Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

amount. Ms. Nathanson asked how many land use applications were not actually acted upon due to feasibility. Ms. Muir indicated she had no precise number but could confirm there were some such applications. Ms. Nathanson was not entirely comfortable with the option given that fact. She suggested that the option was not sufficiently inclusive in terms of boundaries; for example, what if an organization was across the street? Mr. Klein suggested the council consider that issue in the future. Staff had already started an interested parties list, and could examine other ways of doing the notice in the future. Ms. Nathanson said she would have suggested language to the effect of"whose boundaries include or are immediately adjacent to." Mr. Pap6 asked if there would be a plat map on the Web site so people could see their properties in relationship to the claim. City Manager Taylor was unsure how the page would link with the plat map at this Point in time. Ms. Muir added that the Web page has no map on it at this time, although she anticipated upgrades would be done in the future. The property's address would be listed at this time. Mayor Torrey solicited additional council comments. Ms. Bettman said the option was a low threshold and she did not think it would take much effort for the City to send out an e-mail to the neighborhood organizations. It was her hope the neighborhood organizations would work with residents who were potentially impacted. She pointed out that the difference between the land use process and the Ballot Measure 37 claims process was that the latter process was not dependent on a City decision, as the claimant could go directly to court. Mr. Meisner supported Option 2 as a reasonable alternative. He asked Mr. Klein if a neighborhood organization would have any standing once a claim went to court. Mr. Klein indicated he was unsure and believed at this point it depended to some degree on how the claim got to court. The measure itself did not speak to the issue. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Klein reviewed possible changes to Section 2.080 related to fees. He first discussed what other communities were doing, noting that some communities were proposing to charge a fee based on a resolution adopted in the future. Other communities were requiring upfront deposits and, if that proved to be inadequate, would require more to proceed or charge at the end of the process. Florence had imposed a cap of $1,500 on the fee if the claimant submitted all information requested by the City. Mr. Klein reviewed three options related to this section. He said that Option 1 was to leave the ordinance as drafted; that is, to collect the actual costs of collecting a claim. Under Option 2, if the claimant provides a deposit of $1,500 and submits all requested information, that amount is the fee, even if the cost of processing the application exceeds that amount. If the claimant failed to provide all the information, the $1,500 is the deposit toward the ultimate cost, which would be the lesser of the actual cost or $7,500 plus the cost of an appraisal. He termed Option 3 the Crook County option, $1,500 or one percent of the amount claimed for compensation, which ever is greater. He clarified that was the deposit, not the fee. In Crook County, if the hearings official determined the amount of deposit inadequate to cover costs, he or she could refuse to go forward until the municipality received the difference. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to adopt Option 2. Mr. Pap6 wanted to have a limitation on what the City could charge for the claim applications. He liked Option 2, terming it fair and flexible. MINUTES--Eugene City Cotmcil November 24, 2004 Page 3 Work Session