Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

talking about what it did well. Mr. Svendsen indicated that the program would be featured on "Working City" during December. C. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Real Property Compensation; Adding Sections 2.070, 2.075, 2.080, 2.085, 2.090, and 2.095 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date City Attorney Glenn Klein joined the council for the item. He said that there continued to be considerable confusion about the impact of the passage of Ballot Measure 37. Discussions at the League of Oregon Cities indicated many cities were unsure about the approach they would take to the implementation of the measure. Mr. Klein reported that the Oregon Attorney General indicated the effective date of the measure was December 2, 2004, rather than December 3. Mr. Klein reviewed the elements of a draft ordinance developed by legal counsel to implement Ballot Measure 37 at the local level. Councilors asked questions clarifying the details of the ordinance. Mayor Torrey recommended the council consider taking action on the ordinance following the second public hearing. Mr. Meisner commended the mayor's suggestion. Mr. Meisner referred to Section 2.075(2)(a) and (b) on page 3 of the ordinance and asked why the City would request information on all owners in subsection (a) if in subsection (b) it required the property in question to be in the sole ownership of the claimant. He suggested the use of the word "sole" might be inconsistent. Mr. Klein agreed. Referring to Section 2.085(2), Mr. Meisner thought the process made sense but the section in question made no requirement for findings or even a statement of reasons by the City Manager. He asked how the council could figure out the reasons that the City Manager objected to a claim. Mr. Klein indicated there would be a description of the claim, what the investigation revealed, the recommendation, and the rationale behind the denial. Mr. Meisner suggested the ordinance be modified so that a reference was made to the need for a statement of reasons for a denial. Mr. Meisner appreciated the risky nature of subsection 2.090(5), making the waiver personal to the claimant. He asked if Mr. Klein believed that would withstand a constitutional challenge on the basis of restraint of alienation. Mr. Klein said yes, given the manner in which the measure was written and based on the conversations he had with different attorneys. He had not heard anything to convince him it would not survive a challenge. It was possible the courts could rule against it. Mr. Meisner asked if the City had received any notice of potential claims. City Manager Taylor said no. Ms. Bettman commended the City's legal staff for its work. She said it was clear at the League of Oregon Cities conference that Eugene's legal counsel was much more prepared than the counsels of other communities, which were going to wait and see what happened. She believed that defining the provisions in the measure would require litigation to be resolved. Ms. Bettman asked for an example of a transportation ordinance as referred to in Section 2.070(2)(c). Mr. Klein said the measure did not define the term "transportation ordinance." He suggested the measure intended to refer to transportation system plans, transportation systems development charges, transportao MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 6 Work Session