Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/09/07 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall April 9, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, George Poling, Bonny Bettman, and Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS Kudos to Lynda Rose - Mayor Piercy announced that Council Coordinator Lynda Rose was stepping down. She commended Ms. Rose for her work and expressed sadness to see her go. Councilor Clark congratulated Ms. Rose on entering the next phase of her life and thanked her for her service to the City. Councilor Ortiz echoed the glowing comments about Ms. Rose. Recognition of Project HomelessConnect - Mayor Piercy thanked everyone who had worked to make the Project HomelessConnect a success. She acknowledged the hard work that brought the event to fruition. She specifically thanked Councilor Ortiz for making homelessness a council priority. She quoted from a report Councilor Ortiz made regarding the event. She thanked the City’s partners, Lane County, City of Springfield, and United Way of Lane County for making the idea a reality. She said as a follow-up to the event and at the behest of the councilors, she had created a Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public forum. th Drix , 307½ East 14 Avenue, related that a couple of councilors helped to plant trees in his neighborhood and he appreciated it. He felt Eugene was a great town. He thought the citizens of Eugene were a great resource and, by working together, could come up with solutions for the problems Eugene sometimes faced, such as the two holes in downtown Eugene. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, # 336, noted that he had read in The Register-Guard about the possible plan for City Hall. He requested that the City leave the Park Blocks whole if the City ended up th constructing the City Hall on 7 Avenue and taking down the butterfly lot. Mr. Ivanoff believed that the City of Eugene could do a lot to help out future development of the city by devolving the street network. He asserted that the streets in the area bound by Chambers Street on the west, th the river on the north, Interstate 5 on the east, and 29 Avenue on the south should be reduced to two-lane streets. He felt that anyone who wanted to be here would find a way to get there. He asserted that if the City continued to stay on its current track and to conduct transportation planning as it currently was conducted, the City would have to convert the population signs at the edge of the City so that it reported the number of automobiles. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, expressed appreciation to the councilors who attended the discussion on the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) riverfront property. He suggested that the City include a Historic Preservation State of the City address on an annual basis. He thought this would help people to find out what might be “hit with a wrecking ball” and what would not. He noted that the oldest known house in Eugene was being nominated for the State Historic Registry. He thought that was an event worthy of a party. Mr. Vishanoff closed by reiterating his opposition to the University of Oregon’s plans to build a basketball arena. th George V. Stathakis , 935 West 8 Avenue, chair of the board of directors for the Wayne Morse Youth Program, reported that the Free Speech Courtyard had a “good Saturday” with “all kinds of people” in attendance. He encouraged the council to help them out. He recommended that someone contact Police Chief Bob Lehner and the City Manager because the situation with the police and with homeless people needed improvement. He felt the situation could use an “Officer Friendly” who was a presence every week and who could come to know who the real problem makers were. John Porter , 471 Covey Lane, urged the council to ask the School District 4J to return Civic Stadium to the City of Eugene. He had been shocked by the legal opinion that the original language of the agreement was non-binding. He recalled that citizens and businesses collaborated to build the stadium in the first place. He thought there would be an even greater need for the stadium for recreational purposes in the future. He was especially unhappy that the decision could not be appealed. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors. Mr. Porter stated, in response to Councilor Pryor, that he had given his testimony to the School District 4J. Councilor Bettman stated that the City Council did not make the decision to eliminate the opportunity to appeal. She averred that the decision had been made by the City Manager and the City Attorney. She expressed her unhappiness with this action. Councilor Clark thanked Mr. Porter. He conveyed his appreciation for the historic Civic Stadium. He also expressed appreciation for Drix’s testimony. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting Ms. Taylor thanked Drix for giving the council things to think about. She liked Mr. Ivanoff’s idea of making the streets two-lane throughout the central area of the City. She noted that some streets were not under City jurisdiction. Ms. Taylor echoed Ms. Bettman’s sentiments regarding the legal decision made about Civic Stadium and the decision not to appeal. Mr. Zelenka thanked Drix for his testimony. He agreed with Mr. Porter that the School District 4J should return the Civic Stadium back to the City. He noted that the school district would have to undergo a long public process in order to sell it. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 24, 2007, Work Session - February 12, 2007, Work Session - February 14, 2007, Work Session - February 20, 2007, Work Session - February 21, 2007, Work Session - February 26, 2007, City Council Meeting - March 14, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of 2007-08 Funding Allocations for Federal Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships Program and American Dream Downpayment Initiative Programs Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Cal- endar. Councilor Bettman indicated she had submitted minutes corrections via email and she also pulled Item C. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exceptions of Item C, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman asked what the approval of recommendations implied in terms of utilizing money for that purpose. She asked if it was just for housekeeping. Grants Manager for the Community Development Division, Linda Dawson, explained that because the document was for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program had to stay on the table. She affirmed that it was in a sense a housekeeping move for the HUD report. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item C, approval of 2007-08 funding allocations for Federal Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships Program and American Dream Downpayment Initiative Programs, passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting 4. ACTION: Appointments to Civilian Review Board Police Auditor Cris Beamud said the number of members who would serve on the Citizen Review Board (CRB) had yet to be determined by the council. She stated that the council would also have to decide who would be on the CRB and what the term lengths would be. She reviewed the application and interview process for the CRB candidates. She believed the screening committee had been very diligent. She noted that in a preliminary poll, one candidate had garnered a clear majority of council support. Councilor Bettman thought the council should have addressed whether or not to interview applicants outside of recommendations of the screening committee. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to limit the appointments to within the nine nominees of the screening committee. Councilor Bettman averred that fairness was important and that the screening committee had conducted its process in a balanced and fair way. Councilor Ortiz indicated she would not support the motion. She said the nominees that had been set forth had met the criteria. Councilor Poling said he could not support the motion. He felt the criteria had been changed by the screening committee after the applications had been sent out. He thought the screening committee had taken it upon itself to change the criteria. He thought the changes made were an “insult” to the applicants that had applied prior to the changes. Councilor Pryor stated that he would not support the motion. Councilor Taylor said because she trusted the screening committee and it had spent a lot of time, she would limit her choices to the people set forth by the committee. Councilor Clark opposed the motion. He was concerned about the community’s need to have a perception of a lack of bias on the part of the screening committee. He noted that the Mayor’s Sustainable Business Initiative Task Force had found widespread community support because of the wide spectrum of people who served on that committee. Councilor Bettman asserted that the Police Commission and the enabling ordinance reinforced that the CRB should be objective and credible. She believed that the CRB should not be appointed with the idea of achieving political balance between a contingent of “anti-police” and “pro-police.” She opined that the screening committee had tried to screen these points of view out in order to gain an objective roster of candidates for the CRB. Roll call vote; the motion failed; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in favor. Councilor Solomon observed that the CRB was a new concept and the council was, in effect, “inventing the wheel.” She commented that the process of the screening committee had been disheartening and a disappointment. She thought it added a layer of bureaucracy to the CRB appointment process and had reduced the transparency. She remarked that of the four people who were “self-selected” to be on the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting screening committee, only one had been familiar to her. She thought the council should have conducted the screening process without a committee. She hoped that the council would consider changing the wording of the ordinance to eliminate Section C so that the council would function as the screening committee. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to establish five positions for the Ci- vilian Review Board. Councilor Bettman asked what the intent of having five members of the CRB was and how it would ultimately be expanded to seven. Ms. Beamud replied that she was not certain at this point. She said she intended to consult the Mayor and the councilors regarding this. She related that the City generally recruited and made selections to boards each October and she hoped to join in that effort. She felt that if it did not happen in October 2007, it would happen in October 2008. She wanted to increase the CRB members by two as soon as the board was running smoothly. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Ann Marie Lemire to Po- sition 1 on the Civilian Review Board for a term beginning April 10, 2007, and ending Oc- tober 31, 2010. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Munir Katul to Position 2 on the Civilian Review Board for a term beginning April 10, 2007, and ending October 31, 2010. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint John Norton Cabell to Po- sition 3 on the Civilian Review Board for a term beginning April 10, 2007, and ending Oc- tober 31, 2009. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to amend the motion to substi- tute Richard Brissenden. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Zelenka, Bett- man, Taylor, and Ortiz voting in favor and councilors Clark, Solomon, Poling, and Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the motion passed as amended, 6:2; councilors Poling and Solomon voting in opposition. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Anita Kennedy to Position 4 on the Civilian Review Board for a term beginning April 10, 2007, and ending October 31, 2009. Councilor Bettman said originally she had been supportive of Ms. Kennedy’s appointment. She related that she had listened to every interview over again and in that review she had heard Ms. Kennedy state that the police had the “final word.” She felt she had to rule her out as she interpreted this statement to mean Ms. Kennedy was pro-police. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion to substi- tute Timothy Mueller. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Ortiz voting in favor. Councilor Bettman moved to amend the motion to substitute Robert Richards. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion to substi- tute Arnold Ismach. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in favor. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion to substitute John Norton Cabell. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Solomon, Pryor, and Clark voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Taylor, Zelenka, and Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor and the motion to amend passed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the main motion passed as amended, 5:3; councilors Zelenka, Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Kate Thompson to Posi- tion 5 on the Civilian Review Board for a term beginning April 10, 2007, and ending Octo- ber 31, 2009. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the motion to substi- tute John Brown. Councilor Bettman expressed her hope that the amendment would not pass. She opined that Mr. Brown was a “cheerleader of the Police Department.” She thought the community would perceive Mr. Brown’s appointment as biased. Councilor Clark averred that everyone who knew Mr. Brown’s volunteer efforts would more properly describe him as pro-public safety. He considered Mr. Brown to be the most qualified contender for a seat on the board. He asserted that in Mr. Brown’s absence the process would be a little too highly politicized. Councilor Ortiz said she admired Mr. Brown and considered him to be a diligent community member. She recognized that he gave freely of his time to the community. She could not, however, support his appoint- ment. She felt he was “too connected” to the process. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Pryor, Clark, and Solomon voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Taylor, Zelenka, and Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted against the amendment and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion to substi- tute Anita Kennedy. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Solomon felt Ms. Kennedy was uniquely qualified in that she had put together a group within her industry regarding discrimination and racial issues. She said Ms. Kennedy had a demonstrated ability to set up a program and get it going. Councilor Bettman reiterated her opposition to Ms. Kennedy, though she felt her interview had been impressive. She said Ms. Kennedy employed two women who were married to police officers and had too biased of a view of the police. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Mayor Piercy affirmed that Ms. Kennedy had been one of the candidates put forward by the committee. Councilor Poling averred that the fact that Ms. Kennedy had contact with spouses of law enforcement officers should not be a disqualifier. He pointed out that the municipal court judge the council had appointed had frequent contact with police. Councilor Zelenka said both Ms. Kennedy and Ms. Thompson were qualified but he thought Ms. Thompson had a good background and would bring great skills to the position. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Clark, Solomon, and Pryor voting in favor and councilors Zelenka, Ortiz, Taylor, and Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition and the motion to amend failed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 5:3; councilors Poling, Clark, and Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy thanked all of the 39 applicants. She expressed appreciation for the “high caliber” of the applicants. Ms. Beamud felt the people of the community had stepped forward and the appointment of the CRB was a good step in establishing a transparent board. Councilor Zelenka thanked the steering committee. He believed that the establishment of the CRB was progress toward healing the community. Councilor Ortiz likened the process to a marathon that was just beginning. She wanted the City to give the perception that it was a safe place for all of the people to live and not just for some. Mayor Piercy said the CRB was charged with a “monumental task.” 5. ACTION: Resolution 4900 Amending Systems Development Charge Methodology for Parks System; Affirm- ing Systems Development Charge Methodologies Adopted by Resolutions Nos. 4740, 4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, and 4883; and Repealing Resolution Nos. 4740, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, 4883. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 4900 amending Systems Development Charge Methodology for parks system; affirming Sys- MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting tems Development Charge Methodologies adopted by Resolutions Nos. 4740, 4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, and 4883; and repealing Resolution Nos. 4740, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, 4883. City Manager Taylor stated that the resolution had been four years in the making. Councilor Zelenka concurred with the methodology and the rationale for including the kindergarten through grade 12 educational institutions in the residential class of Systems Development Charges (SDCs). It had struck him as odd that it would not include all educational institutions in that class. Councilor Zelenka moved to amend the note underneath Table 19 in the Methodology, per- taining to Non-Residential Systems Development Charge classes for the Parks Systems De- velopment Charges, to read as follows: “Note that, on the basis of the park user survey results educational institutions are not included in non-residential classes , as users associated with educational institution are gen- erally attributable to residential land uses, and related demand is accounted for in residential development categories.” The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Clark shared his concern that this would add a burden to those who would begin a sustainable business in the city of Eugene. He felt the resolution would put people in a position wherein it would be more advantageous to do business in Springfield. Councilor Bettman did not consider the addition of Systems Development Charges (SDCs) to be adding yet another burden to development. She averred that the costs to add new development were there regardless of who paid for them. She said the SDC methodology just determined who paid for it instead of shifting the burden of that new development onto taxpayers and residents. She asserted that people often paid for growth with diminished services and a diminished ability to pay for infrastructure. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the resolution to delete non-residential Systems Development Charge formulas. Councilor Solomon was not able to see a nexus for the formulas. She noted that the reasons people were for or against the non-residential charge listed in the agenda packet suggested that the additional population of employees, customers, and visitors and the associated increase in the population of park users increased the demands for park capacity. She disagreed with this assertion. She said when she went to Cottage Grove or Springfield it was not to go to the park. She thought a person might come to Eugene to attend a specific festival at one of the parks, but this did not correlate to an increase in park usage by people who were in Eugene for other reasons. Councilor Clark agreed with Councilor Solomon. He observed that the City asked people to come and enjoy the parks. He did not see it as an issue of business. Councilor Zelenka opposed the amendment. He believed there was a nexus between non-residential employees and customers and park usage. He averred that the increase in park usage had been documented in a survey which had indicated that 16 percent of the park users were non-residents. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor supported the amendment. He thought the original intent of SDCs was to provide parks in order to accommodate new residential growth and not to bring businesses into that mix. Councilor Bettman expressed her opposition. She felt staff had adequately documented the nexus of park usage and non-residents. She said the costs of providing capacity to new development was constant and everyone should pay a fair share. Councilor Clark had been struck by a fault in the methodology of the survey in that people were interviewed as they were coming or going through the park without adequately ascertaining whether the people were using the park or passing through it in transit from work to home, as an example. Councilor Taylor asserted that businesses thrived from having parks nearby. She believed that the City of Eugene attracted people for the jobs and for its amenities. She said she was sure that people who came to Eugene for business also did things like swimming, hiking, or picnicking while here. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Clark, Solomon, and Poling voting in favor and councilors Bettman, Taylor, Zelenka, and Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition of the amendment and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the vote on the main motion was a tie, 4:4; councilors Bettman, Taylor, Ze- lenka, and Ortiz voting in favor and councilors Poling, Solomon, Pryor, and Clark voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion and the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. 6. ACTION: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 13, 2007, February 22, 2007, March 9, 2007, March 22, 2007, and Direction on Legislative Policy Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental Rela- tions Committee actions as set forth in the minutes of the February 13, 2007, February 22, 2007, March 9, 2007, and March 16, 2007, meetings. Councilor Pryor stated that the bills that had been pulled for council discussion were House Bill (HB) 2134, Senate Bill (SB) 250, HB 2370, and HB 2370-A. He was primarily concerned with the house bills and indicated he would defer to Councilor Taylor if she wished to discuss SB 250 at the council level. Councilor Taylor said she did not wish to discuss SB 250. Roll call vote; the motion to ratify the Intergovernmental Relations Committee actions on all bills except for HB 2134, HB 2370, and HB 2370-A passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pryor explained that HB 2134 had to do with expanding permissible basis for interceptions of wire, electronic, and oral communication. He said it also limited the grounds for suppression of intercepted communications and was related to the interception of communications. He related that Policy Analyst for the Eugene Police Department (EPD) Ellwood Cushman recommended a Priority 2 Support on the bill and the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) had, by a 2:1 vote, changed the position to Oppose. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 10 Regular Meeting Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson reported that Councilor Bettman had been concerned that the expanded authority given to public safety officers would allow them to act as the judge in the cases of personal search warrants or at the time that the interception would take place. She noted that the bill had only one public hearing thus far. She said this point had been raised by several parties including the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). She stated that there would be another public hearing scheduled and she expected to see amendments before then. Councilor Bettman wanted to keep the CCIGR position of Priority 3 Oppose. She felt this was more likely to influence the process. Councilor Solomon thought opposition to the bill was premature. She was willing to support the bill until the amendments were available for review. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Support stance on HB 2134. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Clark, Solo- mon, and Poling voting in favor and councilors Bettman, Taylor, Zelenka, and Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition to the amendment and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy indicated she would support changing the stance to Monitor. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to change the stance on HB 2134 to Monitor. Councilor Bettman indicated she would oppose the motion. She thought monitoring the bill would preempt any opportunity the City would have to influence the bill. Councilor Poling averred that if the defense lawyers and the ACLU were working on it, the City of Eugene would have little influence on the outcome. Councilor Pryor supported a Monitor stance as it would allow the City’s lobbying resources to be spent on other bills that needed attention. He added that he did not believe the bill would compromise civil liberties to the extent that some people might worry it would. Councilor Zelenka asked Mayor Piercy to explain her position. Mayor Piercy understood the bill to be limited to crimes involving death, serious injury, and sexual assault specifically. She believed the people who were reviewing it were trying to tighten it up in order to preserve the rights of people involved. Ms. Wilson said the bill had been introduced on behalf of the Attorney General and sought to provide officers the ability to intercept communications where a threat of immediate serious bodily injury or sexual assault was involved. She related that because the CCIGR voted to oppose the bill she had already relayed that position to the ACLU. She stated that the Attorney General indicated a willingness to work to find a middle ground. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Clark, Solomon, and Poling voting in favor and councilors Bettman, Taylor, Zelenka, and Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 11 Regular Meeting Mr. Pryor stated that HB 2370 was the “short version.” He related that the Governor requested that emergency operation functions be moved from the oversight of the Oregon State Police to the National Guard. He explained that HB 2370-A included an amendment that prohibited a unit of government from seizing firearms from individuals during a declared emergency. He noted that at times certain civil rights were suspended in an emergency. Ms. Wilson said in regard to the legislative process, the amendment had “come suddenly” in a work session. She stated that the bill was in the Ways and Means Committee and had not been scheduled for a hearing at this point. Emergency Program Manager Chuck Solin said originally he was in support of the bill. He noted that the Governor had already transferred the administration of Oregon emergency management to the National Guard of Oregon. He explained that the Governor was just moving a department that at one time reported directly to his office and had been moved under the auspices of the Oregon State Police to the Oregon military department. He related that a couple of people on the committee had concerns regarding firearms that had been seized in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; apparently the owners of the firearms were required to pay to retrieve them, sometimes more than the firearms were worth. He stated that in the City of Eugene there was an emergency code that gave city officers in very specific circumstances related to a true emergency the right to put price regulation in place, to establish curfews, order evacuations, and prohibit the sale, carrying, or possession of firearms or explosives of any kind on public streets. He said HB 2370-A dictated that if a person had a legal right to carry a firearm, no one could take it and if the firearm was confiscated all of the costs to recover the weapon would have to be borne by the City. Councilor Bettman thought the bill was more complicated than that. She had opposed the amendment, but she had larger concerns about the bill itself. She believed that the National Guard was the national military. She asserted that the bill would give all of the duties and powers of emergency management to the office of Homeland Security. She believed this would give all of the resources and equipment to make the decisions to the military. She averred this was a major policy issue. Ms. Wilson reported that there was strong backing for the bill and there had been no discussion of the amendment in the joint committee on emergency preparedness. She said the discussion would have to take place in the Ways and Means Committee or on the legislature floor. She suggested that the council might want to take a support-if-amended or oppose-unless-amended stance. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose stance on HB 2370. Councilor Poling was reluctant to take a position because he could see both the pros and the cons of HB 2370-A. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Solin affirmed that emergency professionals supported the bill. He had talked to a number of staff in the Oregon Emergency Management and they were very supportive of this move. He underscored that they would all remain civilian employees, but they would be under the department of the military. He stated that Oregon was in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region 10, which included Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Montana. Oregon was currently the only state that did not have its emergency management function under the military in the region. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Solomon did not have an objection to putting the functions of emergency management under the military. She felt that if the professionals who work in this field supported the bill then she should not oppose it given that they had a great deal more knowledge about it than she did. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Ms. Wilson explained that the supporters of the bill believed that the Oregon military department had more resources in training, planning, and in its budget. She said if a disaster was more than statewide, Oregon’s ability to work with the other offices of emergency management in the rest of the region would be better served if all of it was under the same department and all “spoke the same language.” She noted that the ACLU had testified neutral on the original bill (no one had testified regarding the amendment). Councilor Pryor averred that HB 2370 was a good bill as it would provide the coordination Oregon would need should there be a major emergency. He said he did not have an inherent fear of the military that would cause him to be nervous if the military became involved in an emergency. He noted that one of the failures in Katrina was in the incident command system because control was spread out over a number of organiza- tions and no one had a clear sense of who was in control. He related that it was used by incident command instructors as an example of how not using that system created a disaster. He stated that the military was integral to emergency management because it had the trucks, planes, resources, and people to provide the help that the victims of a disaster needed. Councilor Poling said he would support the bill. He thought it was the right step to take. Councilor Bettman commented that it was “ironic” to use what happened in response to Hurricane Katrina as a justification to turn Oregon’s emergency response over to the federal government. She thought the bill would transfer Oregon’s resources to the federal government. Ms. Wilson assured Councilor Bettman that the budget for the emergency response department would be transferred to the Oregon Military Department and would be funded like any other State agency. She said it would be a department within a State agency and not part of the federal government. She underscored that the money would not go to FEMA to fund the program. Councilor Bettman responded that it did not say FEMA, rather it indicated that it would be through the Office of Homeland Security. Ms. Wilson clarified that it was the Office of Homeland Security for the State of Oregon, which was a State department. Councilor Bettman asked if it would impact the Oregon State Police budget. Ms. Wilson replied that the budget would be transferred to the Oregon Military Department because it was believed that in case of emergency, the Oregon Military Department had more resources to respond to a statewide or region-wide emergency. Councilor Bettman asked if the Oregon State Police would be held harmless in terms of resources. Ms. Wilson affirmed that it would. Councilor Bettman asked if the federal government was bringing resources to the table and if the State of Oregon was “just handing the authority and resources to them.” Ms. Wilson reiterated that no authority was going to the federal government; the Oregon Office of Homeland Security was a State-level department in and of itself. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 13 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman asserted that the Oregon Military Department answered to the federal government. Ms. Wilson assured her that the department answered to the Governor of Oregon. Councilor Bettman opined that it was important to monitor the bill and not to support it because she believed that the bill would militarize Oregon’s response to a disaster. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Mr. Solin stated that the amendment in HB 2370-A did not talk about commercial businesses that have stores of firearms but under the jurisdiction of Eugene City Code, the City had the ability to curtail sales in an emergency. Councilor Poling brought a point of order. He determined that the motion the council had voted on had been misunderstood to be a motion regarding the staff position and not Councilor Bettman’s motion to take a Priority 3 Oppose stance on HB 2370. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to rescind the vote. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose stance on HB 2370. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in favor. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on the staff recommendation to adopt a Priority 3 Support position on HB 2370. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Tay- lor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy stated that the staff recommendation for HB 2370-A was to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position. Councilor Clark expressed concern that HB 2370-A would impact civil liberties. He believed the right to bear arms was an individual civilian right. He supported the amended version of the bill. Councilor Poling understood the local emergency management procedure but he expressed concern about people in rural areas. He thought some people would not see help for days and he did not think people in that position should have their weapons seized. He opposed the staff recommendation. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Wilson clarified that the amended version of the bill would preempt the Eugene City Code provisions related to disaster management and firearms. She noted that it would prohibit the federal government from seizing weapons as well. She believed this to be a violation of the United States Constitution Supremacy Clause. She thought the bill would be “hashed out” once it reached the floor. Councilor Solomon felt a gun was necessary in certain crisis situations to ensure the safety of her family and because of this she could not support the staff recommendation to oppose the amended bill. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 14 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor found the amendment to be troublesome because it did not provide any way of differentiat- ing between a good person or a person with ill intent carrying a gun. He said unless the amendment could be clearer he could not support it. Councilor Bettman found both the bill and the amendment to be troublesome. She thought the amendment would allow “the military” to go door to door confiscating weapons. She did not like that it would supercede home rule authority and the ability of the EPD to impose law and order. She added that this was her difficulty with turning over emergency management “to the military.” She hoped the council would reconsider its vote to support “militarizing emergency management.” Councilor Zelenka noted that the local ordinance did not allow authorities to go into homes and take guns. Mr. Solin affirmed this. He said specifically under emergency circumstances the City could prohibit the sale, the carrying, or the possession of any firearms or explosives of any kind on public streets or in public places. He recalled that when the City passed the emergency code the National Rifle Association had made comments on a national level about the City of Eugene. He said the City had been careful to craft the language so that it was specific to the confiscation of firearms in public places only. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Pryor that the amendment could prohibit local officials from taking guns away from vigilantes in such a situation. Councilor Poling did not agree with the assertion that someone who was breaking the law could not have their gun confiscated. Mr. Solin replied that the police had reviewed the amendment and it had given them concern because it specifically stated that if a person lawfully possessed the firearm it could not be taken away from that individual. He related that the EPD felt the law had the potential to tie the hands of officers in such a situation. Councilor Clark suggested that someone who was shooting inappropriately would still be subject to arrest. He believed that the greatest degree of home rule was the “primacy of the individual.” He thought this was a “wonderful balance” to the need to “federalize” this particular response. At Councilor Bettman’s request, Mr. Solin rearticulated Mr. Cushman’s concerns with the language of the amendment. He stated that the way that it was written it could potentially disallow an officer from taking a firearm from someone who lawfully owned it, even if that person was doing something illegal. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Wilson predicted that there would be a discussion regarding the State’s right to prohibit the federal government from seizing arms in an emergency. She noted that there were a lot of emergency-related bills at present. She said one of the big discussions was what a state of emergency actually meant, as it was not entirely clear and it was not in the bill. Councilor Bettman asked if there were any other issues of authority that the underlying bill would impact. Mr. Solin responded that the Oregon Wireless Interoperable Network (OWIN) was a program that sought to try to fix the State’s radio systems and the Oregon Military Department did not want the program. He said OWIN was “looking for a new home.” He related that staff was closely watching where OWIN would end up because of local interest in interoperability. He also noted that from an emergency management standpoint, although the Oregon State Police had been diminished by budget cuts, the National Guard’s ability to respond to emergencies had also been diminished because so many of the troops had been sent overseas. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 15 Regular Meeting In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Solin related that Oregon National Guard troops had been sent to help Hurricane Katrina victims, as an example of Oregon troops helping people in another state. Councilor Bettman asked who would make the decision to send troops to another state. She asked what would happen in a situation in which there was an emergency that hit another state harder than Oregon. Would “whoever it is that was now administering the emergency management by the military” send troops to another state? Mr. Solin replied that the Oregon National Guard reported to the Governor of Oregon. He explained that after Hurricane Katrina the Governor of Louisiana asked the Governor of Oregon to send troops to help out and the Governor then decided to dispatch some troops. Councilor Clark moved to adopt a Priority 1 Monitor position on HB 2370-A. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on the staff recommendation to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position on HB 2370-A. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Clark voting in opposition. Councilor Pryor commended Ms. Wilson and her staff for their hard work in Salem. The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 16 Regular Meeting