Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/26/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 26, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: Ordinance Amendments on Cruising and Prostitution-Free Zone Lieutenant Pete Kerns of the Eugene Police Department, Floyd Prozanski of the Police Commission, and Judge Wayne Allen of the Eugene Municipal Court joined the council for the item. Lt. Kerns provided a brief history of prostitution activities in Eugene, focusing on streetwalking activity in the 6th/7th avenue area and the police response to that activity. He noted considerable neighborhood concern about the safety of women working as prostitutes in the area. He characterized the majority of prostitutes as IV drug users addicted to heroin and cocaine. Lt. Kerns noted the association between street-level prostitution and street-level drug dealing. Lt. Kerns reported that the department had invited westside neighbors, staff from the Department of Youth Services, members of the Rapid Deployment Unit, the West Sector Area Coordinator, and representatives of several social service agencies to form a task force to develop a strategy to address prostitution in the area. The task force had developed several remedies for the problem, which it presented to the Police Commission. The commission had subsequently formed a subcommittee around the issue to review the remedies, and the subcommittee had made several recommendations. Mr. Prozanski reviewed the recommendations of the subcommittee regarding the City's response to street-level prostitution. Those recommendations were reflected in the three draft ordinances before the council. He noted that the recommendations were presented to and accepted by the full commission. The recommendations included that prostitutes be sent to the State court system to give those individuals access to the State's drug court programs, with a request that the council support Lane County's Federal Community Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) grant proposal to increase funding for the court. The commission also recommended the adoption of a prostitution-free zone. Mr. Prozanski noted concerns expressed by the commission about the constitutionality of that approach and the concept such a zone could represent a type of double jeopardy. The commission had worked to address those concerns by ensuring a timely MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 1 Work Session appearance before the Municipal Court judge. He said there was a case regarding the issue pending action by the Oregon Supreme Court. If the court overturned the law in question, which was a Portland ordinance, the council would need to reconsider the ordinance. At this point, he felt comfortable with the recommended approach. Continuing, Mr. Prozanski said that the commission recommended application of the cruising ordinance to the area in question. The area would be declared a prostitution-free zone. He said that the commission also recommended that the council amend the Municipal Court penalty schedule for those convicted of patronizing prostitutes to equal the State penalties for prostitutes. The commission further recommended that the names of the customers of prostitutes, or "johns," be published in local media sources and a City Web site. Mr. Prozanski noted that the local newspaper, The Register-Guard, was currently investigating whether publishing such names would place the paper in any legal liability. Mr. Prozanski said the commission advocated for a review of the ordinances, if passed, after 18 months. Mr. Prozanski said that the commission also recommended that the City and Lane County take a lead in finding additional funding for drug prevention and intervention, that a mandatory educational program about the impact of prostitution on individuals and the community for "johns" be established in Municipal Court, and that the council consider increasing funding for the Police Department to address the underlying reasons that may cause someone to become a prostitute. Mr. Farr commended the work of the task force and indicated support for the commission's recommendations. He noted the scope of the problem and said that the ultimate victim of prostitution was the women involved. Those soliciting and "pimping" prostitutes had not historically been prosecuted to the extent the prostitute was, and that needed to be changed. He also supported increases in funding for drug and alcohol treatment. Mr. Meisner noted the concerns of residents in his ward about the problem of prostitution. He said that the problem heavily affected residential neighborhoods. He had personally witnessed the cruising behavior of "johns." Women in the neighborhood could not walk to the grocery store alone without being solicited, and residents felt uncomfortable allowing their children to travel without escort. Prostitution also caused public health problems. While Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Farr that prostitutes were often victimized, he liked the balanced approach the commission recommended, which demanded a degree of personal accountability from the women working as prostitutes. He favored holding a hearing on the proposal before the council. Mr. Meisner appreciated the floating cruising zone, which gave the police flexibility to attack the problem where it existed. Mr. Meisner was optimistic the Oregon Supreme Court would rule in favor of Portland. Mr. Meisner asked if newspapers in other cities published the names of "johns," and if those newspapers had been successfully sued. Mr. Prozanski said that other newspapers published such names, and he was not aware of any successful lawsuits. Mr. Meisner observed that, with the exception of juveniles, the newspaper published the names of other convicted individuals. He hoped the City could gain the newspaper's cooperation in publishing the names. Mr. Rayor was generally supportive of the recommendations. He asked for clarification of the provision allowing the City to exclude a person from the area for a specific period, suggesting that it represented a penalty prior to the court process. Mr. Prozanski said that the exclusion did MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 2 Work Session not presuppose a court decision or limit the judge. The judge, a disinterested party, would determine whether the criteria for exclusion were met. He emphasized that the commission had worked to ensure that the excluded individual received due process. Lt. Kerns added that a judge can exclude a person from an area upon conviction. The optimal exclusion period would begin after being established by a judge after arrest and end at conviction, but that could be up to six months or longer, depending on whether the individual appeared in court. Lt. Kerns said that the proposed exclusion period brought it closer to the likely time a person would appear in court. Mr. Prozanski noted the one-year option available to the court if a person was convicted. He said that the commission had discussed several time exclusion periods and agreed on the 90-day period. Mr. Rayor referred to Attachment B of the meeting packet, the draft ordinance establishing the floating cruising zone, and suggested that the term "his/her" be eliminated in the first line of (4). He asked about the reference to a "traffic congestion thoroughfare," suggesting that the concept of congestion was not necessarily applicable in this instance. He suggested that staff review the ordinance and consider adding the phrase "or other reason." City Attorney Glenn Klein said that staff would review that issue and respond to Mr. Rayor's comments at the public hearing. Mr. Prozanski noted that the commission had based the current ordinance on the ordinance addressing cruising on Willamette Street. The ordinance provided for flexibility in the prohibited hours that would be posted. Mr. Kelly recognized the seriousness of the problem for area residents and hoped the ordinances would make a difference for them. He thanked the commission and task force for its work. Mr. Kelly said the link between drug addiction and prostitution was striking, and he appreciated giving people the opportunity to go through drug court, but he was concerned that without treatment facilities the approach would be useless. He said that he wanted staff to return with other positive steps the council could take to ensure treatment was available outside of supporting Lane County's grant request. Mr. Kelly hoped the exclusion zone was used against both the johns and the prostitutes. Lt. Kerns indicated that was the intent. Mr. Kelly appreciated the change to the sections related to the exclusion zone and show cause hearing. Referring to the variance section on page 5 of the ordinance, Mr. Kelly said he hoped the definitions section included mental health needs as well as physical health needs. Mr. Pap~ praised the process used to develop the ordinances. He hoped that the council would see more such processes. He also hoped the exclusion zone did not merely move the problem around, and suggested it was a situation of making the best of a bad situation. Mr. Pap~ asked if the current budget included funding to support the ordinance. Lt. Kerns responded that the department committed $10,000 in matching funds for the grant being sought by Lane County. Ms. Taylor expressed concern that the exclusion zone could shift the problem of prostitution and cruising to another location. She did not generally favor zones excluding certain individuals, such as the ban on skateboards and dogs on 13th Avenue. Ms. Taylor did not want to penalize MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 3 Work Session prostitutes, who might not have any choice in the way they made money or perceived they had no choice. She believed their lives were already bad enough. She preferred to penalize the "johns," and to begin with the floating cruising zone. Mr. Lee said that he had traveled through the neighborhood with staff and had gone door to door asking if there was a prostitution problem. He had been answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lee said that he had also spoken to youth at bus stops, who said it was a major problem. He had heard unbelievable stories about "johns" who appeared to be mentally disturbed. He did not normally support exclusion zones as he generally shared Ms. Taylor's belief, but in this situation the neighborhood was so beleaguered that he supported the approach. He pointed out that the commission recommended a multi-pronged strategy to address the problem, and the zone was just one element of that strategy. Regarding funding, Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Kelly that a gap analysis of the funding issue was needed. He said that without treatment, the cycle of prostitution and drug use would not end. Grants were good, but such funding was not sustainable over the long-term. Mr. Lee asked how the City could determine whether the size of an exclusion zone was unconstitutional. Mr. Prozanski said that was the job of the courts. Mr. Klein added that at this point, the City had next to no guidance on how big a zone was too big. He said that the City Attorney's Office believed the ordinance was constitutional. The Appeals Court had ruled that Portland's ordinance was constitutional. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Lt. Kerns said that the residents of the areas in question did not want the exclusion zone publicized to any great extent because of fears it would attract "johns" to the area. Residents did not want the areas signed. Mayor Torrey said that the task force and commission had both done good work, and he supported all the recommendations. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that women were victims of prostitution, and said the approach would allow the City to provide them with help. He liked the proposed evaluation after 18 months. Addressing remarks by councilors, Mr. Prozanski stressed the importance of stable, long-term funding for the drug court to help break the cycle of dependence for those arrested for prostitution. Regarding the exclusion zone, he said that exclusion citations for both the prostitutes and their customers would be handled through Municipal Court. Regarding the moving cruising zone, Mr. Prozanski said that staff had visited Portland to see how similar ordinances were working. Portland staff indicated that the problem had not moved from one area to another, but had gone inside. He said that the commission had recommended an evaluation point to ensure that the ordinance could be adjusted to address problems that might arise. Mr. Farr said there were two key components of the ordinance for him: 1) public recognition of the "johns," and 2) the fact that prostitutes would be helped with drug treatment. Regarding Ms. Taylor's statements, he agreed that the prostitutes were victims and suggested the recommendations would help them break that cycle of victimization if adequate funding existed. Mr. Farr supported holding a public hearing on the proposed ordinances to let residents know they had been heard, and to publicize the issue to those living in other parts of the community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly referred to Section D in the ordinance regarding exemptions where the prohibition did not apply, and suggested a section regarding travel to and from businesses be added that paralleled the section regarding travel to and from residences. He was concerned about the ordinance's effect on employees, for example, who were delivering goods to and from a business. Referring to the ordinance related to penalties, Mr. Kelly suggested a stepped penalty so there was a lower maximum fine for a first offense. Mr. Prozanski pointed out that the court had the discretion to set appropriate penalties; the penalties proposed made the City's penalties consistent with the State's. Mr. Kelly acknowledged judicial discretion but wished the State maximum for the first offense could be reduced as well. He asked that alternative language be provided for council consideration. Mr. Kelly endorsed the 18-month evaluation. Regarding the publication of "johns'" names and the posting of photos on the Web, Mr. Kelly said he did not support the approach at this time because of the Iow rate of recidivism among such individuals. Arrest and penalty appeared to be a sufficient deterrence. Lt. Kerns clarified that the intent of publication was to deter new customers from soliciting women. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Kelly, Lt. Kerns said Portland did not publish the names of "johns," but other communities did. He added that Portland's strategy was not nearly as comprehensive as the one under consideration in Eugene. Mr. Meisner supported the publication of the names of "johns," and suggested it would be a mistake to assume that because a person was not arrested more than once that they did not offend again. He said police staff had indicated to him that once arrested, offenders become "wise" to police attempts to control prostitution. He said that residents see the same offenders repeatedly. Mr. Meisner endorsed a public hearing but he was unsure that those residents who participated on the task force would attend as they were "burned out" at having to repeatedly make their case before various government bodies. He encouraged the council to read the accounts of their testimony in the background materials. Ms. Taylor indicated she would support holding a public hearing, but was not sure of her support for the ordinances. She said if there is not money for treatment, the effort would be useless. B.Work Session: An Ordinance Adding Additional Chemicals to the List of Hazardous Substances Regulated Under Amendment IV to the Eugene Charter of 197'6; and Providing an Effective Date Glen Potter of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department joined the council for the item. He said that the draft ordinance before the council would add certain substances to the local list of reportable chemicals under the Toxics Right-to-Know Program, and would reduce the reporting thresholds for other, already listed chemicals. The ordinance reflected action recently taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, which is one of the lists used as a basis for the City's list in the charter amendment establishing the City program. Mr. Potter said that the charter amendment initially provided for the automatic addition of such substances to the list; the Court of Appeals MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 5 Work Session had invalidated that provision. The chemicals are proposed to be added to the City's list by ordinance, which was not prohibited by the courts. Mr. Kelly termed the ordinance a housekeeping item, noting that the current list of reportable chemicals was based on federal environmental regulations, and the charter amendment was written to allow the list to be updated automatically based on federal actions. In response, Mr. Potter said he would not entirely characterize the ordinance as "housekeeping," noting the 4:3 vote on the Toxics Board regarding the issue. Three of the seven members of the board opposed the addition of further chemicals to the list. Mr. Potter pointed out that the City Council was not obliged to add chemicals to the list. Mr. Kelly asked about the source of the members' objections. Mr. Potter said the vote reflected the composition of the board. The business representatives were opposed to adding to the list because it added to the burden of reporting businesses. He said there may be some feeling that the courts had given the City the message to "stand pat" and a concern about the precedent set by adoption of the ordinance. Responding to a question from Mr. Johnson, Mr. Potter said that the merits of the chemicals in question were not discussed by the board. Mr. Kelly asked legal counsel to determine whether it was appropriate to adopt a stand-alone ordinance or whether the ordinance should amend some part of the Eugene Code. Mr. Fart supported the charter amendment passed by the voters. However, he believed the courts had voided what the voters passed, so his support for the addition of further chemicals to the list was not strong. He said that each time the council "tinkered" with the amendment it was moving farther away from what the voters passed. Without a detailed study of the impact of regulations, the City was adding to the cost of doing business or providing housing in Eugene. He said that Eugene was already an expensive city for its residents, and the council should be cognizant of that fact and not indiscriminately add to those costs. Mr. Fart asked how much research the City did on the chemicals in question and the finished products they added to. Mr. Potter said no research had been done by the City. The board based its recommendations on the work of the EPA. Mr. Fart asked how many local companies used the chemicals in question. Mr. Potter said that only mercury was reported by a company in Eugene for 1999; none of the other chemicals were reported in 1998. At the state level, only vanadium was reported in 1998. Mr. Fart wanted to know what finished products the chemicals contributed to, and the impact of their addition on the businesses of Eugene. He was supportive of the charter amendment, but unable to support the ordinance. Mr. Pap~ questioned whether the City's law required businesses to file multiple forms to multiple agencies. Mr. Potter said yes. Mr. Pap~ asked if there was work going on to align the forms. Mr. Potter said no. Mr. Meisner wanted to honor the voters' intention. The charter indicated that anything added to the federal lists should be added to the local list. The courts invalidated that process, but allowed the City to add chemicals by ordinance. Mr. Meisner hoped the City could make reporting as easy and efficient as possible. Mr. Lee said the voters wanted a comprehensive toxics program that included a mechanism for updating the list of toxic chemicals that must be reported. He said that the ordinance before the council was consistent with the voters' intent. He supported the ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner. She believed the council was morally obligated to amend the list of chemicals, and agreed with Mr. Kelly that it was a housekeeping issue. She called for a public hearing on the topic. Mr. Rayor supported the ordinance. He questioned the thresholds. Mr. Potter clarified that for the sake of simplicity, the board was using the thresholds in the existing local regulations, and they were lower than the federal thresholds. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner about the issue of voter intent. He said that the charter amendment did not call for a study of the toxicity of the chemicals; the City delegated that scientific authority to the federal government. He suggested it would be cost-prohibitive to do such research locally. Given that the chemicals were federally listed, he suspected that local companies were familiar with them, even if they had not had to report them to the City before. Mr. Farr did not think that the fact the EPA listed a chemical meant that Eugene had to do the same. Not looking at numbers significant to local communities suggested to him that the agency's research was not prudent. Mr. Lee asked how often the EPA updated its list. Mr. Potter did not know. Mr. Johnson noted that the council could delegate the listing of chemicals to him. Mr. Lee endorsed that approach. He believed it was consistent with the public's intent. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Klein said that staff could draft such an ordinance for the council to consider. Mr. Rayor supported Mr. Johnson's suggestion. Mr. Pap8 also supported Mr. Johnson's suggestion. He asked how the process would work. Mr. Klein said that it would work like the current administrative rule setting process, which included a comment period. Ms. Taylor said that if it was a matter of the manager picking and choosing chemicals, she would oppose Mr. Johnson's suggestion. Mr. Kelly said that as long as the program existed, he hoped the process could be done administratively. He noted the small number of chemicals involved and said that it would be time-consuming for the council. He suggested there be a role for the Toxics Board in the process of adding chemicals. Mr. Potter noted the presence of Toxics Board President Steve Johnson. Mr. Johnson said that such changes happened rarely, and they were generally minute and could probably be handled administratively. Mr. Farr said the approach made a great deal of sense. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein said that if the manager refused to add a chemical to the list, the council could add it. The council agreed to hold a hearing on an ordinance to implement Mr. Johnson's suggestion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 7 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 8 Work Session