Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Nathanson agreed that the City should provide a firm amount for fees. She felt the council was in agreement with this and wondered if an amendment should be offered or whether a vote on the ordinance should be considered. She thought it would be prudent to defer the vote until November 24 in order to allow the City Attorney time to craft amendment language. Mayor Torrey supported placing a cap on the fees. He was unprepared to vote on the ordinance as it was an important decision and should not be made "on the rush." He expressed concern about the language that made land use variances non-transferable. He opined that voters, had they completely understood the implications, would not have voted such a clause into law. Mayor Torrey remained convinced that the council had heard heartfelt concerns from two sides of the issue and encouraged the council to listen to both sides. He thought the existence of Ballot Measure 37 was a result of people being unwilling to reason with one another in the Oregon Legislature. City Manager Taylor shared his recommendation to adopt the ordinance and then let staff and the City Attorney return after the first of the year with thoughtful changes guided by research and public input. Councilor Pap6 stated that he was unwilling to proceed without a cap on fees. He asked who would be required to pay the prevailing party fees. Mr. Klein replied that, should the neighbor prevail, the claimant was required to pay the fee in a private cause of action, but that there was no language assigning the responsibility for the fee in the reverse scenario. Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Meisner, moved to table the agenda item until Wednesday, November 24. Councilor Kelly did not think the council would have better information at the work session that it did not already have. He opposed tabling the item. Councilor Bettman called it a fiduciary responsibility to have a process in place to manage the complaints that would likely result from the ballot measure. She predicted that the City would be defenseless against a "rash of claims" on December 2 without the ordinance. Councilor Taylor opined that nothing would be accomplished by delaying the vote until November 24. She foresaw many possible amendments to add to the ordinance as the ramifications of the measure were better understood. Councilor Nathanson agreed that some of the issues that were troubling her colleagues had to do with the language of the ballot measure and would be worked through in the courts. However, while the ordinance could be fixed later, she felt the council should determine a formula for a fee structure in the present. She indicated she would support the motion to table in order to provide staff the chance to come up with some options for fees. Councilor Meisner supported the motion to table. He concurred with Councilor Nathanson that some sort of fee schedule needed to be set forth. Councilor Meisner asked if a potential claimant could completely bypass the process, according to the language, file a claim and go to court. Mr. Klein replied that a property owner must file a claim with the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 13 Regular Meeting