Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MInutes - 07/19/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall July 19, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. At the recommendation of Council President Lee, the council reordered the agenda and moved Item D, Smoke-Free Work Places and Youth Access to Tobacco, to item B. A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Mr. Lee announced that the council would discuss the Eugene Celebration parade at its upcoming process session. Mr. Farr passed. Mr. Meisner reported that improvements were being made to the Owens Rose Garden and a bench destroyed by vandals over the winter had been replaced by volunteers from the Campbell Senior Center. He thanked the volunteers. Mr. Kelly passed. Ms. Taylor said that she had recently attended the International Sister City Conference in Denver, Colorado, and learned about a practice from St. Louis, which she suggested Eugene adopt. Each year St. Louis honors each of its sister cities with a special day during which the sister city's flag is flown and its traditions celebrated. Ms. Taylor discussed how easy it was to travel by foot in Denver malls and noted the use of four-way walk signs outside the malls in that community. Ms. Taylor asked the council to consider a performance auditor for the City. Mayor Torrey said that he had been at Petersen Barn the previous day and heard recitations of young people's poetry. He commended the event, which would be held twice again, to the council. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. He had no items. Mr. Rayor arrived at the meeting. He had no items. B.Work Session: Smoke-Free Work Places and Youth Access to Tobacco MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 19, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Jan Bohman of the City Manager's Office introduced the item. She referred the council to the materials related to the agenda item in the meeting packet, saying the materials centered around smoke-free work place regulations and regulations denying underage youth access to tobacco products. Ms. Bohman requested direction on whether staff should develop ordinances related to those issues and the general parameters of those ordinances. Ms. Bohman briefly reviewed the elements of possible ordinances, addressing the ordinances in question currently in force in Corvallis, Oregon, and Multnomah County, Oregon, and how those jurisdictions handled the issue of enforcement. She reported that legal counsel had reviewed the preliminary staff work and saw no barrier to the adoption of similar ordinances locally. Ms. Bohman identified issues for council resolution, including inclusion of possible exemptions for bars and restaurants in the ordinance and concerns raised by the University of Oregon regarding the Corvallis provision to restrict smoking at building entrances, given the number of buildings and entrances to buildings on campus. She identified several issues related to implementation, including public education and information about the ordinances; enforcement of the ordinance; and the potential of a business license to underwrite the costs of administering and enforcing the ordinance. Ms. Bohman noted an internal initiative on the part of the Police Department to refer minor-in-possession of tobacco offenses to Municipal Court so citations could be issued by the police and fines collected by the court. Options regarding possible next steps were included in the meeting packet. Mr. Farr noted his initial support for the ordinances but said, as he heard more information from different constituents, that he had identified several problems, including the priority of the police response to tobacco-related calls, possible impediments to private property, and restricting individual rights. He said that police response seemed to be a non-issue because there had been only one call for service in Corvallis since the ordinance was implemented. Mr. Farr was still concerned about impeding private property and private behavior but did not think it was very restrictive of people's rights to confine smoking to certain locations. Three of his children's four immediate grandparents had died from tobacco-related causes, and so he was very concerned about the issue. Mr. Farr supported the development of an ordinance. Mr. Meisner supported the first options for both youth access and smoke-free workplaces, which were to direct staff to proceed with developing an ordinance to require tobacco sales to be vendor-assisted and to direct staff to proceed with developing an ordinance that prohibited smoking in all public places and work places with two or more employees. He believed it made sense to employ the County Health Department for enforcement. He asked Mr. Johnson to consult County Administrator Bill Van Vactor about the sentiment of the Board of County Commissioners toward such ordinances. Mr. Meisner asked what the ordinance was projected to cost to administer over the longer term, noting his concerns about the City's financial forecast. He said that business licenses could be used but he also wondered if tobacco products could be taxed locally to pay for all the costs of the program. He asked Ms. Bohman what penalties youth face when cited for minor in possession now. Ms. Bohman said she believed they received a letter. Ms. Taylor said that it was self-evident that enacting the ordinance was the right thing to do. She supported both proposed ordinances. Regarding penalties, she said she needed to give the issue more thought. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 19, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Kelly said his thoughts on the issue had evolved over time and he now supported including bars in any ordinance contemplated, as reflected in Option 1. He said that there was increasingly good science that made it clear that secondhand smoke was dangerous. Mr. Kelly said that unlike patrons, the employees in work places where smoking occurred did not have a choice about whether they were exposed to secondhand smoke. Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner that the program should be self-supporting. He sought input from staff about other options to pay for the program. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Ms. Taylor that the issue seemed self-evident. He was concerned about the issue of including bars in the ordinance and suggested an approach that gave businesses some lead time, such as a year or two, to comply, and that required those businesses to clearly advertise that they were a smoking environment. He acknowledged the issue of employees' exposure to secondhand smoke but said that those individuals were free to decide where they wanted to work. Mr. Pap8 was also concerned about the cost of implementing the ordinances. He suggested that it might be easier to fund the program through licensing rather than through a tax on tobacco products. Ms. Nathanson was supportive of the concepts inherent in the proposed ordinances. She said that public health had always been the County's responsibility, and she questioned the County's position on the proposals. She thought that enforcement of public health regulations appropriately rested with the County Health Department. She also preferred to go forward with the City of Springfield to enact similar ordinances at approximately the same time, and asked about the status of that option. Regarding the option of licensing, Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the City had discontinued a selective licensing program and she would be reluctant to get back into the licensing business without a comprehensive review of what was licensed or should be licensed. Mr. Rayor supported the first option for both proposed ordinances. He said that the City had a role in ensuring employee safety. He was unsure about the position of Lane County and Springfield but believed the City Council must consider the citizens of the City of Eugene. He thought the City would get suggestions on modifications from citizens. He wanted a smoke-free work place for all employees all the time. Mr. Lee asked if local citations for minor in possession offenses would require a separate ordinance, and who had provided input about the concept. Ms. Bohman said a separate ordinance may be needed, and the department was still in the process of evaluating the concept so it was premature to discuss public input. Mr. Lee asked if other communities had similar ordinances. Ms. Bohman did not know, explaining that she had not been involved in the analysis. Mayor Torrey said that his concern was about those people who were using a legal product: where could they go to do so? He acknowledged concerns about public health of employees. Mayor Torrey was very concerned about the impact of tobacco products on youth and said that the focus of the ordinance was to deal with the person who sold cigarettes to youth. He said that MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 19, 2000 Page 3 Work Session in some cases, parents were involved. That concerned him. Mayor Torrey was very supportive of banning smoking in restaurants. He wanted the County Health Department to ask the Board of County Commissioners to enact such ordinances, saying it made no sense to make the city limits of Eugene the boundary of tobacco use as people would merely cross that boundary to go places that allowed smoking. Mayor Torrey wanted the State to deal more comprehensively with the question of who provided tobacco to youth. He noted that currently, offenders, who were rarely cited anyway, were only mailed post cards. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Johnson said that he would attempt to keep responsibility for enforcement out of the purview of the Police Department, and would work hard to figure out another enforcement option. Mayor Torrey asked for clarification of how the ordinances in Multnomah County and Corvallis addressed private clubs, and for more information about potential civil labor actions related to a city ordinance. Mr. Kelly said that business licensing could be a "stick" to deal with merchants who continued to sell tobacco products to minors in violation of the law. He said that the mechanism could potentially lend itself to outside contracting, which could realize cost savings. Mr. Kelly shared Ms. Nathanson's desire that Springfield enact a similar ordinance and suggested that Eugene's actions could be a spur for that community. Mr. Kelly supported a lead time for restaurants but suggested a shorter time period, such as six months. Mr. Fart said he had previously had a concern similar to the mayor's regarding restriction of a legal product but pointed out that other legal products, such as alcohol, were similarly restricted for the well-being of the community. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Johnson said that the council was not obliged to form a citizen advisory committee to oversee the ordinances' development, but it could do so. He said that it was relatively straightforward to adapt the language of other ordinances to the City's format. However, if a change was made regarding the issue of minor in possession, legal counsel would have to develop that text. He clarified, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Farr, that the text regarding minors in possession did not have to be of the ordinance. Mr. Farr favored that approach. Mr. Meisner shared the concerns expressed by others regarding the need for a similar ordinance in the County, particularly one regarding youth access because youth could simply go to unincorporated areas of the county to buy tobacco products. He did not perceive the need for an advisory committee. Mr. Meisner also did not support an exemption for bars, and thought six months' lead time was sufficient for businesses to prepare for the ordinance. Mr. Meisner did not want the police or other enforcement authorities to seek out minor in possession violations, although he did want to penalize vendors. Mr. Johnson said that the intent of the minor in possession ordinance was to strengthen enforcement of existing laws. Mr. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 19, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Meisner suggested that youth offenders could be referred to a youth counseling program rather than to court. He preferred something beyond a preprinted postcard. Ms. Nathanson would have preferred that staff had come to the council with the objectives behind the ordinances so that Eugene could design a solution specific to this community. She did not think the examples from other communities were necessarily a good fit for Eugene. She supported Option 1, and was not interested in exemptions. Ms. Nathanson did have concerns about how enforcement was handled, and hoped that staff was not looking at business licensing as the only funding mechanism. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the positions of Springfield and Lane County, Ms. Bohman said that Springfield had not been formally approached about the topic by Tobacco Free Eugene. The Lane County Commission had a general discussion of the issue but has not pursued regulation. Ms. Nathanson wanted more information about penalties and enforcement. She shared the University's concerns about multiple entrances and questioned if it was fair to ask large institutions with wide public access to bear responsibility for smoking violations. Ms. Bohman said that information from the Oregon State University indicated that the issue was not a major one and there had been no enforcement problems. She said that the fine could be applied either to the establishment or smoker. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to check on the issue with Lane Community College staff to determine if it shared the concerns of the University of Oregon staff. Mr. Pap~ questioned why the State of Oregon had not taken on the issue, suggesting that the director of Intergovernmental Relations be directed to carry the issue to the State legislature. He asked why Benton County had not adopted a similar ordinance. Mayor Torrey said Benton County was considering adopting the ordinance. Mr. Pap~ said that he wanted to cut youth off from sources of tobacco and did not want to make the product more of a forbidden fruit for youth, but he was somewhat concerned about the penalties involved. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Pap~. She did not want to focus on the penalty to a great degree but thought the council should move ahead with the ordinances. She agreed with Mr. Pap~ about the need for action at the State level. She did not think it was necessary to ask County or Springfield to adopt similar ordinances. She thought the trend toward banning smoking would continue to spread. Mayor Torrey said that the council should recognize that there were restaurants that had already taken steps to separate smokers and nonsmokers. He noted that an election had been held in Corvallis after the passage of the ordinance to delete the element of the ordinance related to bars; that measure had been defeated. Mr. Lee asked if the City had percentage figures for the number of employees affected by secondhand smoke in Eugene. He wanted a sense of the impact of the proposed ordinances. He asked how many bars would be affected by the ban. Mr. Lee noted the relationship of better educated populations to the passage of such ordinances, and questioned whether the City should actually direct its lobbyist to attempt to affect change on a statewide level, noting that there were many people already working on the issue at that level. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 19, 2000 Page 5 Work Session He renewed his call for some type of baseline data to determine the scope of the problem and impact of the ordinance. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct staff to proceed with developing an ordinance to require tobacco sales to be vendor-assisted. Mr. Pap~ left the meeting. Mr. Meisner requested information about the number of businesses the City might need to license to fund the program. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0 (Mr. Pap~ having left the meeting). Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct staff to proceed with developing an ordinance that prohibits smoking in all public places and work places with two or more employees. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The council took a brief meeting recess. Mr. Rayor left the meeting during the recess. C.Work Session: Environmental Review of City Practices and Endangered Species Act Update The council was joined by Co-Acting Director of Public Works Jeff Lankston, Planning Director Jan Childs, Development Division Manager Marsha Miller, and Senior Planner Neil Bj6rklund for the item. Mr. Lankston provided an update on the federal 4(d) rule and on a four-part process proposed by staff to review the City's environmental practices. He overviewed the funding proposal to complete the first of the four steps, and invited questions. Mr. Farr said that regardless of one's sentiments about the Endangered Species Act (ESA), it was absolutely necessary to do the work outlined by staff. He confirmed there was no requirement for General Fund funding. Mr. Lankston said no, but there were many General Fund operations that would need to be examined for their impact. Mr. Fart acknowledged the nexus, but expressed concern about the financial condition of the fund and the many demands on it. He preferred to see the stormwater and wastewater funds pay the entire cost of the proposed four- step process. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Fart's comments regarding the use of the General Fund, saying if possible he would prefer to use other funds. His only reservation with the proposal was that it was only focused on internal practices and did not involve a public education element. He said that the City needed to look at "how to bring the public along." Mr. Lankston said that the proposal was only one element of a larger effort. In response to Mr. Meisner's comments, Mr. Bj6rklund said the educational component of the response to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was within the ESA Team's purview. The ESA Team and Metro ESA Coordinating Team was working together on that effort. The education piece would be in the ESA Team work plan. Mr. Meisner hoped the ESA Team had the opportunity to work with the consultant. Mr. Bj~rklund indicated that would occur. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 19, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Farr about the status of the General Fund but was willing to leave that question to staff. While acknowledging Mr. Farr's comments about the controversial nature of the 4(d) rules, Mr. Kelly believed the City's ESA effort enjoyed widespread support among Eugene residents. He encouraged staff to proceed. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Farr regarding the funding for the proposals. Regarding the issue of training, Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the City could do something for the public, such as training for employees of construction firms. She asked staff to keep that in mind as a possibility. At the request of Ms. Nathanson, staff enumerated some City practices that would be reviewed. Mr. Lankston cited vehicle washing, road construction practices, paint-striping practices, etc. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to direct staff to prepare a supplemental budget request for consulting services to identify City activities that have potential environmental impacts and move forward with the request for proposals process. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Bj0rklund responded that the National Marine Fisheries Service favored green technologies and that was the path that the Public Works Department has been heading for some time. Mr. Johnson noted that his biggest concern was over how to lower water temperature in the community's waterways. Mr. Farr reiterated his concerns about the General Fund. Mr. Johnson indicated he would take another look at the funding split. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. D.Work Session: Mexico Sister City Mary Walston, City Manager's Office, introduced the item. She provided background on the item, noting that the mayor had suggested the addition of a fifth sister city from Mexico in his January State of the City address. She reported that the Eugene Sister City Foundation had not yet formally responded to the mayor's proposal regarding a new sister city. Mr. Meisner noted his previous request for information about the amount of time that City employees spent on sister city-related work. He was not interested in pursuing another sister city relationship because of its financial implications. Mr. Meisner said that even the friendship city option would require time and money, which he was hesitant to dedicate to the expenditure. He said he had often contemplated the idea that the City have a comparably sized sister city in the United States, which might be useful. He was most interested in Option 4 as listed in the briefing summary. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 19, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Fart thought it was logical the City have a Mexican sister city. He thought the City would benefit from such relationships when Eugene had a large contingent of residents from that country. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Walston said that approximately half the City's contribution to the foundation was used to support the cost of the program coordinator, and the remainder was divided among the four sister city committees. Mr. Kelly said he would love to see such a relationship because of proximity and the large local population of residents from Mexico, but he did not think it was appropriate to move forward until the four sister cities were on solid financial ground or one dropped off the program in the future. He was dubious about the concept of a friendship city as there was no common understanding of what the term meant. Ms. Nathanson agreed with the comments of previous speakers. She said that if the City had the energy or resources it should do a sister city relationship rather than a friendship city, and she did not think the City had the resources to have a new sister city. She noted that activity among the committees ebbed and flowed. She said that not many cities supported as many as four sister cities. She would want to know how cities with more than four such relationships funded their programs. She suggested that the City consider the ties established by the University and LCC with other cities where activities occur throughout the year. She urged the City not to "reinvent the wheel." Ms. Taylor said that she requested the discussion because she had received many inquiries and suggestions about the issue, as well as questions from the foundation. She had wanted to gauge council reaction to the concept before much more time was spent on it. She said the foundation was having a difficult time supporting the existing sister cities. Ms. Taylor believed that there were possibly too many sister cities for a city of Eugene's size. She noted many models for supporting sister city programs existed in the United States. She did not think the City was in the position to establish a new sister city but suggested it might be in a position to have a friendship city. Mayor Torrey said he proposed a new sister city because the Hispanic community represented the largest growing segment of the city's population, particularly children in school. He had wanted to find a way to give Hispanic children a way to celebrate their heritage through such a relationship. He did not did not disagree with the remarks made by the council. He suggested that another organization had the money and resources to take on the issue. Mr. Meisner agreed that four cities were probably too many. He said it was not clear whether all the cities involved recognized the relationships. He said that Hispanic or Latino did not mean Mexican, and the council needed to be careful about its terminology. He did not think the City could create a sister city relationship for every ethnic group in Eugene. He concurred that another organization could take on the issue. He reiterated his requests for the amount of City staff resources devoted to the sister cities. He also wanted to know what the committees intended to do with the City funds they received. Ms. Nathanson continued to be concerned about the resources that would be required and said she wished the City could maintain the relationships it had. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 19, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Johnson noted the possibility that the City could reduce the number of sister cities to three and add a Mexican city. Mr. Lee was not prepared to act on the issue and wanted to consult with various interest groups about the possibility. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to adopt Option 3, to direct staff to explore a community partnership with an organization such as a service club or educational institution which has an existing relationship with a Mexican city. Mayor Torrey asked Ms. Walston to contact the Eugene Sister City Foundation to determine whether it could assume some responsibility. Ms. Taylor believed that the foundation lacked both time and money to assume responsibility for another sister city. The motion passed, 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 19, 2000 Page 9 Work Session