Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/23/08 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 23, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy related that she had attended the performance of the Hunan performers. She lauded the performance for its “excellent musicians, acting and singing, and martial arts.” She noted it was a free event that attracted people who do not ordinarily go to the Hult Center for the Performing Arts. Mayor Piercy stated that the West Broadway Advisory Committee was meeting and working on the council directive regarding development projects on West Broadway. She said the West Eugene Collaborative was also “working hard” on traffic issues. She added that she, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor attended the first preparatory meeting for the United Front lobbying trip earlier in the day. Mr. Pryor reported that he was, with the “tremendous help” of the Churchill Area Neighbors (CAN), setting up a blog on the CAN Web site. He looked forward to taking advantage of the technological opportunity to be in better touch with his neighborhood. Ms. Bettman thanked the Mayor for mentioning the United Front. She said staff provided the councilors with a booklet that compiled all of the “asks” since 1986. She related that staff indicated that even though there had been a shift in politics, the money “was not there,” and the reason for this was the war. She predicted it would impact what they looked at as community priorities. Mr. Poling announced that he would not be able to attend the work session scheduled for July 25 as he would be attending a conference with the Association of Clean Water Agencies in Bend. He said the conference would focus on topics related to wastewater management and stormwater. Mr. Clark related that he had met with a number of constituents concerned with the infestation of nutria around the Delta Ponds wetlands. He thought his colleagues would be shocked at the intensity of the infestation. He said residents in the surrounding area were overwhelmed by nutria waste. Mr. Zelenka was glad to see that the gas station owners were unsuccessful in their attempt to place the gas tax on the ballot. He had been disappointed to see a letter to the editor of The Register-Guard that claimed MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 1 Work Session that the City had purposely committed voter fraud. He wished to stress that “nothing could be farther from the truth.” Mr. Zelenka displayed a shoebox that was 100 percent recyclable and was made utilizing sustainable business practices. He averred that Eugene should be “riding that wave.” He believed the box represented a great example of a sustainable project. Ms. Ortiz reminded her colleagues who wished to bid City Manager Dennis Taylor farewell that there would be an event honoring him on the following day in Studio One of the Hult Center for the Performing Arts from 4 to 6 p.m. She also wished to remind the community that now was the time to apply for boards, commissions, and committees. She noted there were five vacancies on the Police Commission. Ms. Ortiz said she would be speaking about her work in public service to the Latino/Latina Leadership Class at the Lane Community College the following day. Continuing, Ms. Ortiz reported that the Lane County Commissioners were undertaking a “listening tour.” She related that Commissioner Bobby Green would be at Willamette High School on August 1 at p.m. and she planned to attend. In closing, Ms. Ortiz shared a national magazine she received on Latino leaders that featured State School Superintendent Susan Castillo. City Manager Taylor introduced Kris Bloch, now serving as the Mayor and Council support staff person, who was sitting in for Beth Forrest, AIC (Acting in Capacity) Council Coordinator. He said he had been working with Assistant City Manager Angel Jones to ensure that there would be a smooth transition. He thanked everyone for the opportunity to serve as City Manager of the City of Eugene. B. WORK SESSION: Annual Meeting with the Police Commission City Manager Taylor introduced Police Commission Chair Maurie Denner and Vice Chair Angie Sifuentez. He said they would provide the annual report. He noted that the Police Commission was “one of the most hard-working commissions” in the City of Eugene and that its record of accomplishment was “outstanding.” Ms. Sifuentez thanked the City Manager for his kind words. She introduced the council to the new Vice Chair as of July 1, Joe Alsup, and the Chair Elect, Tamara Miller, who would be assuming their positions on November 1. She related that Mr. Denner, John Brown, Carla Newbre, and she would soon complete their last terms on the commission at the end of October. She said the commission had begun the year by recruiting new members. Tim Laue, Floyd Prozanski, Tracy Olson, Neil Van Steenbergen, and Ms. Bettman had completed their terms after years of service. She stated that the commission welcomed Mr. Alsup, Ms. Miller, Charlie Zennaché, and Charles Hare, as well as the new council liaisons, George Poling and Andrea Ortiz. Ms. Sifuentez reported that the Police Commission formed a committee to look at how the police response to domestic disturbances could be improved. She noted that when the committee began meeting it was during the difficult County budget process and it had been hard for agency representatives to find time to meet with MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 2 Work Session them. She said the committee ultimately had been able to identify “some low-hanging fruit” and would provide the commissioners with a report in September. Ms. Sifuentez stated that another committee formed to review and update the existing Police Operating Manual (POM) utilizing Lexipol as the basis for policy updates. She said a subcommittee was formed under that committee to specifically look at Tasers and use of force. She related that in April, when all of nd the new members were on board, they had gone to the 2 Avenue and Chambers Street training facility and had an overview of the application of police use of force which included four hours of scenario training. She felt the training had been valuable as it provided a better understanding of the legal parameters and the dynamics of situations. She reported that the Use of Force/Taser Police Committee met several times and was very interested in community input. She stressed that each meeting opened and closed with a community forum portion of the agenda and that people could submit comments on the Web at any time. She said given that the subcommittee was wrestling with critical issues, the item would be carried over to the next year. Continuing, Ms. Sifuentez said the work around police response to people who were having a mental health crisis would continue into the next year. She explained that the Mental Health Crisis Response Committee (MHCRC) learned that this was a massive and complex problem. She related that the MHCRC had researched models for crisis intervention training, they had input from consumers, and they had developed some recommendations. Mr. Denner said the “other big piece” of the program had to do with oversight. He observed that Eugene had done more work around policy and planning than a number of communities did, but more communities had an oversight model similar to what had evolved with the auditor’s position and the Civilian Review Board (CRB). He noted that the commission also spent time on the groundwork for Cris Beamud, Police Auditor, to do the work to train the CRB as it was set up. He said they also worked at setting a context so that it did not feel to the community like indoctrination; rather it was akin to “opening doors.” Mr. Denner stated that one unresolved issue was related to the oversight language. He said a subgroup of the commission spent time helping Ms. Beamud craft language regarding what constituted a complaint and how they would be identified. He related that they met with Ms. Beamud several times and had held the first joint meeting of the CRB and the Police Commission. Mr. Denner indicated that there was a second suggested motion in the council packet related to scheduling a public hearing on some recommended changes to the ordinance that established the Police Commission. He explained that the commission was recommending the ordinance be modified so the liaison or person appointed by the Chief of Police was eliminated and replaced with an at-large member. He said as the CRB introduced larger issues to the community they planned to bring them to the Police Commission which would review policies and conduct outreach. Mr. Denner invited Mr. Alsup and Ms. Miller to the table. Mr. Alsup underscored that the committees that were the Police Commission’s primary focus were the MHCRC and the Use of Force/Taser Police Committee. He said the committee that was working on domestic violence would continue its work, but for the present fiscal restraints were going to restrict any results; primarily the recommendations were for procedural improvements and training. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Regarding the MHCRC, Mr. Alsup reported that the committee members had talked to representatives of 13 agencies. He related that the overriding theme they heard was that the loss of a safety net of services for people in a mental health crisis created a situation where, by default, police officers were the resource called to help. He said the lack of alternatives demanded there be reviews in order to see if there were other things to put into place so some of the tragedies that had transpired could be avoided in the future. He said the “first tier wish list” included provision of a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT). He explained that they reviewed the Memphis model, in which a specially trained CIT would be dispatched if a 911 call was made for someone in a mental health crisis. He stated that many communities now had a CIT. He related that the most compelling presentation they had seen was from the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department, which had a CIT training and team. He felt this was obviously doable and that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) could do it. He said there was also compelling evidence that supported enhancement of the Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) services, perhaps with expanded hours and a second vehicle. Mr. Alsup related that the second tier wish list included establishment of a facility with a no refusal policy. He explained that the alternative that officers had at this point was to take people in crisis to jail or to the Johnson Unit at Sacred Heart Hospital. He averred that taking someone in this type of crisis to jail was not the “best therapeutic thing to do.” The committee supported having a facility similar to the Buckley House that was staffed with professional mental health personnel so that people had somewhere to go. He related that the other item on the list was to expand Mental Health Court. He explained that the court could visibly mandate mental health supervision and programs and services. Continuing, Mr. Alsup stated that the MHCRC had a third tier wish list which included reinstatement of the psychiatric beds at the jail. He underscored that a critical mass happened when that option for patients was lost. He related that they heard testimony from almost all of the agency representatives that affirmed that the crisis had become repetitive and the incidents more severe after that closure. He said the last item on the list was to potentially reserve some bed space at the state facility that was planned to be built in Junction City. Mr. Alsup reported that the Use of Force/Taser Police Committee, chaired by Mr. Brown and Ms. Miller, had been the most “energized” with emotional concerns. He believed it was for good reason. He acknowl- edged that when tasers were first used elsewhere, it was a tool that was sometimes abused and used for coercion and punishment because of the lack of oversight. He hoped they could give EPD officers another tool that was short of deadly force to confront a person who was aggressing toward them. He said forming the policy and making it viable with community values had been interesting. He related that the public forum held on June 27 was attended by over 50 people. He listed the public concerns, which included a distrust of the police and that the Human Rights Commission (HRC) felt the process was flawed in that it lacked public input. Regarding the latter, he said the commission had worked with the HRC and the perception had improved. He also noted that some mental health advocates had pointed to the misuse of tasers that had occurred early on. He reported that there was no consensus among medical professionals regarding the health implications of taser use, but there was concern that the risk of taser application could be a contributing factor to death in some cases. He pointed out that there had not been an independent study of taser use; rather studies had been primarily industry-based. Mr. Alsup commended the committee members for their hard work on the difficult issue of tasers. He stressed that they “all had [their] eye on the prize” of finding a solution other than deadly force for officers confronted with deadly violence. He said other areas of the taser policy that were explored included where to place tasers on the use-of-force continuum, whether there should be a minimum number of taser MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 4 Work Session applications per incident per subject, what defined a static resister, whether fleeing subjects could be “tased,” whether officer training could include voluntary taser use on themselves, and how to define “medically fragile.” Regarding the minimum number of taser applications, he noted that general consensus was that the limit per application should be five seconds. Mr. Alsup stated that the commission was looking at the International City Managers Association (ICMA) report in its work on policies related to in-car video. Ms. Miller reported that there were two new projects on the work plan having to do with council priorities. She said the commission assembled a small task force to work to refine siting criteria for a police patrol facility that was separate from City Hall. The task force will be presenting its report at the September meeting of the Police Commission. Ms. Miller stated that the second item was related to the Magellan staffing study. She related that the commission discussed at its June 14 meeting what role it might have in facilitating a community conversa- tion on police staffing levels and in formulating policy recommendations on long-range staffing decisions. The commission concluded it needed to better understand the report’s inputs and variables so that the commission could speak to how credible the results of the study were, to develop recommendations on the staffing analysis, and to help identify key policy issues related to staffing and service levels. She said the commission would facilitate public education input on police staffing expectations and priorities. Ms. Miller said the commission was preparing for a “major membership transition.” She noted that Hugh Massengill resigned as the HRC liaison. She looked forward to having a new liaison. She reported that the commission would also be recruiting for replacements for Ms. Sifuentez, Mr. Denner, Mr. Ahlen, and Ms. Newbre. She commended them for their eight years of service to the Police Commission. She related that the Police Commission recommended that there be an orientation for all incoming members of boards, committees, and commissions. She averred that it would be beneficial for the incoming people to be briefed on roles, expectations, and public meeting procedures among other things. Additionally, Ms. Miller noted that the commission had “attempted” to not take on too many new projects. She averred that this would leave room for emerging issues and for new members to “get up to speed.” Mayor Piercy thanked the commissioners for the report. She expressed appreciation for the four commis- sioners who were completing their terms. Mayor Piercy suggested that the commission include the Police Auditor when reviewing the Magellan report. She felt Ms. Beamud could bring a level of expertise to the table. Mayor Piercy wished to note her concern that it could be difficult to discern who was physically frail when an officer was faced with deciding whether or not to deploy a taser. Ms. Ortiz thanked the members of the commission who were nearing the end of their terms and said it had been a pleasure to work with them. She believed that the police did not have the skills to identify whether a person was having a mental health crisis and to know how to get them to a safe place. She advocated for giving them those skills. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 5 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Alsup affirmed that the MHCRC had made a flow chart that delineated the options a person in crisis would have. Ms. Ortiz remarked that different people had different ways of addressing things and there was no set standard for what worked best for anyone. Ms. Ortiz lauded CAHOOTS, saying that it was “obvious” it was a good program. She recalled that CAHOOTS had applied to put a second van in Springfield, but the City of Springfield opted not to support it. She commented that if it was “already clogged” in Eugene with one van, where would the people go with two vans? She felt the problem needed to be addressed systemically. Mr. Alsup said often the CAHOOTS team could solve the initial problem and keep people from going into incarceration. Ms. Bettman echoed the previously expressed gratitude for the four departing commissioners. She appreciated the detail on both the Use of Force Policies and for the work of the MHCRC. Regarding the taser policy, she had heard from a constituent that indicated that departments were utilizing tasers with video cameras on them. She thought this would aid the perception of transparency in the process for the community. Mr. Alsup affirmed that some tasers had video and audio capacity. Mr. Denner said they would have a trial with four that had video capacity and four that did not. He stated that tasers with video capacity added to the bulk and weight on police utility belts. He explained that the video was only active once the taser was out of the utility belt and was activated. Ms. Bettman asked if the subcommittee looked at having video capacity included on all tasers. Mr. Alsup replied that this was why the trial was set up to compare the two types of tasers. He underscored that they were trying to ascertain the benefits of the video option. He was uncertain whether the downside of that bulk and the finite time it would be recording would be outweighed by the benefits. Ms. Bettman asked where the police siting options were in relation to the City Council’s timeline regarding a new city hall. Police Chief Bob Lehner recalled that when the most recent discussion regarding a new city hall had been held, part of the materials included an element of assistance of a consultant to look at and evaluate different sites. He related that the Police Commission was asked if it would take on an advisory role and a facilitation role in terms of increased public input into the process. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Chief Lehner clarified that the Police Commission had been asked to assist by the council and this was an add-on to the process. Ms. Bettman asked if the committee’s work would transpire prior to the council’s consideration of site options. City Manager Taylor affirmed that it would. He said there would be workshop on September 26, after the council break, and this process would provide assistance through the consultants to follow on the adoption of the work from the last council work session on this item. He felt it would provide additional information consistent with the concept that was explained to the council at the last workshop. Ms. Bettman asked if the council had ever definitively, by a motion or action, defined the sites for a patrol facility as within downtown. City Manager Taylor replied that the council had not. He thought the position now was to look for a site outside of the City Hall complex. Ms. Bettman said she knew it was thought to be outside of City Hall but she had not realized that sites outside of the downtown area were being considered. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Zelenka wished to add his gratitude for the service of the departing members of the Police Commission. He also wanted to know how much an additional CAHOOTS van would cost. Chief Lehner responded that it would cost $70,000, not including operating costs. He noted that when the City of Springfield backed out from participating in the purchase of another van, the City of Eugene increased the hours of the existing CAHOOTS unit with the money it would have contributed to the second van. Mr. Zelenka asked who requested that the Police Commission help out with siting a new patrol facility. Chief Lehner replied that the council asked the Police Commission to do so. He explained that it was in the work plan for the overall City Hall project. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Chief Lehner stated that the only decision that had been made was that it would be better not to have the police patrol facility inside the City Hall building but other than that, no site, downtown or otherwise, had been ruled out. Mr. Zelenka averred that it would be appropriate to bring the scope of that group back to the council to ensure that everyone was “on the same page.” Ms. Ortiz observed that the committee was conducting outreach not dissimilar to the committees that involved the communities of color and other committees. She thought the Police Commission was the “obvious arm” of the community to try and generate interest and get information out about police patrol facilities. She underscored that this was her understanding of the charge. Mr. Denner pointed out that Ms. Ortiz had volunteered to serve on the committee. Mr. Zelenka asked if Ms. Ortiz understood the options to include the existing City Hall site. Ms. Ortiz replied that the options included any property that the City owned. Mr. Zelenka noted that the existing site was a large lot and nothing would preclude the patrol facility for being constructed on it. Chief Lehner agreed. He said the only limitation, as he understood the council’s actions, was that the decision had been made that the main police patrol facility would not be part of the City Hall building. Ms. Ortiz reiterated that all of the recommendations would come back to the City Council for approval. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the Police Commission’s work plan for Fiscal Year 08. Ms. Bettman said she would want to see the language that was being cited. She did not remember that the council delegated to the Police Commission the work of garnering public input on the patrol facility siting process. She wanted to know what the council’s role would be after receiving the committee’s recommenda- tion. She indicated she would vote against the work plan until she had this information. Mr. Zelenka commented that he was uncertain as to what exactly the work plan included in regard to site selection. He indicated he would oppose the motion until he had a better understanding of it. Ms. Taylor also did not understand why the Police Commission would “be dealing” with the site selection. Mr. Denner explained that the charge of the Police Commission was to be the committee advisory to the EPD and the City Council, as well as the management team. He said based on the commission’s experience MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 7 Work Session with police issues, he had considered a compliment to be asked to help in this way. He stressed that the commission would provide whatever public input it could but would not serve in a decision- making role. Ms. Taylor agreed that the commission served as an advisory body regarding policy but she did not perceive the siting of the patrol facility as policy-related. She said she was “a little disturbed” by this. Mayor Piercy said if the council did not have enough clarification on this particular item, it seemed to her that it could be pulled out of the work plan for separate consideration. Mr. Clark thanked the commissioners whose terms were ending and commended them for volunteering. He said he would support the motion. He did not see any fundamental change in the responsibility of the City Council when it came time to appropriately site a new police facility. He perceived the Police Commission’s work on this as “a wonderful addition to that,” given all of the work the commission did on police policy and the depth of understanding they had of some of the intricacies of what would be required in a new facility. Mr. Zelenka read from the document that the committee would evaluate potential sites and functions and that the team would work with staff to develop site criteria, research options for possible locations, and consider which programs would operate out of the facility. He assumed that the City Council would do this. He understood that the council wanted help in doing this work and he thought the Police Commission would add “some valuable conversation to that.” He said he wanted to see what “that was all about” before the commission did this task. Ms. Solomon expressed confidence that the committee would not get off “running in the wrong direction” because Ms. Ortiz was sitting on the committee. She pointed out that it was six-week task force working on a short timeline. She did not understand why the council would not want their input. She averred that they were “just taking a first cut” at the issues and possibly sifting out the ones that would not work for the City. She appreciated the committee’s willingness to do some of the research for the council. Ms. Taylor commented that she would “belatedly” thank the departing commissioners for their service and she wanted also to congratulate Mayor Piercy on her new appointments. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to temporarily delete the language regarding the patrol facility siting from the motion to approve the work plan. Ms. Bettman said it sounded to her like the process would be completed before the council would do what it thought it would do. She felt the work would be prescriptive. She indicated that she would support the other recommendations in the work program. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Denner stated that the Police Commission had not undertaken a process at this point to identify the community priorities; it had not scoped out the work yet. Mr. Zelenka supported the amendment, adding that he supported the rest of the items in the work plan. Mayor Piercy expressed concern about “how this will work out.” She felt that with a little more work something that “was satisfying for everyone” could be provided. She thought it was in the best interest of the commission to “get to a place where everybody could say ‘yeah, go do that.’” MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 8 Work Session The motion to amend failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Zelenka voting in fa- vor. The main motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Zelenka voting in opposi- tion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to schedule a public hearing on an ordinance concerning the Police Commission. Ms. Bettman observed that the Citizen Review Board had been changed to the Civilian Review Board. She noted that the proposed ordinance contained language that referred to members of the Police Commission as citizens and asked if that was intentional. She asked if they wanted to replace the word ‘citizen’ with ‘civilian.’ She wanted to know whether there was a requirement for members of the Police Commission to be a citizen. Mr. Denner replied that members were required to live within the city limits. Ms. Bettman averred that ‘citizen’ had a legal definition and suggested that inclusion of that word made it a criterion to be a citizen. She thought they needed to find a different word. City Attorney Jerry Lidz said he did not think the word ‘citizen’ in the ordinance would make citizenship a requirement. He noted that the Police Commission had been in existence for eight years and he did not believe anyone had suggested that citizenship was a requirement. He pointed out that if Ms. Bettman wished to change the word ‘citizen’ to ‘civilian’ it would be no trouble to do so. Ms. Bettman indicated that she would like to consider using a word other than ‘citizen.’ She expressed concern that the word ‘citizen’ could deter someone from applying for the Police Commission. Ms. Bettman suggested that the CRB liaison be considered a member of the Police Commission instead of adding another member to it. Ms. Ortiz concurred. Ms. Taylor also agreed and asked if the council should make a motion to that effect. City Manager Taylor recommended waiting. He suggested that staff prepare it as options for the motion in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) at the time. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment so that the language referring to the Police Auditor making periodic reports to the Police Commission would say “shall” and not “may.” The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman cited language the indicated that the “member appointed from the Civilian Review Board shall assist in redirecting any complaints received about employees.” It seemed to her that it was the obligation of the City staff and EPD staff to ensure that complaints were officially forwarded to the Police Auditor. She said when she served on the Police Commission, people came to the public forums with complaints and she felt appreciative that commissioners would forward complaints. She thought the language was misleading because it did not reinforce staff’s obligation to forward complaints. Mr. Denner stressed that the intent of the Police Commission in recommending this language was to provide a friendly response to someone who was upset with customer service and not necessarily just a staff response. He said it was not intended to keep staff from redirecting that complaint. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman agreed that it was not anything but a language issue. She wanted language that would reinforce that it was staff’s obligation and that the CRB member would assist the complainant. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Exceptions for Tailgating Around Autzen Stadium City Manager Taylor invited Captain Pete Kerns of the EPD to address the council on education, enforce- ment and the changing dynamics around Autzen Stadium, especially during football season. Capt. Kerns noted that Chief Lehner, Senior Planner Linda Phelps, Building and Permit Services Division Manager Marsha Miller, and Ross Williamson from the City Attorney’s Office had helped with the proposed changes to the City ordinance. He recalled that they had first brought a handful of options before the council on February 26 to help address some of the problems around public drinking around Autzen Stadium on game days. He said those included the disparity of enforcement of the public drinking ordinance, as it was enforced effectively around the City except for on game day where it was violated “massively” at neighboring properties around Autzen Stadium. He stated that there was also a disparity between what was permitted on Autzen Stadium property and what was not permitted across the street. He recalled that staff had been asked to come up with solutions to address the problem behavior related to alcohol consumption in that area. He said staff left the work session with some direction to consider a permitting option that would permit property owners who wished to have pay-per-use parking lots to get an exception to the public drinking ordinance. He related that through discussions with the not-for-profit organizations that would be affected by the ordinance and through internal discussions, staff arrived at the proposal that was before the council. Capt. Kerns explained that the permits would provide non-profit property owners to provide pay-per-use parking lots by registering with the PDD and the PDD would develop a process by which they could register. He said they would be required to provide a handbill to every vehicle operator who parked in the lots, that signage be posted regarding what the permit-able hours of alcohol consumption were, the prohibition of both the provision of alcohol to minors and the sale of alcohol, that disorderly behavior would not be tolerated, and that violations of the ordinance would be reported to the City which would result in a penalty of $200 on the first offense. He stated that three violations in one year would preclude being able to apply for a permit in the next year. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Capt. Kerns affirmed that the University of Oregon had rules dictating that anyone who violated behavior expectations on the University’s property would not be allowed to return. Mayor Piercy said she would like to see that other non-profit property owners were also required to disallow anyone who was behaving badly. Ms. Ortiz remarked that she wished they could ban alcohol altogether. She thought that it impacted public safety “down the road” on game days. She felt the overtime hours that officers worked also put the community at risk. She said she could support the ordinance in order to place the adjacent non-profit agencies on the same playing field as the Autzen Stadium lot. Ms. Taylor asked if the University was subject to the same penalties as the private lot owners. Mr. Lidz replied that it was not because it was under State jurisdiction. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Taylor agreed that it should be equal, though she found it ironic that there would be drinking in a parking lot for cars, given that someone would have to drive the car out of the lot, possibly after having consumed alcohol. Mr. Clark indicated his support for the ordinance. He asked how the permitting process would work. Capt. Kerns said the details had yet to be worked out. He added that part of the reason for permitting was to determine who would be the responsible party for the property. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Miller explained that the registration for a permit would “simply be paper shuffling.” She said the City would give a permit to anyone who came in for one. The reason they went with the registration was in order to have a contact name in case there were problems. Ms. Bettman opined that the ordinance was a “morally bankrupt public policy” because she believed it endorsed intoxication and drinking. She asserted that there were 56,000 traffic deaths per year nationwide and the majority of those involved alcohol. She felt the argument that some properties were making money from the tailgating parties made it okay brought up the issue of some of the property being public property. She pointed out that the Willamette Institute for Science and Technology (WISTEC) was publicly owned. She wanted to know what the City’s liability would be in the event that something happened. Ms. Bettman also took issue with the “special treatment” that allowed rules to be broken for football games. She asked how it would be different if it was a rock and roll concert or the Oregon Country Fair. She said she would not even support sending the ordinance to a public hearing. She declared that it would create more problems without creating more capacity to enforce the laws. Mr. Poling said he had brought the issue before the City Council based on suggestions from some of the non-profit organizations’ directors and members. He stressed that the ordinance was not about endorsing alcohol, it was about equalizing the rules for the non-profit organizations. He stated that otherwise the City should ban alcohol altogether for game days. He noted that many of the organizations already had rules in place and enforced them. He added that most of the people who park on these lots were known by property owners and had been there for a long time. Mr. Poling related that he had seen firsthand the results of alcohol consumption and what happened after people had been drinking and driving. He underscored that this did not stop young people from having parties when their parents were away on vacation and it did not stop the designated driver from having a few drinks. He noted that he had arrested designated drivers numerous times. Mr. Poling approved of the proposed geographic area for the ordinance. Mr. Zelenka related that he had “gone tailgating.” He was torn between encouraging drinking and driving and leveling the field for the surrounding non-profit-owned parking lots. He was not certain that it was a good public policy. He said he would welcome testimony from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and other groups indicating how they would modify the ordinance. He was not necessarily in favor of banning alcohol at this point. Mr. Zelenka expressed some uncertainty as to whether putting the property owners into the enforcement role would work. He thought having them enforce rules and potentially kick someone off the property would be challenging. He hoped that the council would review this after the football season and see what happened. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Zelenka thought the size of the exemption zone was large and wondered why it was so big. Capt. Kerns replied that it was an easily identifiable area. He said it included the properties that had traditionally offered tailgating and also only included commercial land. He underscored that the ordinance was really only designed for those properties for which it made sense to offer pay-per-use parking. Mr. Zelenka said he would like to see amendment language that would narrow the boundaries, especially to exclude Alton Baker Park. Mr. Clark suggested that this was not so much about treating football games differently. He noted that he had worked in an organization that raised money for youth, selling concessions at Grateful Dead concerts among other things. He assured his colleagues that very similar conduct was going on in the parking lot and surrounding area during such events. He stressed that the ordinance would not change the current behavior; no new tailgate parties would “sprout up.” He supported its approval. Ms. Bettman opined that this was like saying “people shoplift so let’s just make it legal.” She wanted language that would eliminate the exemption altogether. She thought it “just did not make sense.” She felt that alcohol consumption within the stadium was “fine.” She reiterated her request for information regarding the City’s liability. Capt. Kerns clarified that drinking was not currently allowed in Autzen Stadium. Mr. Poling asked Ms. Bettman if she meant eliminating all alcohol consumption, including the parking lots and the Moshofsky Center. Capt. Kerns noted that event inside the Moshofsky Center on game days had an Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) license. Ms. Bettman affirmed that she would seek to eliminate drinking entirely, with the exception of drinking licensed by the OLCC. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4951, an ordinance amending Section 2.090 of the Eugene Code. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bett- man voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 12 Work Session