03/14/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr,. Haws did not see there would be any problem for the City. As he understood the bill, it intended making full disclosure of all documents either before or at the time of the hearing. He felt this would allow for a faster and less expensive hearing process. e Jim Saul, Planner, said there was no statement of purpose in the bill, so it could only be surmised as to what the purpose of the bill was. He read a portion of the language which had to do with the responsibility of the City to provide documents to private par- ties. He said presently any material that the Planning Department receives pertinent to an application would be available to the public under the public records law. This bill enhances that position by saying that any party can request all materials that a particular application may have that relates to a project, including financial materials. He noted that the problems for the City would include privacy and disclosure, placing the City in the position of trying to deal with disclosure between two private parties, what would hap- pen if the City refused, and there was no mechanism provided for determining what is a reasonable request. However, he emphasized the City's involvement between two private parties was the main problem. He said this would apply to any hearing before the City Council, Planning Commission, or the Hearings Official. Mr. Saul gave the example of a party making application which included pre- paration of a financial evaluation that is clearly pertinent to the particular project. A competing party could request the finan- cial evaluation. The City would then be put in a position of trying to compel disclosure. e Ms. Miller did not see where the City would be put in a position to compel disclosure. She felt it would be the private party going to the other private party for information. She felt the bill would not make the City become any more involved than it is presently. Keith Martin, Assistant City Manager, said if one private party refuses to disclose materials, the remedy of the requester would be to come before the City Council and perhaps request suspension of the hearing and request the City make the materials available. That would place the City Council in the position of enforcing Oregon State Statutes. Mr. Haws said he interpreted the bill differently from City staff. He said if a private party did not want materials available to the public, then they should not be submitted to the City. However, if that private party did submit materials, those should be open to anyone. His interpretation of the bill was that any document on which a decision is based has to be available to all parties. He felt this necessary for parties to prepare for hearings and give the parties a chance to rebut at the hearing. Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney, said one thing that distinguishes this bill from court cases would be that, in a court of law, there are discovery proced~r~s. The court can rule on what's reasonable and what is not. However, the language in the present bill would put the City staff in that position, and might expose the City to potential 1 i abil ity. 3/14/79--3 15/