Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/29/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Special Public Hearing Council Chamber--777 Pearl Street--Eugene, Oregon November 29, 2000 9p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING Council Hearing on Appeal of Ballot Title for the Referral of the Smoking Ban Ordinance Mayor James D. Torrey called the special meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He announced the purpose of the meeting, which was an appeal of the ballot title for the referendum petition for Ordinance 20215, prohibiting smoking in taverns, bars, cocktail lounges, and bingo parlors. He indicated that those wishing to speak must limit their remarks to the issue of the ballot title, not the merits of the ordinance proposed for referral or the referral. On November 27, 2000, a written appeal to the ballot title was filed by Pat Cookson, representing the American Cancer Society and Dr. Anthony DeSiena. In the appeal, the petitioners state the following: "Our main concern with the baflot explanation relates to the definition of "adult only" taverns, bars, cocktail lounges and bingo parlors. Specifically, we feel the voting population needs to understand whether or not this baflot measure would include ''adult only" bars or cocktail lounges that are attached to restaurants frequented by customers of afl ages. Secondhand smoke exposure in such attached establishments would continue to be a health risk for persons of afl ages, not just individuals over the age of 21." City Manager Jim Johnson introduced the item, noting that City Attorney Jerome Lidz was present to provide a short overview of the ballot title and to answer questions. Mr. Lidz briefly reviewed the purpose of each of the three parts of the ballot title--the caption, the question, and the explanation-- noting each part was mandated by Oregon statute. Mr. Lidz reported that following the receipt of the appeal he had drafted another ballot title, copies of which were provided to the council. The council also had a copy of the ballot title initially prepared by the City Attorney's Office that was the subject of the appeal. The initial ballot title was captioned Smoking Ban; the second ballot title was captioned Prohibit Smoking in Bars, Taverns, Cocktail Lounges, and Bingo Parlors. Mr. Lidz noted that the initial ballot title had been corrected to change the effective date of the ordinance to July 1, 2001. Mr. Johnson suggested that the original ballot title be labeled "A" and the second ballot title drafted by Mr. Lidz be labeled "B". MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 29, 2000 Page 1 Special Public Hearing Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Lidz said that the question should plainly phrase the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the question corresponded to an affirmative vote on the measure. He confirmed that the appeal concerned a referendum, not an initiative. If the proponents of the reference obtain a sufficient number of signatures before the ordinance would take effect, the ordinance will not take effect. He acknowledged that other jurisdictions addressed the question differently, but there was not much guidance in the law. Mr. Lidz believed that the appropriate question to ask the voters was, "Shall the ordinance be made effective?"; a vote for the referendum would be a vote for the ordinance. Mr. Rayor said he found the text prepared by the City Attorney's Office confusing. He would prefer to have the ballot title indicate it was a repeal of a smoking prohibition, and the explanation be enhanced with the history of the council's actions. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Pat Cookson, 2350 Oakmont Way, said the appeal was filed because of concern that the title would be misunderstood. She thought a history of the ordinance might be helpful to the voting public so it understood what it was being asked to vote on, as well as a history of the process that led up to the ballot measure. She thought that there might be confusion over the concept of referendum and repeal. Ms. Cookson stressed that people need to understand if the measure does not pertain to bar/restaurant combinations or only to bars, or the definition of an "adult only" establishment of the types mentioned. She said that was not addressed in the materials she had seen. Ward Chase Fairbom, 5050 East 13th Avenue, said that the explanation seemed somewhat fuzzy only because the law was passed in three ordinances on two separate days. Regarding bar/restaurant combinations, Mr. Fairborn said the second ordinance passed by the council would require those with such an establishment to provide a physical barrier between the bar and restaurant. Part 3 of the law did not pertain to places with open walk-throughs between two sides. According to the second ordinance, people with such establishments would have to provide a two-door breezeway or wall between the bar and restaurant. Mr. Fairborn suggested that either the question or explanation be enhanced by the statement that the smoking ban was a workplace safety smoking ban to help the opposition feel more comfortable that the ordinance addressed the general public and people who worked in such establishments. He suggested "Should the City's workplace smoking ban extend to include bars, taverns, cocktail lounges, bingo parlors, and other places where people over the age of 18 only can go?" Otherwise, Mr. Fairborn felt that the question and explanation were clear and concise as written. He commended the City Attorney's Office for the work done on the title. Dr. Anthony DeSiena, 1940 Parliament Street, disagreed with Mr. Fairborn about the issue of separation between attached bars and restaurant. He said if Mr. Fairborn's statement regarding the issue were true, why were restaurants mentioned in Part 3 at all? He said that the way the ballot title was written, it was not clear as to what happened under a yes vote or a no vote. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Mr. Kelly asked if the petition circulation needed to await the appeal. Mr. Lidz said no. The petition supporters could have begun to collect signatures already. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 29, 2000 Page 2 Special Public Hearing Mr. Kelly said he would like input from legal counsel as to how the council could best clarify the ambiguity about bar/restaurant attachments. He did not think any of the versions of the ballot title addressed the subject. Mr. Kelly believed there was clear direction in Ordinance 2 that encompassed bar/restaurant attachments, and asked how best to clarify the issue. Mr. Lidz suggested that the council consider passing a subsequent ordinance. He said he had considered the appellants' comments regarding the ambiguity surrounding bars that are inside restaurants, but the purpose of the referendum was to vote on the ordinance, not to interpret the ordinance or another related ordinance. Mr. Kelly noted that the form of the ballot title was dictated by State law and the issue before the council was how to ensure the text was most straightforward. He liked the approach to the affirmative nature of the question the City Attorney's Office had taken in preference to, for example, the approach taken by Central Point. Mr. Kelly said that the revised ballot title developed by Mr. Lidz was an improvement over the previous title as it mentioned the ordinance and was straightforward about the consequences of the vote. Mr. Rayor preferred the caption and question for "B" and the explanation for "A". Mr. Meisner preferred the question for "B" and objected to the caption in "A" as misleading. He said he liked the explanation for "A," suggesting the addition of text from "B" regarding the council's adoption of the ordinance as an important piece of history. He agreed with Mr. Lidz that the ballot title was not the appropriate place to clarify the question of attached bars/restaurants. He thought the lack of clarity unfortunate and hoped the council could act to rectify it soon. Ms. Nathanson preferred the caption, question, and explanation in "B." She supported changing the explanation with text indicating what a citizen's vote meant. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved that the City use version "B" for ballot title question and explanation. Mr. Fart thought the council was over complicating a relatively simple issue. He said the referendum would make it to the ballot and he did not think it mattered what the council did to change it. Responding to a suggestion from Ms. Bettman that the question be modified to read "Shall prohibition on smoking in public work places be expanded?", Mr. Lidz was not sure that accurately reflected the council's ordinance and he believed that the phrase could be misinterpreted upon first reading. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion to use the question in "A" and caption in "B." Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the question in "A," Mr. Lidz thought the "A" version was legally sufficient. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to call the question. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 29, 2000 Page 3 Special Public Hearing Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to amend the motion to revise the text of the explanation in "B" as follows (struck text deleted): "If the voters approve this measure, +~-~' ""'~ ..... '~-'~"-+ '~';" ~' ...... ~'"+;"~' +~'~' ..... +;,,,, ;,, e~,,-+;,,,, a o'~n ,~,;,, ~, ........ '~ ""'~ smoking will be prohibited in bars, taverns, cocktail lounges, and bingo parlors as it is in other public places and places of employment. The prohibition would take effect on July 1, 2001. If the voters reject this measure, the code amendment would not ~ the City Code would continue to allow smoking in bars, taverns, cocktail lounges, and bingo parlors." Mr. Rayor explained that it was his intent to remove what he considered legalistic jargon from the explanation. Ms. Bettman did not support changing the explanation because the council had adopted a caption nearly identical to the question and voters needed some information to base a decision on. Mr. Meisner supported the amendment, saying it simplified the explanation and did not eliminate anything of substance. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly moved to amend the motion by revising the third sentence to read "If the voters approve this measure, the council action will be sustained and smoking will be prohibited bars, taverns, cocktail lounges, and bingo parlors as it is in other public places and places of employment. The prohibition would take effect on July 1, 2001. If the voters reject the measure, the council action will be nullified, and the City Code would continue to allow smoking in bars, taverns, cocktail lounges, and bingo parlors." Mr. Kelly's amendment died for lack of a second. The main motion passed, 6:1, Ms. Bettman voting no. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 29, 2000 Page 4 Special Public Hearing