My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 6 - PH/Ord.on Real Prop.Cm
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-11/22/04Mtg
>
Item 6 - PH/Ord.on Real Prop.Cm
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:53:55 PM
Creation date
11/17/2004 12:22:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/22/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
public heating before the council may waive a regulation (and to mail notice at least 14 <br /> days prior to any public hearing). The ordinance would allow, but not require, the <br /> council to hold a public hearing before the council could decide to (a) pay compensation, <br /> (b) deny the claim, or (c) acquire the property. (Again, if a public hearing were held, then <br /> notice would be required.) <br /> <br /> If the city council desires that the ordinance require a public hearing regardless of the <br /> nature of the council's decision (i.e., waive, deny, compensate or acquire), then the <br /> council should amend the ordinance by deleting the second sentence of 2.090(1) and <br /> changing "may" to "shall" in the first sentence. <br /> <br />Should the claims process include a jury trial in municipal cdurt on the amount of <br />compensation? <br /> <br /> The city's legal position would not be advanced by asking the municipal Court to conduct <br /> a jury trial on the validity of a claim, or on the amount of compensation that would be <br /> due for a valid claim. The process would be costly to the city (paying for the municipal <br /> judge, the jury, the city attorney, and the city's expert witness (appraiser) for the trial). <br /> The city cannot require the property owner to participate in that process, and even if the <br /> property owner participated in the process, the outcome would not be binding on the <br /> property owner. The property owner would continue to have the right under Measure 37 <br /> to file his or her claim in circuit court 180 days after the claim had been filed with the <br /> city. <br /> <br />Should the city require that a property owner waive his or her right to file a claim under <br />Measure 37 if the city agrees to upzone the property or take similar action related to the <br />property that increases the value of the property (and possibly imposes additional restrictions <br />that the property owner might want waived)? <br /> <br /> We agree that such a requirement should be considered. We have been researching legal <br /> issues related to requiring such a waiver. Such a requirement need not be part of the <br /> claims processing ordinance, and does not need to be adopted prior to the effective date <br /> of Measure 37. It is one of the follow-up items related to Measure 37 implementation <br /> that staff intends to bring to the Council after the first of the year. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.