Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/14/1987 Meeting (3) M I NUT E S - Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session Eugene Community Conference Center--Hellman Room January 14, 1987 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Debra Ehrman, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten, Ruth Bascom, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Robert Bennett The adjourned meeting from January 14, 1987 at 1:30 p.m. of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. Mayor Obie said the meeting is not a public hearing although many people are in the audience. He said the meeting is a work session. He reviewed the format to be followed. I. NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE ORDINANCE - City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the staff presentation. Jody Miller, Director of the Intergovernmental Relations Division (IGR), said the councilors asked for additional information about the Nuclear-Free Zone Ordinance (Measure 51) that was passed on November 4, 1986. She reviewed the material the councilors received prior to the meeting and said a January 13, 1987, memo from Michael Goldstein was distributed to the councilors at their 11:30 a.m. meeting today. She introduced Glen Potter of the IGR staff and Tim Sercombe and Kathleen Pierce from the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Potter introduced people in the audience from Political Action for Lasting Security and the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Partnership who, he said, could help answer questions from the councilors. He said there are 132 nuclear-free zones in the United States and 3,100 nuclear-free zones in the world. He said a nuclear-free zone ordinance was passed in November 1986 by the Lane County voters and that ordi nance is di fferent from the Eugene ordinance. He said most people agree that the Eugene ordinance is one of the most aggressive in the United States. Mr. Potter said that to date he is not aware of any measurable economic impact directly attributable to the Eugene nuclear-free zone ordinance. However, the City has received many inquiries about the ordinance. Ms. Pierce discussed the scope of the Eugene nuclear-free zone ordinance and the legal problems caused by the ordinance. She referred to Appendix B of the January 9, 1987, memo titled, "Nuclear-Free Zone Ordinance." The memo was from Micheal Gleason, City Manager, to the Mayor and City Council. Ms. Pierce compared the Lane County and Chicago nuclear-free zone ordinances to the Eugene Ordinance. She said the Lane County ordinance received more votes in Eugene than the Eugene ordinance. The Chicago ordinance has been analyzed ,e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 1987 Page 1 e e e extensively and is considered legally defensible. She said many people think it is a model nuclear-free zone ordinance. Ms. Pierce said there are fewer findings in the Lane County ordinance than in the Eugene ordinance and there are additional economic-related findings in the Chicago ordinance. She said the Chicago ordinance specifically excludes the Federal government from the scope of the ordinance. She said the Eugene ordinance prohibits public and private entities from intentionally or knowi ngly doi ng speci fi c thi ngs in Eugene. She revi ewed the prohi bited activities. She said the design, development, testing, launching, producing, maintenance, or storage of certain products in Eugene is prohibited under certain circumstances and planning or prosecuting a nuclear war in Eugene is prohibited. She said the prohibition against planning or prosecuting a nuclear war is difficult to interpret. She discussed the application of the ordinance to specific activities and products. She said products must be very specialized to be prohibited. She compared the activities excluded in the Eugene ordinance to those excluded in the Lane County ordinance and the Chicago ordinance. Ms. Pierce said the City Attorney.s Office found significant legal problems with four of the provisions in the Eugene ordinance. The provisions are: 1) the prohibition on producing nuclear power; 2) the prohibition on transporting nuclear wastes; 3) the prohibition on storing and disposing of nuclear wastes; and 4) the enforcement section. She discussed the governing authority of local communities and said it must not conflict with Federal or State laws. However,' there is a presumption in Oregon that local police power is valid unless there is clear intent to the contrary. Discussing the ban on nuclear weapons activities in the ordinance, Ms. Pierce said the City Attorney's Office recommends that the ordinance specifically exempt the Federal government from the provisions of the ordinance, that the nuclear safety concerns and critiques of foreign military policy be deleted from the findings in the ordinance, and that the economic concerns in the ordinance be strengthened. She said the prohibition on planning or prosecut i ng nucl ear war may present some due-process probl ems because citizens may not know what the prohibition means. Ms. Pierce said the prohibitions on the production of nuclear power, the transportation of nuclear wastes, and the storage and disposal of nuclear wastes in the Eugene ordinance are preempted by Federal and/or State laws. Discussing the enforcement section of the ordinance, Ms. Pierce said the Eugene Municipal Court may not have jurisdiction to hear legal cases resulting from the ordinance. If so, only State courts could hear the cases and the City of Eugene cannot enlarge the power of State courts. She said cities may not have the power to authorize citizen suits in situations that would result from the prohibitions in the ordinance. Discussing the Nuclear Free Zone Board, Ms. Pierce said the section giving the board the right to develop administrative procedures may give the board the right to make policy; however the City Charter grants policy-making authority exclusively to the City Manager and the City Council. Also, there is a MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 1987 Page 2 e problem with the board assuring compliance with the ordinance when the City Attorney's Office has indicated that four parts of the ordinance probably would be held unconstitutional. Several councilors asked questions about the ordinance. Answering questions from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Pierce said the Municipal Court could be given jurisdiction over penal violations of the ordinance if the injunction provision was deleted and the fine was reduced to $2,500. Ms. Pierce said the $500 daily fine is not a problem for the Municipal Court but the equitable powers of the court should be studied. Replying to questions from Mr. Rutan, Ms. Pierce said the manufacture of something that might or might not be used in a missile is not prohibited by the ordinance. Conventional weapons are not addressed in the ordinance. Responding to questions from Ms. Wooten, Ms. Pierce said a component of a delivery system would not be within the scope of the ordinance unless it is specialized and enhances the delivery system. Mr. Sercombe said the ordinance requires the Nuclear-Free Zone Board to review contracts between a public agency and nucl ear weapons contractors. The ordi nance does not ban the contracts but suggests that their existence be publicized. Whether a research contract with the Department of the Navy would be affected by the ordinance would depend on the type of activities covered by the contract. If the contract involved the production of nuclear weapons systems, it might be covered by the ordinance. Contracts with every public institution within the city limits of Eugene are covered by the ordinance. e Answering questions from Mr. Holmer, Ms. Pierce said the production of nuclear power is defined in the ordinance as production for energy generation. She said a nuclear-fueled plant for producing electricity would be covered by the ordi nance. The ordi nance probably woul d not cover a therma 1 plant that produces electricity and uses nuclear energy in some way. Mayor Obie said nuclear power is produced at the Trojan Plant in Washington and some decisions about the plant are made by the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). Some of the power from the Trojan plant might be used in Eugene. Mr. Sercombe said nuclear power would have to be produced within the city limits to be subject to the ordinance. Answering questions from Mayor Obie about a $5,000 fee for anyone who succeeds in obtaining an injunction against violations of the ordinance, Ms. Pierce discussed Municipal Court jurisdiction and said there are problems with the amount of the fixed fee and the possibility that a violation of the ordinance might be a criminal offense. Replying to other questions from Ms. Wooten, Ms. Pierce said a nuclear-free zone ordinance in New Jersey that prohibited the use of nuclear wastes for food irradiation was declared unconstitutional. She said the issue needs to be studied. Mr. Sercombe said the Nuclear Free Zone Board would not have authority to review contacts between private companies but contracts between a public agency and private companies might be reviewed. Mr. Gleason discussed a vote in 1970 about nuclear power. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 1987 Page 3 e Replying to other questions of Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Pierce said the ordinance gives the Nuclear Free Zone Board power to do certain things and to develop a plan for funding activities. She said the $5,000 fee to anyone who succeeds in obtaining an injunction against a violation of the ordinance would be paid by the defendant. Mr. Potter said the estimated cost of $15,000 to $45,000 annually for the Nuclear Free Zone Board includes overhead expenses and the salary for a person who would work one-third time to full-time. Responding to questions from Mr. Miller, Ms. Pierce said no specific court opinions indicate that a ban on nuclear weapons activity is unconstitutional. However, similar bans on transportation of nuclear wastes, nuclear power production, and the storage of nuclear wastes have been declared unconstitutional although the bans have not been in nuclear-free ordinances. Answering questions from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Potter said enforcement and legal costs will depend on how active the City is in enforcing the ordinance. Mr. Gleason said minimum enforcement would mean the City's professional staff would have to investigate complaints which may have to be reviewed by attorneys who will file a finding. The City might have to defend a complaint. In the case of a violation, the City would be involved in the litigation. He said the C~ty has spent about $5,000 of staff time and $8,000 for legal work on the ordinance so far. Answering questions from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Sercombe said the City Attorney has had a responsibility to defend the City since the ordinance was passed if a legal challenge to the ordinance is filed. e Mayor Obie said passage of the Nuclear-Free Zone ordinance has created somewhat of a maze for the council. He said it is clear that Eugene is a nuclear-free zone. It is also clear that the City has legal problems created by the ordinance as well as financial burdens. He said the council must find a solution to the problems. Mayor Obie distributed the outline of a process for implementing the nuclear- free zone ordinance. The outline was titled, "Mayor1s Proposal on Nuclear Free Zone." He said it acknowledged that Eugene is a nuclear-free zone and suggested applicants for a temporary Nuclear Free Zone Task Force be recruited from the City Council, research community, nuclear-free zone proponents, League of Women Voters, Chamber of Commerce, Cl ergy & Laity Concerned, education community, Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. The outline also suggested that the Task Force concentrate on advising the City on notification processes, advising the City on placement of nuclear-free zone signs, and studying legal issues, practical issues, and the relationship of the nuclear-free zone to the City's economic development programs. The outline suggested the task force should complete its work by April 1, but Mayor Obie said he would like to delete the date and ask the task force to complete the work as soon as possible. Mr. Holmer said he is concerned about the impact that the discrepancy between the regulations in Eugene and Springfield will have on economic development. He suggested that representatives from the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Partnership be appointed to the task force instead of representatives of the education community. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 1987 Page 4 e Responding to Mr. Holmer, Mayor Obie said he agreed with Mr. Holmer' s suggestion about the Metropolitan Partnership. However, Mayor Obie said it is important to have representatives of the public school districts on the task force. He suggested the council adopt the concept in the outline and ask the Mayor and the council president and vice president to refine the process. Ms. Wooten said she supported Mr. Holmer's suggestion. Ms. Schue said she supported Mayor Obie1s suggestions but the ordinance is clear about what the City should do about notification and the placement of signs and the City should start doing those things. Mayor Obie suggested the task force advise the City on what kind of signs to erect. Ms. Ehrman said the duties of the task force seemed to be the responsibilities of the Nuclear Free Zone Board created by the ordinance. She wondered if the council could appoint the board and direct the members to do certain things. Mr. Sercombe responded that the activities of the task force would be similar to the responsibilities of the board. However, the duties of the board may impinge upon duties which the City Charter delegates exclusively to the City Council and the City Manager. Mr. Gleason added that empowering the board would raise the question of whether the board's charge in the ordinance is legal. The creation of the task force would enable the judicial concerns to be investigated. e Mr. Holmer said the council has amended the ordinance to indicate that the board should be appointed in March. He assumed the date will be amended again if the Mayor's suggested process is approved. He said he would be reluctant to identify the composition of the task force as the composition of the Nuclear-Free Zone Board. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the council adopt Mayor Obie's proposal to establish a Nuclear-Free Zone Task Force. Answering a question from Ms. Wooten, Mayor Obie said the task force probably could be appointed within 30 days. Ms. Ehrman said she wi 11 oppose the motion because the task force will be substituted for the Nuclear Free Zone Board. She said the board should be appointed and encouraged to proceed with the responsibilities that are clear in the ordinance. She said the problems in the ordinance will have to be communicated to the community. She said the council could work with the board to solve the problems. Mr. Gleason said the ordinance indicates that the Nuclear-Free Zone Board is temporary. Ms. Bascom said the appointment of the task force will give an opportunity to analyze the powers of the Nuclear Free Zone Board and may facilitate the implementation of the nuclear-free zone ordinance. She said she wants to move ahead in good faith. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 1987 Page 5 e e e The motion carried 7:1 with Councilors Holmer, Schue, Rutan, Wooten, Bascom, Miller, and Bennett voting aye and Councilor Ehrman voting nay. Mayor Obie said he believes in the statement the community is trying to make with respect to a nuclear-free zone. He said he will work to establish the statement in the best interests of the community. Ms. Wooten said she hopes the Nuclear Free Zone Task Force will not attempt to "gut" the integrity of the ordinance. She said the task force should address the legal difficulties. Ms. Schue said she assumed the task. force will present solutions to legal problems and move forward with the instructions of the voters. She said task force members should not rewrite the ordinance. Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) mnccja14 MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 1987 Page 6