Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/14/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall August 14, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé (participating via speakerphone), George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Tay- lor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Mr. Papé would participate via telephone. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Piercy reported that she attended the Multicultural and PRIDE Day celebrations over the weekend, as well as an event honoring the City’s many volunteers. She said that she and Ms. Taylor would be traveling to Eugene’s sister city of Irkutsk, Russia. She received many requests from the community to explore various aspects of life in Irkutsk such as sex education, domestic violence, environmental issues and labor unions. Ms. Taylor said that Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) was still plagued with complaints about odors, particularly vehicle exhaust. She said the State should consider emission control measures. She raised a concern over ticketing cars parked overnight because their owners were too drunk to drive and sought other transportation. She continued to be concerned about fines that multiplied if they were not paid. She said the interest should be capped and forgiven if the fine was paid. Mr. Papé announced he was attending the West Coast Corridor Council of Governments annual meeting being held in Portland and he would report to the council upon his return. Ms. Bettman apologized to constituents who were waiting on responses from her. She had been out of town for ten days and was catching up on e-mails and phone calls. Ms. Ortiz announced that she attended an anniversary celebration for the Community Alliance of Lane County (CALC), Riverfest at the River House, and the Human Rights Commission’s potluck and picnic. She said that a recent performance of Los Lobos at Cuthbert Amphitheater was well-attended. City Manager DennisTaylor reported that the fifth annual volunteer celebration event was attended by hundreds of people. He said that 8,000 people volunteered last year for a total of 97,000 hours. He thanked the many people who served on boards and commission, particularly the Police Commission, which worked extremely hard over the last two years. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Poling apologized for not attending the onsite interviews in Cambridge that were part of the background investigation for the police auditor candidate. He explained that a booking error and flight cancellations prevented him from traveling. He had an opportunity to discuss the interviews with investigator Jim Gardner and was pleased with the results. Ms. Ortiz reminded members of the community that applications were being taken for positions on boards and commissions and encouraged people to apply, particularly residents of the River Road, Santa Clara, Whiteaker and Bethel areas that were underrepresented on those bodies. B. WORK SESSION: Fiscal Year 2007 Police Commission Work Plan City Manager Taylor introduced Police Commission members Tim Laue, Angie Sifuentez, and Maurice Denner to present the commission’s annual report and proposed FY07 Work Plan. Ms. Piercy thanked members of the commission for their work, especially Mr. Laue as outgoing chair and Mr. Denner as chair-elect. Mr. Laue reviewed the commission’s FY 2005-2006 Annual Report. He said the commission was charged with reviewing policies, resources and issues in the community. He listed several policy reviews completed by the commission during the past year, including the SWAT policy, risk assessment, upgrade of equipment for the crisis negotiation team and in-car video policy. He said the commission reviewed the FY07 budget and revisited the Downtown Public Safety Action Plan, forwarding recommendations on the plan to the council. He said the major issue addressed by the commission during the past two years was the concept of community oversight. He said the commission, at the council’s request, developed recommendations regarding recruitment of a police auditor and those recommendations formed the basis of the council’s recruitment and selection process. He received feedback from a number of sources around the country that the recruitment process was very impressive. Mr. Laue said the commission also worked on mediation alternatives in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission and developed a series of recommendations. He said all of the commission’s recommendations, including the draft oversight ordinance, were presented in framework or outline form with options for consideration when finalized by the council and auditor. He thanked the council and City Manager on behalf of the commission for budgetary enhancements to police services. He said the commission also worked with the police chief and department on a strategic plan and held work sessions on domestic violence and use of the Lexipol model for department policies. He indicated that the outstanding issues requiring attention over the next three or four months were: 1) role of the Police Commission under the new oversight model, 2) determination of the day-to-day supervision of the auditor, and 3) ordinance framework for dealing with establishment of the auditor’s office and the civilian review board. He thanked the council and past councils for the honor of serving on the commission. Ms. Sifuentez referred to the draft civilian oversight ordinance framework included in the agenda packet. She said the commission established two committees: one committee developed draft language related to the auditor and the other developed language related to the civilian review board; the work of those committees was then combined in a final draft. She said the purpose was to create a framework that defined the basic functions of the board and auditor that could then be refined by the auditor. She said the city attorney MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 2 Work Session reviewed the draft language to ensure it was consistent with the charter amendment. She noted that some previously unresolved issues were also addressed, such as the membership qualifications and background investigation process for the civilian review board applicants. She said the city attorney cited two areas in the draft framework that would be subject to mandatory bargaining: confidentiality of personnel records and timeline for the completion of investigations. She said those issues would need to be resolved prior to enacting the ordinance. She indicated that the commission would work with the city attorney to review definitions and would work with the auditor if desired to help resolve outstanding issues and discuss other areas not included in the draft language that the auditor believed should be in the ordinance. She pointed out that those activities were in the commission’s proposed FY07 Work Plan. Mr. Denner remarked that much of the commission’s work was about people. He commended the work of outgoing members Tim Laue, Floyd Prozanski, and Tracy Olsen, staff member Jeannine Parisi, and Police Chief Robert Lehner. He pointed out the timeline chart in the work plan that identified on a month-by- month basis the following proposed tasks: ? Implement stages of the oversight model ? Review and comment on development and implementation of the family violence strategy ? Assist with revisions to the police operations manual ? Conduct work sessions to review the report card on the Lane County Criminal Justice System, the staffing consultant’s report on current and future staffing levels and Perspectives in Profiling train- ing Mr. Denner stated that the commission’s ongoing involvement in the oversight process would include building collaborative relationships that extended to the auditor’s office, continuing to refine the draft ordinance framework, working on policies and procedures for the auditor’s office as requested, aligning Internal Affairs policies with the operations of the auditor’s office and examining whether the commission’s role should change. He emphasized the commission’s ongoing concern about family violence and its search for ways to address that critical issue. He noted the FY07 Work Plan was approved at the commission’s last meeting and invited questions and comments from the council. Ms. Solomon was pleased that the commissioners would be working on the issue of family violence and suggested that they solicit input from the Relief Nursery and other organizations in the community that dealt with the victims of family violence. Mr. Kelly commended the commission for the extent and quality of its work. He supported the FY07 Work Plan and appreciated the plan to address family violence. He thought the draft ordinance framework was thorough and agreed with the recommendation to involve the auditor in finalizing the language. Mr. Papé also thanked the commission for its hard work and Mr. Laue for his leadership. He was pleased that the Police Department was proceeding to wards certification and asked if Lexipol established the certification guidelines and standards. Chief Lehner said that Lexipol was a subscription service to a model policy manual that was used as a base product from which each department would then develop its own set of policies and procedures. He said Lexipol expedited the process because the fundamental development work related to legal requirements was already done and the policy implications of state and federal court cases were monitored on an ongoing basis. He estimated that the certification process would take about two years. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Papé asked if the detailed quarterly report provided to the commission would be available in an abbreviated version for the public. Chief Lehner said the department was working with the commission to identify an appropriate executive summary that included pertinent information to provide to those who did not wish to read the entire report. Mr. Papé said the most critical issue for the community was to establish the credibility of the auditor’s office as soon as possible and reestablish confidence in the Police Department. He asked if outcomes for the auditor’s office would be established. Mr. Denner said the commission had discussed that but would wait until the auditor was on board and requested that type of assistance. Ms. Bettman also thanked the commission, Mr. Laue, and other outgoing members. She asked how the standardized Lexipol policies would affect the role of the commission in terms of policy review. Mr. Denner said that policy review was an area in which the commission developed strength and knowledge. He expected that as policies were revised, most of them would pass through the Police Commission. He envisioned in five years the commission’s role would be to provide community input into policies and procedures and the civilian review board would exist as a filter for the work of Internal Affairs and the management team with issues involving personnel. Ms. Bettman asked if the commission discussed criteria for which policies would come before it. Mr. Denner said there had been some discussion and the commission intended to review those policies on which it previously worked , such as use of force and crowd control policies. He said there were questions that arose in law enforcement practice that raised issues of community concern and those, along with procedural issues, would likely go to the commission. Mr. Laue added that policy work would still exist, even with Lexipol, and he expected that the auditor and civilian review board would refer questions that needed to be addressed on a policy level to the commission. Ms. Bettman asked how long it would take to equip the patrol fleet with in-car video. Ms. Parisi replied that it would take about a year to equip the current fleet with digital video. Mr. Denner added it would take three to four years to update the entire fleet to the new vehicle color and style. Ms. Ortiz expressed her appreciation for the commission’s efforts and Ms. Parisi’s staff work. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the Police Commission FY07 Work Plan as proposed. Mr. Papé asked if the commission had a recommendation for the council regarding management of the auditor’s staff and the City Manager’s administrative order. Mr. Denner replied that in the sense of moving forward, the commission voted to support the administrative order; the vote was not unanimous but it was a very strong majority. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the vote was taken despite its not having been on the agenda, and with less than 24 hours’ notice by the commission leadership. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 4 Work Session C. WORK SESSION: Region 2050 City Manager Taylor introduced Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter to present an overview of Region 2050. He noted that Mr. Kelly was the council’s representative on the Region 2050 Policy Board and had participated extensively in the regional planning process. Mr. Yeiter stated that the Region 2050 effort was a collaborative regional planning process that began in 1999. He said the process was originally within the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) framework but the withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove necessitated retooling the process to conform to existing statutes. He said the question before the council was whether to endorse the Region 2050 Strategy when endorsing meant the City agreed to use the goals and objectives and regional growth concept, including the coordinated population allocations, as a tool to guide growth and development. He said endorsement also implied the City would implement those actions that the City Council determined to be appropriate to the needs and desires of the community. Mr. Yeiter noted that endorsing the strategy did not automatically initiate Metro Plan amendments or changes in the code; however, if the strategy was endorsed, amendments would be contemplated as an addition to the planning work program. He said an immediate effect of endorsement was the implication that the City would accept population forecasts that were quite different from historic trends and the State’s forecast. He said Eugene’s population in 2050 was forecast to be about 50,000 fewer people than was projected by the State, and the strategy spread those people to the smaller communities and rural areas. He saw the Region 2050 Strategy as a beginning to be fleshed out over time. He said staff recommended endorsing the strategy, although the council also had the option of endorsing the strategy with changes or conditions or declining to endorse the strategy. Mr. Kelly strongly encouraged the council’s endorsement of the strategy, which was a great example of regional cooperation and recognition that what one community does affected other communities throughout the region. He said the strategy provided high level direction; it was not a land use action. He said the strategy represented more than six years of staff and elected official collaboration and detailed examination of data. He felt it could give a level of clarity to governments, the public, property owners and service providers such as utility companies and school districts. Mr. Kelly emphasized that endorsement was an agreement by the City to use the goals and objectives and Regional Growth Concept, including coordinated population allocations, as a tool to guide growth and development and nothing was binding until it became a Metro Plan amendment or similar action. He also stressed that the City had discretion to implement those actions deemed appropriate to the community. He said that although Springfield and Cottage Grove withdrew in early 2006, they participated throughout the process and their input was strongly represented in the final document, with their population allocations being based on historic trends. Ms. Taylor asked what the City would be prevented from doing if the strategy was not endorsed. Mr. Kelly said that if constituent jurisdictions did not endorse the strategy it would not be endorsed by the Policy Board and would become a research artifact; no action would be taken to move the City toward its goals and objectives. Mr. Yeiter added that the biggest risk if Eugene did not endorse the strategy was to the other communities. He said several of the small communities were relying on the Region 2050 process to give them their first comprehensive plans. He said many of those communities were hoping for higher growth, in part to secure funding for sewer treatment plants and other facilities. He said if all jurisdictions did not MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 5 Work Session agree on the coordinated population forecast in the strategy, then it could not be used by individual communities. Ms. Taylor said she did not see how the population allocations made a difference, but did see how planning in connection with other communities was a good idea for issues like siting of a hospital or new industry. She did not see the point of the strategy without Springfield’s participation and asked what restrictions or mandatory actions would be imposed if the council did endorse the strategy. Mr. Yeiter replied that if the population forecast was to be used for any of the City’s planning efforts it must be adopted and incorporated in the Metro Plan. He said the action with least impact would be to monitor the population over time and, in a few years, review trends with the other jurisdictions to determine if actions were necessary to direct growth. Ms. Taylor asked how growth would be directed. Mr. Yeiter replied that actions could include more effectively encouraging growth in other communities or not providing services for growth in Eugene. Ms. Solomon said her concerns were similar to Ms. Taylor’s. She wanted the 50,000 people in Eugene so that property values would increase and the City could benefit from increased property tax collection. She was not particularly interested in helping outlying communities grow and found it inconsistent with the City’s efforts to be responsible and increase density. She interpreted the section on exceptions in the memorandum from the City Attorney to mean that the council would be adopting a plan that would require a lengthy bureaucratic exceptions process just to restore the control the City currently had over its planning process. Mr. Yeiter replied that if regulations were required to direct growth, they would have to be adopted in accordance with existing rules and the exceptions process was one of the rules that allowed some flexibility. He said the strategy did not provide any additional flexibility from the State rules or take any flexibility away. Mr. Poling asked if the City would revert back to using historic population growth trends if the coordinated population forecast was not used. Mr. Yeiter said that it would. Mr. Poling asked how the figures for Springfield and Cottage Grove in the coordinated population forecast were developed. Mr. Yeiter said that those two jurisdictions reverted back to historic trends. Mr. Poling said he had difficulty regarding the strategy as a regional growth management tool when two of the three largest jurisdictions were not involved. He said the strategy appeared to be adding another layer of bureaucracy to the Statewide Planning Goals. Ms. Bettman said she regarded a recommendation from Mr. Kelly on land use issues very seriously because of his expertise, but she disagreed philosophically with his recommendation on the strategy. She asked which decision-making body determined what assumptions were fed into the model that produced the population strategies. Mr. Yeiter said the numbers incorporated in the strategy evolved through a lengthy process and many adjustments. He said the County delegated authority to the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Board for the coordinated population forecasts now required by the State. He said that the Office of Economic Analysis data was used as the basis and each jurisdiction had its own review process; ultimately the LCOG Board adopted the final product. Ms. Bettman said that withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove meant that Region 2050 was no longer a regional planning process. She was concerned that the strategy was a way to move forward with land use MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 6 Work Session decisions that were not consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals and she supported those goals. She asked if there would be instances where an outcome of the strategy process might be inconsistent with the City’s growth management policies and, if there was an inconsistency, whether the strategy would supersede local policies. Mr. Yeiter said possible discrepancies would depend primarily on how the City’s growth management policies were interpreted, but generally the strategy did not conflict with the idea of mixed-use centers, transit systems and higher density inside the urban growth boundary. Mr. Kelly emphasized that the strategy did not supersede anything; the only time something might be superseded was if the council adopted a Metro Plan amendment that was in conflict with one of the growth management goals. Mr. Papé noted that under the proposed coordinated population allocation, Eugene’s annual average growth rate would drop to 0.6 percent, which was lower than it had been in historic trends, and the population growth above that would be distributed among outlying communities. He asked why the rate was so low for Eugene and whether there were benchmarks that could be used to determine if the City was on target at 2010. Mr. Yeiter said one of the expectations was that if communities endorsed the strategy, they would have to monitor progress over time and decisions made about whether to direct growth more assertively if it was not distributing in accordance with the allocations. Mr. Papé asked if the population projections could be changed and whether changes would affect other elements of the strategy that were guided by population figures. Mr. Yeiter replied that the projections could be changed fairly quickly and the impact on other elements would depend on the number and extent of changes. He said the population projections would also be used by utility providers and transportation planners and if they were changed often, it would throw other planning efforts into disarray. Mr. Papé asked who made the decision to set Eugene’s annual average growth rate at 0.6 percent. Mr. Kelly said that early in the Region 2050 process, a collection of goals and objectives was adopted unanimously by all of the elected officials from all of the communities and those were used to look at local policies, community desires, geographic restrictions and other factors to develop a reasonable model for growth. Mr. Yeiter added that recent historic trends showed outlying communities were growing more rapidly and was a factor in the overall forecast. Ms. Bettman remarked that population projects and allocations were important because they would ultimately determine resource allocations. She said although there was no change in total regional population, the distribution had changed and, with that, resource distribution would change. She observed that the expansion of Coburg had wastewater, transportation and water implications and all of those required additional resources. She believed the denser, larger metropolitan areas should be the logical providers of those urban services. She was uncertain how all of those things might be affected by Measure 37. She expressed dissatisfaction with regional boards and commissions that were once removed from local decision-making bodies, citing the LCOG board as an example. Mr. Pryor commented that he wanted to be a good regional partner and thought that LCOG was a good organization. He said the LCOG board was composed of elected officials who represented their communi- ties. He thought the withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove was unfortunate and perhaps based on concerns about being constrained, which was a concern he shared. He said the projections would provide guidance but also be the basis for policies and implementation of strategies. He was concerned that if not MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 7 Work Session all partners were involved, the strategies might not be effectively implemented and the policies might not be adequate. He was uncertain if he would support endorsement of the strategy. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the issues that were raised by councilors and said that the Policy Board spent hundreds of hours discussing those same issues. He said when Springfield and Cottage Grove withdrew, elected officials and staff from jurisdictions had a lengthy discussion of whether there was any point in going forward. He said the unanimous decision to move forward was based on many reasons, including the fact that Springfield and Cottage Grove were involved in drafting most of the strategy, their staff was still involved and their elected bodies would have to adopt the coordinated population allocation, which left those communities’ figures at historic trends. He said the City already used population numbers and those drove many policies, models and analyses; the new numbers would drive those same processes but for Eugene, the numbers would be much more in keeping with its growth management policies. He pointed out that even for the modest growth proposed for Eugene the City’s average residential density would have to be increased by 25 percent. Continuing, Mr. Kelly indicated that if the council did not endorse the strategy and took no further action, the City would continue to operate under historic trends and the current Metro Plan, which he believed would make it more difficult to achieve growth management policies. He pointed out innovations in the strategy that added tools such as tying urban growth boundary expansions to achievement of particular residential densities. He asserted that the strategy did not add a layer of bureaucracy as there was no ongoing Policy Board and the strategy would be implemented by jurisdictions in exactly the same way they now operated, but with a regional framework. He agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comments about shifting resources but pointed out that when a new person moved into the area, regardless of the community, there was a cost to the region in terms of utilities and transportation. The best way to provide services and pay for them could be discussed as a region. Ms. Piercy spoke in support of endorsing the strategy and commended the efforts of regional partners over a lengthy period of time. Mr. Papé asked if Springfield and Cottage Grove could adopt population forecasts developed using their own approved methodologies instead of adopting the coordinated population forecast. Mr. Kelly explained that the total regional population projection was no different than historic trends; only the distribution among communities was different. He said Springfield numbers were based on historic trends that still added up to the total for the region. He noted that population projections at the State level were required to be adopted by counties; the coordinated population allocation that Lane County would adopt included Springfield and Cottage Grove numbers based on historic trends and numbers based on Region 2050 modeling for other communities. Mr. Pryor asked if Eugene would fall into the same category as Springfield and Cottage Grove if it declined to endorse the strategy. Mr. Kelly replied that the Policy Board would not adopt the strategy and all communities would be in the same situation. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to endorse the Southern Willamette Valley Regional Growth Management Strategy, dated August 31, 2006. By this endorsement, the City of Eugene agrees to use the goals and objectives and Re- gional Growth Concept embodied in the strategy document, including the coordi- nated population allocations, as a tool to guide growth and development. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Solomon felt that planning should adhere to historic trends and not try to create a new trend to be followed. She said the strategy would be completely unproductive for the community and therefore she could not support it. Ms. Bettman cited regionalizing decision-making as the primary reason she could not support the strategy. She pointed out that many rapidly growing small communities did not have system development charges and the capacity to serve that growth. She said that once utilities and services were regionalized that capacity would be subsidized by the higher concentration of population in Eugene, similar to the effort to add Coburg to the regional wastewater system. She said Eugene would pay for adding capacity to outlying communities either by increased rates or diminished local service. The motion failed, 6:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor. B. D. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Prohibiting Extreme Fighting; Adding Section 4.740 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending Section 4.990 of that Code City Manager Taylor stated that the work session had been requested by Mr. Kelly and introduced City Attorney Jerry Lidz to discuss the proposed ordinance to regulate extreme fighting, also known as cage fighting. Mr. Lidz said the question before the council was whether the ordinance should proceed to public hearing. He said the structure of the ordinance was that it regulated only amateur participants because State law had exclusive control over professional boxing and wrestling, which included extreme fighting. He asked the council to review the definition of extreme fighting in the proposed ordinance and determine if the attributes represented those activities the council wished to regulate. Ms. Ortiz commented that some communities regarded extreme fighting as a form of entertainment. She was not opposed to a public hearing on the ordinance but would not support a ban. She would consider some regulation. She said the fights happened whether or not the City regulated them and she would prefer to provide a venue for people to take out those aggressions. She said her rationale for regulating was concern for people who were injured and permanently disabled. She thought the organizations sponsoring extreme fighting should be required to have insurance. Mr. Pryor said he was cautious about the City regulating what people chose to do with their lives, but recognized that cities did regulate everything from motorcycle helmets to seat belts. He thought that cage fighting was barbaric and endorsing or supporting that type of behavior was repugnant, but he questioned to what extent his personal opinion should be imposed on others. He supported taking the ordinance to a public hearing to learn more about the subject. Mr. Kelly commented that he raised the issue because extreme fighting was utterly unregulated and untrained amateurs were seriously injured and in some cases permanently disabled. He said there were both male and female matches and, while walking through the Lane County Events Center he had observed an event and found it to be the most brutal and dehumanizing experience he had ever witnessed. He said extreme fighting encouraged a lust for blood and questioned whether that was what young people in the community should be exposed to. He said that society had taken steps to regulate things like cock fighting and public executions, choosing not to appeal to the basest instincts in all of us. He supported moving the MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 9 Work Session ordinance to a public hearing and hoped the council would consider banning instead of regulating extreme fighting. He expressed interest in having the city attorney research whether and how other communities regulated the activity and suggested that the ordinance language state “. . .for which no rules have been established by a governmental body.” Mr. Poling favored moving the ordinance to a public hearing in order to hear both sides of the issue. He said there were two discussions: one a legal discussion of the ordinance and the other a philosophical one. He heard comments that extreme fighting was desensitizing youth to violence and brutality. In terms of regulating people watching the fighting, he pointed out that it could be viewed on television. He said if the City passed an ordinance that allowed extreme fighting, it should be very careful in developing regulations, which should primarily be to safeguard against serious physical injuries. Ms. Taylor supported a public hearing and favored banning the sport, not regulating it. She wanted to learn more about the issue. Ms. Bettman stated she was in favor of a public hearing on the ordinance. She did not understand how a person who assaulted someone on the street and caused serious injury or death could be charged with a crime while a participant in cage fighting who caused an opponent to suffer serious injury or death would not be charged. She asked if the fact that fight participants were both there by consent was what made the difference. Mr. Lidz said he believed it was the consent factor but would research the question. He noted that even signing a waiver would not protect against prosecution as that was at the discretion of the district attorney, but participants might sign a waiver of rights to sue the other party for personal injury. Ms. Bettman asked if the City would have any liability if it chose to regulate instead of banning fighting and something occurred that fell outside of the regulations. Mr. Lidz said the City could not be sued for not regulating enough; the only risk would be if the City adopted regulations that it did not enforce. Ms. Bettman emphasized the need to understand the resource implications of enforcement if the council chose to regulate instead of ban because of the liability associated with failure to enforce. Mr. Lidz said there were many factors that would influence whether the City could be sued for failure to enforce regulations and pointed out that the Police Department had substantial discretion about when to enforce a law. Ms. Solomon asserted that it was not possible to regulate stupidity. She said that if the City banned extreme fighting it would only move to another community. She said if the council was concerned about youth and people’s safety it should address it by discouraging people from watching and participating in fighting. She liked Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion to require sponsors to carry insurance. She noted there were other forms of violence to which children were exposed, such as violent video games, and it was not possible to regulate all types of violence. Mr. Papé indicated he was in favor of a public hearing but not certain he would support the ordinance in its current form. He was concerned that charging violators of a ban with a Class A misdemeanor was severe for a first offense and asked whether the same penalty would be imposed on people involved in a street or bar fight. Mr. Lidz said he did not think that a street fight would be subject to the ordinance and youth under 18 did not get convicted of misdemeanors. He said there was always prosecutorial discretion on charges. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 10 Work Session City Manager Taylor clarified that the proposed ordinance would ban extreme fighting and regulating it as discussed by some councilors would be a much more difficult endeavor that raised complex issues. He said that research would be done on those things before the public hearing. Mr. Poling said he was interested in hearing from proponents of cage fighting what they were prepared to offer as suggestions for making the sport safer. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to schedule a public hearing on the draft ordinance. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 11 Work Session