Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/11/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall June 11, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Par Fart, Bonny Bettman, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Betty Taylor called the meeting to order. A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Fart said that the council took a vote at its last meeting regarding a tax on surface parking, and he had suggested at that time he would vote on the prevailing side to be able to raise the issue again. He indicated he had decided to let the matter drop for the time being so the discussion could happen. Mr. Kelly reported that St. Vincent dePaul failed to get the State credits it requested the previous year for a mid-rise low-income housing development it planned to build at 11th Avenue and Oak Street. The agency intended to make the request again this year. He said staff recommended that the council send a letter supporting the tax credits to the State, and asked the council to sign the letter, which he then circulated. Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. Mr. Kelly provided an update on the Chase nodal development area, saying that following a public session held the previous week with the neighbors, he was worried about the direction planning for the node was going. He said the current property owner was seeking a lower floor area ratio for the commercial development, which would result in what he termed "another suburban strip mall." He said the Planning Commission would discuss the issue the next day, and encouraged councilors to attend that meeting. Ms. Taylor said she was told by a person from Spokane, Washington, that Spokane had no garbage dumps at all and that it recycled everything. She asked staff to research what Spokane was doing. Ms. Taylor expressed a desire to discuss the three-dog limit and possible exceptions to the code. Ms. Taylor proposed the council send its regrets about the death of the king of Nepal to the sister city of Kathmandu. There was general concurrence. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor reported on her attendance at the National League of Cities, Human Development Steering Committee in Tulsa, Oklahoma, saying the committee had an extensive discussion of temporary aid to needy families and the end of welfare. Many were concerned that the end of welfare did not end the need, and people were becoming dependent on members of their families who were also poor or were receiving no aid at all. The committee also discussed religious-based initiatives as proposed by President Bush, which she anticipated would have further discussion. She noted that the committee heard from a speaker concerned that smaller churches would not receive their share of money available. Mr. Rayor had no items. Ms. Bettman had no items. Mr. Meisner noted concerns expressed by citizens regarding the Rose Garden, and said there had been a meeting he would like to have a report on. Mr. Meisner thanked councilors Kelly, Bettman, and Taylor for attending the CentroLatino event on Saturday. Ms. Nathanson indicated she would prepare a written report regarding her attendance at the Information Technology and Communications Committee of the National League of Cities recently held in Nashville, Tennessee. Prior to that conference she had attended the Federal Communications Commission's Local State Government Advisory Committee meeting, and would report on that as well. Ms. Nathanson said that she had the opportunity to visit Dayton's new River State, a multi-agency project that resulted in the redevelopment of the Dayton riverfront. She had asked staff to secure more information on the planning process that accompanied that development. She said that it was an exciting development. Ms. Nathanson congratulated the City on the dedication of the compost bins at Churchill High School. She said that the bins represented a successful partnership between the City, the 4J School District, its waste hauler, and the federal government, which provided the grant. Ms. Nathanson said she had raised the issue of utility boxes in the public right-of-way, on private property, and in utility easements several times over the years in the context of several planning processes and at the Council Committee on Telecommunications. She noted that the issue was to be discussed by the Planning Commission, and thought it important that the Planning Commission know about her concerns as well as the concerns expressed by other councilors. Mr. Johnson indicated he would provide the council with the opportunity to take action on the instant runoff voting ballot by resolution rather than ordinance on Wednesday. Mr. Kelly asked that the resolution be provided to the council prior to that date. B. Work Session: Solid Waste Recycling Program System Redesign Mr. Papd was recused for the item. Nancy Young, Planning and Development Department, and acting Director of Planning and Development Department Jim Carlson joined the council for the item. Ms. Young noted that Scott Hobson, the City's MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 2 Work Session consultant, was also present. Ms. Young provided the staff presentation, describing the current system of solid waste collection, which she characterized as providing customer choice, competition, opportunity for growth, and requiring a minimal government involvement in enforcement. Downsides to the system were the difficulties haulers had enforcing recycling standards without fear of losing customers; overlapping routes, which wasted fuel, contributed to road degradation, and produced more noise and congestion; higher rates due to noncontiguous accounts; containers out on the same street on different days for as many as four different haulers; and difficulty in achieving regional strategies because of disparity among local collection systems. Ms. Young noted the impact residential rates experineced in the last ten years, which was created by the separation of residential and commercial expenses for haulers, during which time residential rates increased and there had been no commercial increase at all; by the institution of recycling rebates that artificially inflated the rates; and by the City's decision in 1994 to implement progressive rates, which resulted in a situation where the fixed costs had remained the same but there were fewer customers in larger containers to pay those costs, spreading costs throughout the system onto customers with smaller, less expensive containers. In addition, noncontiguous collection routes also added to the cost. A change to territories would result in a more efficient collection system. Ms. Young reported that surveys indicated a high level of customer satisfaction with the current system, noting that the response was similar to responses in other communities with different systems, which she believed reflected satisfaction with the service rather than the collection system. She reported that 46 percent of survey respondents indicated no need for a change in the system; the remainder indicated acceptance of change under certain conditions. Ms. Young reported that focus groups of residential and commercial customers were held; the residential focus groups indicated a preference for choice, and the commercial groups preferred exclusive residential and commercial franchises. Commercial customers favored blended rates; residential customers were split on the issue. Ms. Young said that a survey of 20 Oregon cities with 20,000 or more people indicated that Eugene was the only city without an exclusive franchise system for residential customers. Eugene had the fifth highest residential rates and fourth lowest commercial rates; Springfield had the lowest residential rates and seventh lowest commercial rates. Only Eugene and Portland do not subsidize residential rates with commercial revenue. Ms. Young noted support for the status quo from haulers. She said if a franchise system was adopted by the City, the haulers were concerned that territories be selected in a fair manner that maintained existing revenues and provided an opportunity for growth. All haulers supported blending the commercial and residential rates. Ms. Young reviewed options developed by staff for proceeding: 1) institute an exclusive franchise system; and 2) retain the status quo with modifications to the administrative rules. Ms. Young highlighted the staff recommendation for blended rates. She invited questions. Mr. Meisner asked if the City ever contemplated allowing new haulers to enter the competition for licensing. Ms. Young said there were provisions in the City Code that allowed a new hauler to apply for and be granted a license. That hauler would have to demonstrate it could provide a service not now offered. Mr. Meisner asked if a new residential hauler could offer a service so unique they could secure a license. Ms. Young said it could be possible. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Meisner supported the staff recommendation regarding the blending of rates for rate calculation purposes. He did not want to do anything to affect the progressivity of rates. Regarding the franchise issue, he said that was a difficult question. He asked if other communities had found a way to limit service to days of the week as opposed the a geographic area, or if they had addressed the issue of recovering costs for the roadbed deterioration from a multiplicity of haulers. Mr. Hobson responded that in Oregon, there were no other jurisdictions that allowed competition in a given geographic area. Mr. Meisner said it appeared choice was not a value in those communities. Mr. Hobson said that could be inferred. In California, there were commercial licences issued by haulers that allow them to compete for commercial businesses, but he was unaware of any franchised areas that allow more than one hauler to operate. Regarding the deterioration of the streets, some communities use the franchise fee as a means of recovering the costs associated with road maintenance and other impacts. Ms. Young indicated the City's fees did not include that cost. Ms. Nathanson said that all taxpayers were paying a premium to have multiple haulers through the overall increase in cost, the added noise, and the added street deterioration. She asked if there was a way to ensure service reliability with a system redesign. Ms. Young said that she checked with Portland on how that city's switch to territories had worked. Complaints had gone up initially, but everyone who called in indicated they had to give up the best hauler in the city and had acquired the worst one, suggesting that the answer depended on who one talked to. Mr. Hobson said that it is possible in a franchise system to monitor customer service offered by the haulers, and to establish incentives for performance and penalties for lack of performance. Incentives could include tying a hauler's allowed profit to customer service standards. Mr. Hobson said that in regard to penalties, many cities identify an acceptable threshold level of service and a liquidated damage amount for complaints reported above that level. Ms. Nathanson asked if it was possible to design a fair franchise system that allowed the haulers to recover a fair profit. Mr. Hobson said he believed it was possible. It would be easier to design for residential haulers than for commercial haulers because of the bin sizes and frequency of collection of commercial accounts. Were the City to establish territories, he recommended that it work closely with the current haulers to determine how to keep the level of revenue the same as the haulers currently enjoyed. He thought the more difficult issue was how to establish territories that provide an equal amount of growth potential, which could come in the form of new customers or new services. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Hobson if he had worked with a city where the haulers were asked to negotiate with each other before approaching the municipality about territories. Mr. Hobson said he had not, although he was aware that was the approach Portland took before it went to a franchise system. Ms. Nathanson said the council needed to balance business interests with residential and consumer interests. In some cases the citizens were not aware of some of the hidden costs of the existing system. She asked if any cities had shifted from a franchise system to a system that resembled Eugene's. Mr. Hobson was not aware of any cities that had shifted from an exclusive franchise to an open system. He was aware of cities that had moved from a single provider to multiple providers with each provider providing a different service within the same service area. Mr. Farr commented that the community relied on garbage service, and the haulers had demonstrated a great deal of flexibility in adapting to city regulations. He was happy with the situation in Eugene and thought the community had a good system in terms of recycling and system efficiency. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Fart asked if the City had statistics on the level of street deterioration created by different garbage haulers using the same residential street. Mr. Hobson said that he had done research for Fort Collins, Colorado, that indicated there was a cost associated with multiple trucks traveling down a street. He said that information could be provided to the council. Mr. Fart asked how significant one more truck could be. Mr. Hobson said that the vehicles in question were considerably heavier than passenger vehicles, and in small neighborhoods with narrow streets the trucks could damage the curbs when turning around. Primarily, however, the issue was weight. Mr. Hobson said that it might not be a terribly significant cost but it was a quantifiable cost nonetheless. There were more significant costs than the wear and tear created by trucks. Ms. Bettman asked what parameters existed if the City decided to have exclusive territories and franchise them: Could anyone bid on those territories, including nonlocal haulers? Ms. Young said that she had discussed the issue with the City Attorney's Office. Currently, there was a five-year rolling license issued to haulers. She suggested if the council decided to change the system, staff could negotiate with the current haulers and turn those licenses into franchises, thereby retaining the local haulers. Ms. Young said that in instances where a franchise agreement existed, there was generally a provision for automatic renewal. Mr. Hobson added that the option of an exclusive franchise did not involve a bidding process, but working with the current haulers on franchises. Ms. Bettman asked if the haulers could sell the franchises. Mr. Hobson said yes. Ms. Young clarified that they could do so now. Mr. Hobson added that typically, franchise agreements included a clause that required municipal approval of the franchise transfer. That approval could not be withheld unreasonably. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Hobson that there was the chance service could gravitate toward nonlocal haulers. Mr. Hobson reiterated that the possibility existed today. Ms. Bettman noted the savings projected from franchising exclusive territories, and asked if staff was saying that adoption of the recommendation would mean customers would see a rate reduction, and how long would that be guaranteed. Mr. Hobson said that they could see a reduction but might not; another approach would be to forego a rate adjustment or postpone the adjustment for a longer period of time. If the City were to reduce the rates by seven to eleven percent, he believed that there would need to be an inflationary adjustment to the rates during the next rate review as the rate reduction would capture all the actual savings. Ms. Bettman asked how the savings would affect the commercial haulers. Mr. Hobson said it would have no impact on the commercial routes; the savings he mentioned was specific to the residential rate. Mr. Kelly commended the staff work and expressed appreciation for the amount of public input staff sought. He asked about the potential that the rate-setting process could be made more transparent and open to the public without requiring the haulers to open their books to the public. He suggested staff consider the question for the future. Ms. Young said that it was difficult to disguise the information from one hauler to another because of the distribution of accounts. One hauler had 80 percent of the residential market, for example, and labor costs differed depending on whether the hauler is unionized. Mr. Hobson said that if the information could be phrased in terms of cost increases for major expense categories that might work. Mr. Kelly suggested the issue be discussed with the haulers. Ms. Taylor asked how there could be competition when the City sets the rates, and new haulers were prohibited. Ms. Young said the haulers compete on the basis of service. Comments from the focus groups and phone surveys indicated that there was appreciation of haulers who would walk to the house to retrieve garbage cans, which added to the actual cost to the hauler. She noted that some haulers did not charge for this MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 5 Work Session service, in spite of fees designed to pay for the additional cost. Some people liked knowing they were working with a small hauler and that when they called the office they knew the staff. Ms. Taylor asked if designated routes would prohibit haulers from seeking additional customers. Mr. Hobson said it would from the standpoint of haulers growing their business by securing existing additional accounts. He noted that growth comes from adding services. Some haulers could purchase another hauler's business to grow, as had happened in Portland since it went to a franchise system. Ms. Taylor confirmed the target profit margin was 11 percent. She asked if it could be lower. Ms. Young said that staff reviewed the profit standards with a citizen advisory committee in 1998, and based on the information received at that time, the 11 percent pre-tax profit figure was established. She said that no change had been contemplated, but it could be changed. She did not think it would make a significant difference in the rates for residential accounts. If the rates were blended, the last analysis showed the combined profit for all but one of the haulers would be above 11 percent. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Young said that the haulers now pay a percentage of their revenue minus the tipping fee to the City. Mr. Rayor said that he received comments from constituents about the value of choice, but he could see the advantages of franchising the system as well. He thought that the system should be open for the time being but should be moving toward an exclusive system that had all the haulers on board, and that, in turn, would serve to bring the public on board. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to change the method of solid waste and recycling collection rate calculation to blend commercial and residential expenses. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He said that it would restore the system to what it was before 1989, and the haulers had been able to work with the system at that time. It was an approach that was typical of most Oregon cities. He thought, from the focus groups, there would not be much public resistance. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Kelly. She said that the approach was not unusual, and would help to delay future residential increases. She thought that ten years was too long between commercial rate increases when residential rates had been raised several times. She regretted the topic had not been managed in a more intentional way by the council and organization. Ms. Nathanson said if the council had considered the curbside yard debris program and the agenda item on the same time line, she did not think the City would have had to raise rates for the yard debris program as much or at all. She acknowledged, however, that the motion would result in rate relief in the future. Mr. Fart noted his agreement with previous speakers. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Young said that the haulers supported the staff recommendation if the status quo was maintained. Ms. Bettman supported the motion as a good idea. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 6 Work Session The council discussed the options prepared by staff for possible changes to the system. Mr. Fart thought open competition drove excellence in any market. He was strongly in favor of open competition. Regarding the issue of growing a business, he said that it was a major element of any business Success. Ms. Nathanson was not sure how she would vote at this point. She thought street deterioration only one of several factors, including aesthetics, that was involved. She was concerned about cost. It appeared the City had a higher cost than it would otherwise, which translated directly into the charge for the service. She said that it seemed like the vast majority of the cities surveyed had a more controlled environment for collection and had shifted from an open system to a single hauler system or to territories. She was very interested in controlling costs and thought from the experience of other cities that a different system was better. Ms. Nathanson acknowledged that the politics of the situation might dictate the status quo as more acceptable to the community. However, she did not want to think that she had abandoned an opportunity to save the citizens money. Mr. Meisner also did not know what option he would support. He shared Ms. Nathanson's concerns about cost and livability and the impact on neighborhoods from residential haulers. While the road deterioration might not be significant in the array of costs, it was the only cost the City itself had to pay. He noted that some of those who called for choice had also said they were tired of having different trucks on their streets on different days. Mr. Meisner said that he would like to start the process of moving toward a geographic franchise arrangement that could include the potential of increased business growth. He was unsure of how to accomplish that, but suggested shorter license periods was a start. Ms. Bettman strongly favored the status quo with modifications to address Mr. Kelly's concerns. She had not heard any complaints about trucks on the streets, but had heard people wanted to retain their choice of haulers. She was concerned that exclusive territories and franchises would result in consolidation of territories with perhaps lower costs but also with less and less service because of fewer haulers. Mr. Rayor said he was also leaning toward a modified status quo, but tended to agree with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner. If the City moved toward a franchise system, he would prefer territories with fuzzy borders that could shift if a hauler could get the majority of the business on the street adjacent to its territories. He said that he was not ready to move in that direction because he did not think the council had a range of options that gave ratepayers the desired savings while allowing the haulers to be entrepreneurial. Mr. Rayor recommended that staff continue to meet with the haulers to discuss the issue. He did not think the council's vote tonight was the last word on the subject, particularly if energy costs increased. Ms. Taylor said that she had changed her mind over time and now favored the status quo. She agreed with Mr. Rayor that discussion on the subject was not closed. Mr. Kelly said that he shared Ms. Taylor's position. He had previously favored a territorial system but discussion with citizens and haulers had changed his mind. He said he was struck by a comment made by a hauler that a move toward exclusive territories with service agreements would create a situation where haulers worked toward the agreement and its penalty schedule rather than toward better customer service. Mr. Kelly further noted that the survey responses indicated that citizens supported franchise service only if it were $5 cheaper. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to retain the status quo with modifications with regard to the redesign of the solid waste and collection system. Ms. Nathanson cautioned the council against misinterpreting the survey data. She said that the response mentioned by Mr. Kelly was to an open-ended question which produced a range of responses, skewing the results. She did not think the survey questions were well-designed. While people might be happy with their individual service, she was unhappy with the system because its redundancy of service and higher costs overall. Mr. Fart supported the motion. He was concerned that the City protect its existing haulers from large outside companies that came into an area and destroyed the viability of existing providers. He asked how the City could ensure that local haulers remained local haulers. He believed that when large outside providers took over, there was generally a diminishment of services. Mr. Fart recommended that the City consider changing the license period from five to seven years. Ms. Young said that it was likely the City would examine that potential in its review. Mr. Rayor wanted staff to continue meeting with the haulers to optimize the delivery system. Mr. Meisner did not support the motion. He wanted to move away from the status quo because he did not think the City could afford it. The City needed to do better. He thought Ms. Nathanson's points were well- taken. He thought one could get whatever one wanted from a survey. Mr. Meisner advocated for a more long- term view of the issue. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to amend the motion by adding the phrase "and also direct the City Manager to study methods of creating territories." Mr. Meisner urged staffto find some different ways to look at the franchise issue. He liked the concept of geographically based territories with flexible borders, with neighborhoods able to petition to be in or out of a territory. He wanted an examination of ways that competition could occur in a changed context to do away with redundancy and damage to the streets while retaining some opportunities for choice in the future. Mr. Kelly said that he could not support the amendment because it essentially directed staff to do the work it just completed. He asked if there was a way for staff to look at the different ideas that were mentioned by councilors. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Nathanson voting yes. The main motion passed, 4:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Nathanson voting no. Mr. Pap~ rejoined the meeting. C. Work Session: An Ordinance Concerning Alarm Systems; Renumbering and Amending Section 4.933 and Adding it to Section 3.005 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending and Renumbering Sections 4.935, 4.936, 4.937 of the Eugene Code, 1971 to 3.105, 3.110, and 3.115; Amending Sections 3.990, MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 8 Work Session and 4.990 of that Code; Repealing Section 4.934 of that Code; and Adding a New Section 3.100 to the Eugene Code, 1971 The council was joined by Police Chief Jim Hill, Lieutenant Carolyn McDermad, Senior Management Analyst Terry Smith, Acting Fire Marshal Reggie Augsberger, Matt Shuler of the Eugene Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, and Alan Leiman of the City Attorney's Office for the agenda item. Chief Hill discussed the proposed amendments to the current code, reporting that the department had two issues, one related to cost and one related to officer-community safety. The need to respond to false alarms was costly and it diminished the department's ability to respond to real emergencies and calls for service. He referred the council to the Hobson Report, which addressed staffing levels, and said that the proposal was one of several strategies to address the report's recommendations. He clarified that, unlike some jurisdictions, the intent of the department was to drive down false alarms rather than raise revenues. Chief Hill acknowledged uncertainty about whether the approach would work, but said the department was relying on the most recent research to reduce the number of false alarms. He thought a combination of a permitting fee and community education would mitigate the problem. Lieutenant McDermed reviewed the elements of the proposed approach, which include an alarm registration system to create an accurate data base and help in educational efforts, escalating fees for false alarms, education and public awareness, and verification of alarm calls after an established number of false alarms had been received. Acting Fire Marshal Reggie Augsberger of the Eugene Fire & Emergency Medical Services Department described the problems that his department had with false alarms, noting that between 700 and 1,000 each year were received, or approximately 90 percent of all alarm calls. Mr. Smith briefly discussed the approaches taken in other communities and reviewed the amendments proposed by staff, which involved a combination of fines and education, saying staff hoped the department could use the tools available to it to achieve a 20 percent to 25 percent reduction in false alarms. Mr. Rayor commended the staff report. He referred to the definition of "false alarm" in the draft ordinance included with the meeting materials and suggested there was a problem with the phrase "any source." Mr. Leiman clarified that definition currently existed in the code in Chapter 4, but it could be modified in the ordinance. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about the number of false alarms from a relatively small number of locations. She thought it very important to reduce the number of false alarms because public safety staff became desensitized to repeated false alarms, creating a situation where a staff life could be at risk when an alarm proved real. She thought it important to raise sufficient revenue for education and enforcement. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the experience of other communities after implementing such an ordinance, Mr. Smith said that the communities with the least success in reducing false alarms had adopted some but not all of the best practices available. Best practices appeared to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for producing results. There were communities that had adopted all the best practices and been very successful, as well as vice-versa; the least successful cities have not used all the best practices. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the reduction in property crime that was experienced by Salt Lake City after implementation of a similar ordinance, Mr. Smith said that there was no correlation between ordinance implementation and the drop in property crime in Salt Lake City; Salt Lake City used that statistic to demonstrate that the ordinance did not lead to an increase in property crime. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Papd noted his own experience with false alarms as a business and property owner. He believed that verification of false alarms would significantly reduce false alarms. He thought the ordinance proposed would help to focus attention on the problem and reduce false alarms. He wanted to reduce false alarms to maintain the number of officers on the street. He wanted a shift toward verification and highlighting the responsibility of property owners in stopping false alarms. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the staff work that had gone into development of the agenda materials and staff recommendation. He said it appeared there was no single solution, but a combination of solutions. He also appreciated Mr. Rayor's remark regarding the definition. Mr. Kelly said that officer safety and freeing up officer time were both important considerations to him. He anticipated the fees would be revenue-neutral. Mr. Kelly reminded the staffthat the fiscal and resource impact of the ordinance should be addressed in the packet material. In response to Mr. Kelly, Mr. Smith confirmed that the proposal was intended to be revenue-neutral. He said that the policy question was to what extent the City should be recovering the cost of the officers' time and whether the department should build a reserve fund to pay for new software related to the Computer-Aided Dispatch system to better track false alarms. Mr. Kelly did not oppose the establishment of the reserves but he hoped the moneys would come from the fines for repeated false alarms and not from a general registration fee. Mr. Kelly said it appeared the proposal was not only revenue-neutral, but would be time-positive for officers to respond to other calls, which was a financial and community benefit. Ms. Bettman agreed there was a need for the ordinance and generally supported the changes proposed by staff to the code. She wanted to ensure the revenue associated with the ordinance was sufficient to pay all the costs of administration, the CAD software, education, and outreach. She suggested the cost of education might be most appropriately paid by revenues from the permit fee. Ms. Bettman wanted the fines to be high enough to discourage future false alarms. She noted the disparity between the fine schedule and highest recommended fine in the ordinance. Mr. Smith clarified that the schedule set the fee limits; another schedule set the fees. Ms. Bettman observed that a provision in the existing code that allowed the City to place a lien on the property that generated false alarms had been removed as a result of the draft ordinance. She suggested that in cases where the permit owner was the property owner, that tool should be retained to recover those costs. She asked what the tool was being replaced with, adding that the court approach was a costly one. Mr. Smith said a lien was a costly tool to use as well. The intent behind the ordinance was to make it as simple to use as possible. Those who do not pay are on verification status until they pay; their unpaid bills would be sold to a collection agency, minimizing the City's cost and generating some revenue. Mr. Fart also noted his experience in responding to false alarms. He said that the most important thing was to ensure the City could respond to actual calls for service from the police. He thought the ordinance would reduce the need to respond to false alarms as well as ensure that true alarms were responded to. Mr. Fart determined from Mr. Smith that a business could purchase packages from the private sector that included alarm verification services. Mr. Smith said that businesses purchasing that service were also subject to the ordinance, even though they had, in effect, adopted best practices. He noted that the issue had also been raised by Mr. Kelly and in public meetings. Staff included those businesses because it believed that there was a need for basic information regarding the need for a biennial renewal. He added that the key lever in determining the response to true alarms as opposed to quelling the frequency of false alarms was the point at which the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 10 Work Session approach moved from penalties to verification. He said that the proposal to verify after five rather than six false alarms recognized the private verification that permit holders had purchased, and reduced the upper end of penalties and revenues, and perhaps addressed the issue of those who were not willing to cooperate with the City or recognize the problem. Mr. Smith acknowledged that it probably also increased the response times for those few times when there was a false alarm and the permit holder was already on verification. Mr. Meisner asked about the basis of the fine amounts. He did not think the maximum fine was much for a large business. Mr. Smith said that there were examples of companies who budgeted for such penalties, which was why staff proposed verification after five alarms. He referred to Fremont California, which had found the verification requirement to be effective for large companies. Ms. Taylor asked what caused false alarms. Mr. Smith cited examples of reasons for false alarms, saying in the case of fire alarms the problem was maintenance. With regard to security alarms, they were generally caused by small acts of inattentiveness, such as triggering an alarm by opening a door or a forgotten access code. He said that private home system alarms were triggered for similar reasons. Ms. Taylor asked how penalties would help to reduce such accidents. Mr. Smith said that the business of installing security alarms was a competitive one, and he distinguished it from the businesses that installed fire alarm systems to State- mandated standards. In the case of private security systems, sometimes businesses installed detectors of the wrong type for the application in question, and a penalty could spur a homeowner to install a different, more effective security device. If the staff of a private business kept making mistakes, a business would get new staff or teach the old staff new behavior. He suggested that the choices before the council was whether to let such minor mistakes to take up valuable officer time and whether to engage the community for solutions to the problem. Ms. Taylor determined from staff that total verification would address the issues underlying the amendments. Mr. Johnson added that the response time for actual alarms would be longer. Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly expressed interest in a written status report on the success of the ordinance after it had been in place for one year. At Mr. Johnson's request, Mr. Shuler and Mr. Augsberger discussed changes to the ordinance related to fire alarms, noting specifically the broadening of the alarm types to which the ordinance would apply, the addition of a civil penalty, and the registration of all systems. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to discuss verification. She asked if it had the potential of slowing response to a real emergency. Mr. Smith said yes. Ms. Nathanson said that was a problem but she was not sure what to say about it at this point, given the need to reduce false alarms and unneeded police responses. She asked what liability the City would have in such a situation. Mr. Smith said that those who end up with verification requirements stay there by choice or do not stay there long. Most businesses address the problem before that. The tradeoff for the small number of real alarms which would have slowed response was the quicker response that would occur to all other calls. Mr. Rayor left the meeting. Mr. Pap~ asked if there were statistics on the number of real alarms to which there would be slowed response that involved human safety as opposed to property safety. Mr. Smith said no. He noted that participants in public information sessions had complimented the department staff on its swift response to real alarms. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 11 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 12 Work Session