HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/27/06 Work Session
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall
November 27, 2006
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé,
Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, George Poling.
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 encouraged everyone to complete the cultural policy review survey. She said the City was
working to improve its Web communications and asked the public for feedback. She announced that the
Network of Watershed Councils presented an award to the City of Eugene and commended the City’s
commitment to sustainability. She said that a letter signed by community leaders and anti-hate leaflets had
been distributed in response to recent hate graffiti in a South Eugene neighborhood. She reminded the
community to be vigilant and respond when hate crimes occurred. She noted that the new federal courthouse
would have its grand opening at the end of the week.
Mr. Papé shared a Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce publication featuring Library, Cultural &
Recreation Services Executive Director Angel Jones on the cover. He appreciated the recent visit by a
delegation from Eugene’s sister city, Kakegawa, Japan. He was pleased with the City’s response to hate
crimes and hoped the perpetrators were caught and punished.
Mayor Piercy noted that the delegation’s visit received good coverage in the newspaper.
Mr. Pryor echoed Mr. Papé’s comments regarding the City’s refusal to tolerate hate crimes.
Ms. Taylor expressed appreciation for the dinner with the Japanese visitors and press coverage of the
delegation’s visit, which she hoped would prompt greater community support for the Sister City Foundation.
She commended Mayor Piercy for hosting the delegation. She urged people to attend a performance of “The
Seagull” at Lord Leebrick Theater. She said it was an excellent production. She recently attended meetings
where the purchase of land for Buford Park was discussed. She said there was much enthusiasm and
support for that acquisition and hoped the City would do whatever it could to help.
Ms. Taylor said she received a complaint about leaves in the street and the hazard they posed for bicyclists.
She agreed with the complainant’s questioning why the City even had a leaf pickup program when the roads
needed repairing. She suggested considering whether the money would be better spent elsewhere.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 1
Work Session
Ms. Ortiz thanked Mayor Piercy for her leadership in response to hate crimes. She announced that she and
Mayor Piercy would be available to meet with constituents in the River Road/Santa Clara area on the
th
evening of November 28, 2007. She recently attended a 40 birthday celebration for the Community
Alliance of Lane County (CALC) and was amazed at the large attendance. She congratulated City Manager
Dennis Taylor for being the recipient of the Human Rights Commission human rights award. She stated
that she had received a number of complaints about flooding on the newly resurfaced section of Hilyard
Street. City Manager Taylor said he would check into the problem.
Mr. Papé remarked that he received a number of calls complaining that rental enforcement program fees
doubled every 30 days if not paid on time. He asked that the administrative order establishing late payment
penalties be reviewed to ensure it was fair and appropriate. He could envision a situation where a property
owner was out of town and missed the 30-day deadline.
Ms. Taylor concurred that multiplying fines were not in the public’s best interest.
Mr. Kelly commented that given the small size of the fees, doubling for nonpayment did not seem excessive.
He said without those payments there would be no rental housing program. He knew for a fact that staff
had waived late fees if a property owner demonstrated he or she was out of town for an extended period.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council.
Mayor Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA).
B. WORK SESSION: West Broadway Purchase Options
City Manager Taylor introduced Planning and Development Director Susan Muir to discuss West Broadway
redevelopment and the purchase options secured by the URA.
Ms. Muir recalled the excitement over the Connor and Woolley/Opus proposal last January and the
council’s direction to staff to do what it could to make redevelopment of that area happen. She said that
staff would be joined by Thomas Hacker and Will Dan of Thomas Hacker Architects, who would participate
via telephone because of the bad weather. She said that Mr. Hacker and Mr. Dan were assisting staff
because of their involvement with the City Hall master planning project, experience with downtown
redevelopment and design expertise. She introduced Denny Braud to present information on the status of
property negotiations along West Broadway.
Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:45 p.m.
Mr. Braud stated that following the comprehensive mixed-use proposal from Connor and Woolley/Opus
earlier in the year, the council asked staff to take steps to facilitate redevelopment while awaiting more
details on that proposal. He said that proposal did not materialize because the developer was unable to
acquire enough property for the project. He said that City staff had been working with Broadway property
owners to determine if properties could be assembled into a redevelopment footprint; discussions had been
positive and negotiations occurred only with willing sellers. He said redevelopment of the two-block section
of West Broadway would support implementation of the Downtown Plan by increasing activity along a
Great Street and allow many vacant and underdeveloped properties to make a greater contribution to density
MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 2
Work Session
goals for downtown, as well as capture momentum generated by recent development activities in and around
the downtown area.
Mr. Braud said that assembling the properties through purchase options could be the first step in an active
redevelopment strategy for West Broadway. He illustrated the properties for which the URA had made
offers in the form of purchase options. He said that signed agreements had been executed with seven owners
representing 12 properties covering three full-block faces along Broadway. He noted that many of the
properties and storefronts were vacant or underutilized; in some cases buildings were deteriorated and most
of the retail space was poorly configured for today’s retail sales. He said that terms and option periods
varied among properties, but a majority had an initial six-month period to execute purchase at the agreed
upon price, followed by an available six-month extension period with payment of additional option money.
He said the cost to obtain options on properties with a combined purchase price of $15.6 million was
slightly over $54,000, with an additional $25,000 for consultant fees and expenses.
Mr. Braud noted that some of the purchases prices appeared high for the area and pointed out that a number
of the properties were not actively for sale at the time negotiations started; assembling property could be
significantly more expensive than buying an individual parcel. He said that property assembly was a typical
urban renewal strategy for cities and urban renewal agencies; earlier property assembly-based projects
included the Library, the Hult Center, the Hilton Convention Center, the U.S. Bank building, Broadway
Place and the federal courthouse. He said cities also typically provided tools and incentives for downtown
redevelopment, including sale of property below market value to improve the feasibility of development
proposals.
Mr. Hacker remarked that work on the new City Hall complex master planning project had familiarized his
firm with Eugene’s downtown. He said that redevelopment of the West Broadway area was absolutely
essential to the future of a healthy downtown. He said the City created the groundwork to transform that
area and bring a density and activity to downtown that would be very advantageous. He believed the City
had an opportunity to build on the success of downtown planning and development activities and create the
West Broadway district as a mixed-use, multi-story, high-quality downtown destination point. He used
computer images to provide a sense of the uses and sizes of possible development to enliven the street and
achieve vitality through commercial, cultural and living activities.
Mr. Hacker emphasized that the redevelopment of West Broadway was not simply a design issue; the
economics of that redevelopment would ultimately determine how the area got built. He believed that a
comprehensive redevelopment approach could elevate the economics of downtown Eugene much more
quickly and redevelopment along Broadway would attract other developers to the area. He listed three
points that were critical to the success of Broadway redevelopment:
?
Create an opportunity for a comprehensive redevelopment, have the vision and commitment to see
the whole project through;
?
Visualize the development potential and imagine the type of future desired for the area;
?
Move forward with the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and identify a private sector development
partner to implement the strategy.
Mr. Braud reviewed possible next steps, including issuing an RFQ, purchasing some or all of the properties
and then offering them for redevelopment either individually or as a comprehensive package, or reopening
discussions with Connor and Woolley/Opus regarding their original proposal. He said staff recommended
issuing an RFQ based on the criteria included in the agenda packet. He remarked that the RFQ process
MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 3
Work Session
could result in one proposal for the entire area with a single development team or multiple development
teams on smaller footprints. He said the RFQ would be out for 60 days followed by the council’s selection
of a development team or teams. He said that securing purchase options on a majority of the important
pieces of property along West Broadway was a significant achievement and stressed that the City was under
no obligation to actually purchase any of the properties; it simply had the option to purchase them within the
option periods.
Ms. Taylor asserted that the development of Broadway Place was supposed to solve all the problems of
downtown. She asked if the City received tax money from the commercial portion of the project, which was
mostly empty. Mr. Braud replied that the commercial portion was paying taxes; only the housing portion of
the project received an exemption. He said the commercial space was 50 to 60 percent filled.
Ms. Taylor asked how long ago the City purchased the Sears site. Mr. Braud replied it had been 12 years.
Ms. Taylor stated she was hesitant to purchase a lot of properties and let them sit empty. She preferred
incremental to comprehensive development and was not interested in a “theme park” in downtown. She was
disturbed about staff taking action without the consent of the council. She was concerned about voting to
seek information and having that translated to mean something else was approved. She asked who
composed the URA as she thought that was the council, but the council did not discuss whether it wanted to
secure the options.
City Manager Taylor replied that the council was the URA board of directors and he was the URA director.
He said within the general guidelines of the URA plan and budget approved by the council he had secured
the purchase options; council direction would determine how the options were used. He underscored that the
options only represented an interesting redevelopment possibility and staff was seeking direction from the
council on how the Downtown Plan might be implemented consistent with the vision and in a timely manner.
Ms. Taylor said that the council was the URA and some members did not even know the options process
was happening. She said Scan Design was a successful business in downtown and, while it did not own the
building it was in, she questioned why the City would want to threaten its existence by securing options to
buy the property. Mr. Braud explained that staff had made offers to all of the property owners that were
part of the original footprint proposed for the Connor and Woolley/Opus project. He stressed that they were
willing property sellers and he did not feel the City was putting any businesses out on the street as staff had
worked closely with the owners to ensure a transition period for any tenants.
Ms. Taylor said the businesses would go elsewhere and leave more empty buildings. She said her concern
was that Scan Design had been a successful business in that location for a long time and instead of trying to
make it move the City should do everything to keep it there.
Ms. Solomon said it was her understanding that Scan Design did not have to move; it would be their choice.
Mr. Braud agreed.
Ms. Solomon said she did not see the City’s actions as a threat to Scan Design’s existence. She asked if the
City would recover the cost of options through reimbursement from the development team once that team
was selected. Mr. Braud said he was not certain how that would occur until there were proposals in hand.
He said options could be assigned to another party and that would be the preferred method of disposing of
them; the other party could then act on the options and purchase properties. He said there could be a
MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 4
Work Session
combination of approaches with some options being assigned and the City purchasing one or two of the
properties to help facilitate whatever proposal was selected.
Mr. Papé said it was unfortunate that the council had not done a better job of revitalizing Broadway and
downtown during his tenure. He congratulated staff on a bold move to stimulate activity. He said that
redevelopment would not happen because of public buildings; the private sector was needed to redevelop the
area. He was ready to move forward to do things that the council had approved in the Eugene Downtown
Plan. He asked if Thomas Kemper had expressed an interest in expanding his site to include the entire
th
block. Mr. Braud said that he had indicated an interest in the entire 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street
block, including the properties along Broadway. He thought that interest was spurred by the potential for
redevelopment on adjacent properties but was not certain that Mr. Kemper would act unilaterally, preferring
to partner with another developer.
Mr. Papé asked if staff was pursuing options on properties along Olive Street. Mr. Braud said there were
active discussions on other properties, including those along Olive Street.
Mr. Poling commented that he was pleased the URA director had taken steps to begin the process with a
minimal amount of investment considering the potential. He thought the City needed to take aggressive step
to redevelop the downtown area. He opined that part of the reason commercial space in Broadway Place
was not filled was lack of other development activity in the area. He said a plan that addressed a majority of
the properties owned by willing sellers would be preferable to development of sections over a period of time.
He appreciated the work of staff and the visual conceptions of possible redevelopment that were included in
the presentation.
Mr. Kelly thanked property owners for being willing to enter into discussions with the City as it clarified a
number of issues regarding the project. He said that no one project would be the “magic bullet” for
downtown but agreed with Mr. Hacker’s remarks that it was a necessary piece for a revitalized downtown.
He appreciated the work of staff and consultant John Brown to gather together the purchase options. He
asked for a spreadsheet that would assess the feasibility of redeveloping the properties based on the purchase
prices, projected square footage, and higher prevailing rates. Mr. Braud said staff discussed that issue with
Will Dan early in the process.
Mr. Dan said there had been a discussion of conducting market and feasibility studies. He said research
indicated that the best market study would come from a willing developer with a clear, compelling vision of
the project. He said the key was attracting developers with local knowledge of Eugene and Oregon and they
would be the best judge of what mix of uses was best suited to local conditions.
Mr. Kelly expressed frustration with not having even an order of magnitude to examine because the RFQ
would take considerable time and effort by staff and development teams. He was disturbed about
proceeding without that base knowledge. He asked if there had been any serious interest by qualified
developers, given the publicity the project had received. Mr. Braud said there had been interest from
th
developers and a number of valuable connections were made during the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street
Request for Proposal (RFP), with developers interested in a larger footprint than that site.
Ms. Bettman said she had some concern about the process but acknowledged that under the City’s urban
renewal district plan it was obvious that staff had the latitude to pursue the options. She was glad to see
staff take an assertive posture on downtown redevelopment, but it highlighted the tragedy and failure of the
organization to do the same thing to acquire property for a hospital downtown. She supported the staff-
MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 5
Work Session
recommended motion but if at some point the City should actually acquire some of the parcels she favored
acquiring those belonging to Connor and Woolley as they were the most neglected and degraded. She said
those properties had a negative impact on the rest of downtown and dragged down the value of other
properties.
Ms. Bettman referred to five motions she intended to make, copies of which had been distributed to the
council. She said the motions had been accepted by staff and hoped they could be incorporated in the main
motion as friendly amendments. She said a definition of mixed-use development, modified to add the phrase
“or blocks” to the end of the first sentence, was also included with the motions. She hoped to see some
effort to relocate Scan Design included in the project, because even though the business did not own the
property, it had been a solid presence in downtown.
Mr. Pryor expressed his appreciation for staff’s proactive efforts. He observed that the project had been
brought to the council at a point where sufficient information was available to evaluate it. He asked if the
City was involved in development of the U.S. Bank building. Mr. Braud said it was as the URA owned that
parcel. Mr. Pryor asked if the city was involved in development of the Aster Building. Mr. Braud said the
City may have assisted with project financing.
Mr. Pryor said his point was that downtown development needed help and the City was the logical partner
for the private sector in terms of finance and regulatory matters. He said neither the private sector nor the
City could develop downtown alone; a partnership was absolutely required. He saw the stirrings of a
partnership capable of accomplishing great things, including replacing single-story buildings in the core of
the downtown area with multi-story, multi-purpose development. He said the project had to be financially
feasible. He fully supported moving forward and liked some of the suggested options.
Mayor Piercy commented that there were many successful parts of downtown. She recalled directing staff
to pursue possibilities for redevelopment along Broadway and was pleased they had moved forward. She
was very hopeful about the prospects for a successful project.
Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the Agency Director to: Issue a Re-
quest for Qualification (RFQ) for the redevelopment of West Broadway based on the draft
RFQ criteria included in this agenda item, with the responses to the RFQ to be brought
back to the URA for consideration in early Spring 2007; include an additional criterion
“Consistency with City Policies and Goals” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on council
agenda packet pages 15 and 16; substitute the word “will” for the word “should” in sub-
paragraphs 1 (Urban Design”, 2 (Active Uses) and 3 (Sustainable Development) in the
RFQ Evaluation criteria on council agenda packet pages 15 and 16; add the phrase “and
will contribute to an active, around-the-clock, 24-hour downtown” at the end of the first
sentence in the paragraph under the heading “Active Uses” in the RFQ evaluation criteria
on council agenda packet page 15; delete the words “and assistance” from subparagraph 2
under the paragraph captioned “Public Benefit” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on page 16
of the council agenda packet; and add the following definition of the term “mixed use” in
the RFQ evaluation criteria: “Mixed use development refers to the practice of containing
more than one type of use or activity in a building or set of buildings or blocks. The mix of
uses can vary widely but typically includes a higher density combination of residential,
commercial, industrial, office, institutional or other activities. The uses are typically in
close proximity, pedestrian-friendly and compatible with multi-modal transportation.”
MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 6
Work Session
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the motion by adding to the end of the
first section of the main motion after the phrase “Spring 2007” the following sentence:
“The RFQ shall permit responses to deal with (a) property included only in a single option
agreement (for example the Center Court Building and adjacent hole); (b) property included
in more than one but less than all of the option agreements; or (c) property included in all of
the option agreements.”
Mr. Kelly explained that his motivation was to expand RFQ options to encourage responses from developers
with a great idea for one or two parcels instead of most or all of the footprint to respond.
Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for its efforts and bringing the project to the council. She hoped that discussions
would continue respectfully with owners who were not willing to sell at this time. She was excited about the
prospects for downtown revitalization.
Ms. Solomon thought Mr. Kelly’s amendment was reasonable but she was somewhat concerned that there
could be “cherry picking” of the most desirable properties. City Manager Taylor said the amendment and
the council’s discussion during the meeting clarified the intent to encourage anyone with the opportunity and
vision to respond as well as explain what the City was seeking from respondents.
Ms. Taylor said she liked part of the amendment, but not the part of the main motion about selling the whole
thing and would probably vote against it.
The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0.
Ms. Bettman asked if staff had calculated what the available square footage would be if the entire footprint
was developed with three- or four-story coverage. Mr. Braud said it would be 175,000 square feet times
however many stories were built.
Ms. Bettman shared Mr. Kelly’s concerns about lack of data and research that would disclose the
percentages of commercial and residential space needed within the footprint to be economically viable in
downtown and in the context of the City at large. She said there was a tendency to over-commercialize
because it seemingly was more valuable. She said Broadway Place was an example of that with ground
floor space dedicated to commercial uses being difficult to rent whereas housing may have been more of an
anchor. She cautioned that requiring the ground floor of buildings to be entirely commercial or office space
was a mistake. She hoped that the RFQ responses would include a determination and substantiation of the
economic viability of the proposals.
Ms. Taylor pointed out several businesses that had not received help from the City and were doing well such
as Ambrosia, Xenon, Adam’s Place, and J. Michael’s Books. Mr. Braud responded that some of those
businesses had received assistance with financing through the City’s loan programs.
Ms. Taylor said a large part of the problem with West Broadway was the fact that two people owned much
of the property and were not willing to lease for what people could afford to pay. She liked Ms. Bettman’s
suggestion to purchase only the Connor and Woolley properties.
Mr. Papé joined in Mr. Kelly’s thanks to willing property owners. He asked why one of Ms. Bettman’s
friendly amendments to the motion removed the word “assistance” from the Public Benefit section of the
RFQ on council agenda packet page 16.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 7
Work Session
Ms. Bettman explained that the original language implied that there would be preferable treatment for
responses that asked for assistance. She said the change did not mean subsidizes were not available; it said
that asking for a subsidy would not favorably weight an application.
Mr. Kelly said there had been many anecdotal comments about the failure of commercial space in Broadway
Place and he thought it would be useful for the council to receive a memorandum on the subject from the
owners of Broadway Place if they were willing to do that. He reflected on Ms. Taylor’s comments
regarding successful businesses along Broadway. He said the problem was not that West Broadway
properties were owned by one or two people; it was the motivation and sensibilities of a landlord and the
synergy that could create. He noted that the buildings occupied by many of the successful businesses were
owned by the Giustina family, which had done much to encourage those businesses for the benefit of the
community.
The main motion, as amended, passed 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency.
Mayor Piercy reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council.
C. 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 introduced City Attorney Jerome Lidz to present the draft ordinance. He noted that
the legislature would be addressing extreme fighting when it convened in January 2007 and recommended
that the council postpone action unless it intended to outlaw extreme fighting entirely as regulation of a new
form of martial arts would be better accomplished at the State level.
Mr. Lidz reminded the council of what role the City could play in the matter. He said the State, through
statute and the Boxing and Wrestling Commission, regulated all professional boxing and wrestling, with
wrestling defined to include mixed martial arts. He said the State did not currently regulate amateur fighting
and that was mostly what occurred in the cage fighting exhibitions. He said the legislative plan was to
expand the Boxing and Wrestling Commission’s authority to include amateur cage fighting as amateur
fighting was regarded as a loophole in current State law. He said that rules adopted by the Nevada Athletic
Commission were considered the gold standard for regulation of mixed martial arts; a copy of those rules
was included in the agenda packet. He outlined the council’s options:
?
Ban mixed martial arts, or extreme fighting as defined in the ordinance altogether in the City
?
Regulate mixed martial arts, with rules likely based on the Nevada rules
?
Postpone action until the legislature acted
Mr. Lidz said he did not know if legislative action on mixed martial arts would preempt local regulation as
was the case with professional fighting, although he thought that was probable.
Mr. Kelly said it was clear following a public hearing that there was not majority support for banning cage
fighting in Eugene. Regarding the recommendation to wait until the legislature acted, he thought a council
MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 8
Work Session
goal should be to enable a safer climate in the City and promote human dignity. He thought it was
reasonable for the council to step in with a sensible amount of regulation of an unregulated sport that could
hold another dozen or more events before any legislation took effect, possibly resulting in lifelong injuries to
participants. He thought that administrative rules could be put in place with minimum effort and he would
probably move to schedule the ordinance for action at a future meeting. He pointed out that a requirement
for medical insurance was missing from the ordinance and he would move to amend to include that
provision.
Mayor Piercy asked for the City Attorney’s response to Mr. Kelly’s proposal to require medical insurance.
Mr. Lidz said he was aware that some promoters had provisions for health insurance but was not certain
whether that was limited to professional fights or included amateur fights. He noted that testimony during
the public hearing indicated that such a requirement was reasonable.
Ms. Taylor was concerned that regulating something that was barbaric condoned its existence. She asked if
it was possible to have a moratorium and ban extreme fighting until the legislature acted. Mr. Lidz said a
moratorium was not possible but the council could ban the activity and then repeal the ordinance if the
legislature acted.
Ms. Taylor stated that was her preference. She pointed out a provision of the Nevada rules that allowed
kicking an opponent who was on the ground, which she found unbelievable and asked if those were the rules
the City would adopt. City Manager Taylor said the City would begin with those rules and refine as
necessary.
Ms. Ortiz said she favored directing the City Manager to monitor legislative action to regulate amateur
mixed martial arts fighting at the State level and report to the council at the end of the legislative session.
She said that cultures differed on what was acceptable and while she did not personally wish to observe the
fighting or have her sons involved, she recognized that for young men in her community being involved in
extreme fighting was a badge of honor. She was reluctant to tell people they could not be involved and
noted that participants were fully aware of the risks. She was also concerned with enacting another
ordinance that would put people in jail when the system was already overburdened.
Mr. Poling asked how far the City could go in establishing regulations such as requiring medical insurance
or identifying the minimum qualifications of onsite medical personnel. Mr. Lidz replied that the council
could be that specific. He said if the council wished to move forward with the ordinance it would be brought
back for adoption as the public hearing had been held; if adopted, the City Manager would proceed to
develop rules to implement the ordinance. He said the Nevada rules were offered as an illustration of rule-
making and not as proposed rules.
Mr. Poling supported moving forward with an ordinance and making whatever adjustments might be
necessary in the event there was legislative action.
Mr. Pryor asked how many fights were held annually. Mr. Lidz said there had been three or four since the
council first discussed the matter.
Mr. Pryor estimated that five or six fights might occur before the legislature acted and someone might be
injured or killed at any one of them, which was why he was reluctant to take no action. He wanted some
form of regulation in place to protect public safety, not to address cultural or moral issues, and was
comfortable with the direction of the ordinance as drafted, strengthened by Mr. Kelly’s proposed amend-
MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 9
Work Session
ment. He wanted more discussion about the types of specific protections available without becoming overly
regulatory.
In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz said that a copy of administrative rules to implement
the ordinance would be provided to the council for informational purposes but would not be an agenda item.
Ms. Bettman felt that the ordinance was a reasonable approach. She suggested that Mr. Kelly’s amendment
require the promoter or participant to provide proof of medical insurance instead of simply requiring
insurance. She said the council was not preventing people from participating in cage fighting if that was
their choice but it did have a responsibility to protect participants and the public in the same way that there
were helmet laws or protection from second-hand smoke. She said the public would ultimately subsidize
medical care for an injured fighter if insurance was not required.
Ms. Bettman said she was not in favor of waiting for the State to act as it was possible there would be no
legislative action or the threshold would be low. She said if the City created a reasonable threshold it would
perhaps be a standard for the State. She noted that the council’s legislative agenda would need to be
amended and asked staff to provide that language. She pointed out that the ordinance did not prohibit access
to the cage fight premises by minors and asked if that could be included. Mr. Lidz said the council could
prohibit access by minors.
Ms. Bettman asked that the ordinance be amended to include prohibiting access by minors before it was
considered for adoption.
Ms. Solomon questioned how the regulations would be enforced and whether police officers would be sent to
monitor the cage fights, thereby taking officers off the street who should be providing public safety services
in the community. City Manager Taylor said his recommendation would not be to enforce a business
regulation with public safety officers. He said it was more likely to be handled by the Planning and
Development Department and include discussions with participants and promoters on how best to approach
enforcement. He pointed out that Eugene had led the State on many issues, including a smoking prohibition,
Public Employee Retirement System reform, and value-added changes to Measure 37.
Mr. Lidz said the Nevada rules had been adopted by most of the mixed martial arts groups, at least for
professional fighting and those groups would like to have similar rules in place for amateur fights. He said
adopting rules with which promoters and participants were already familiar could reduce enforcement
requirements.
Ms. Taylor asked if minors could be participants in fights. Mr. Lidz said that could be specifically included
in the ordinance.
Ms. Taylor felt the only appropriate action was to ban extreme fighting as regulating it implied approval.
Mr. Kelly indicated he also preferred a ban but understood that was not the will of a majority of the council.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to place the ordi-
nance on the January 8, 2007, agenda for action, with the wording of the ordinance revised
to add the following language as subparagraph 4 of Code section 4.740(2)(a):
MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 10
Work Session
“Require that either the promoter or the participant provide proof of medical insurance for
short-term and long-term care for any serious physical injury that a participant suffers dur-
ing a match, competition or exhibition.”
Mr. Kelly said he was also in favor of seeing language return to the council that would address minor access
and minor participation.
Mr. Poling remarked that minors could view extreme fighting at home on television and was not certain he
would support banning them from the premises. Regarding Ms. Solomon’s concerns about enforcement, he
noted that liquor laws were enforced by bartenders and servers and he did not feel that having a police
officer present at events would be necessary as promoters should have enforcement responsibility.
Ms. Bettman asked staff to provide language banning minors from the premises and from participating. She
said studies showed that viewing violence desensitized youth to human suffering and decreased their
capacity for compassion and that would be exacerbated by watching a live event.
Mayor Piercy appreciated the council’s discussion and felt it could be very helpful to the legislature.
The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Solomon voting in opposi-
tion.
The meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 11
Work Session