.” She determined from Chief Kerns that <br />the City’s response ordinance addressed businesses and asked for more information about the relationship <br />between that ordinance and the proposed ordinance. Ms. Ortiz did not support applying the ordinance <br />citywide. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor shared Ms. Taylor’s concern about assigning an individual all the responsibility for a party that <br />grew in size and suggested that the fine for the first offense be reexamined. He believed there was a core <br />problem that the ordinance was intended to address and wanted to ensure that focus was maintained. He <br />believed the ordinance needed more work so it could accommodate the accidental incident as opposed to <br />the highly intentional incident. <br /> <br />Speaking to the concept of restorative justice, Mayor Piercy endorsed the use of community service or <br />other non-monetary consequences for first-time offenders. She wanted to ensure that innocent bystanders <br />were protected. Mayor Piercy called for an appeal process for tenants as well as landlords. She believed <br />that good data collection and analysis was needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Rikhoff shared some of the UO’s efforts related to restorative justice. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka questioned if the ordinance could be limited to a single geographic area. Mr. Kinnison said <br />the Municipal Court encouraged staff to craft an ordinance with broad applicability. Mr. Zelenka <br />suggested that the procedures used by the police to identify the “responsible person” could be useful in <br />developing a better definition. He suggested the ordinance should include a provision that allowed a <br />party host to call the police to request assistance for an out-of-control party and be held harmless. He <br />asked if the ordinance could be incorporated into tenant lease and sublease agreements. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown supported the proposed ordinance. He believed the ordinance should be applicable to the <br />entire community. He was concerned that the ordinance did not speak to the issue of party buses. <br /> <br />City Manager Ruiz reported that due to the concerns expressed by the students of the ASUO, the public <br />hearing might be rescheduled. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 23, 2012 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />