Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

history. However, the family member's ability to get a waiver would ignore family history, and be based only on the present family member's ownership. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman vot- ing no. Mr. Klein reviewed proposed amendments to Section 2.095, dealing with the private cause of action. He recommended that whoever prevailed between neighbor and claimant would receive attorney fees. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to adopt the text reviewed by Mr. Klein. Mr. Pap6 supported the text as fair. The amendment to the motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Poling referred to Section 2.085(2) and asked if that included any elected official or should it be redefined as any elected "City" official. Mr. Klein interpreted it as a City official because the manager's recommendation was being forwarded to the City Council. He did not object to the amendment, however. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to amend the section with the word "City." The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Nathanson said that the council received testimony expressing frustration that it was taking action to move forward on an ordinance and process. She said that adopting the ordinance was not an end run around the measure, but a way to implement it on a local level through the City of Eugene. Every city would have to address the measure in some way, and Eugene was just trying to set up fair procedures in advance of the measure's effective date. She thought it was important for the council to act, and was the responsible thing to do. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Klein said the measure was not specific to the actual costs incurred by the City. There would be a cost of preparing materials for council meetings, for example. He did not include his time, the council's time, or the manager's time at council meetings because they would be there anyway. Mr. Pap6 was prepared to act on the ordinance at this point. He agreed with the remarks made by Ms. Nathanson. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the main motion. He thanked legal counsel for all the work it had done in preparing the City to address the ramifications of Ballot Measure 37 in what he believed was a wise way. He hoped that the measure would not be as difficult for the City to address as it would be for rural Lane County. He did not expect the same types of problems. Mr. Meisner recalled the amount of time spent addressing the anticipated impact of Year 2000, and hoped the impact of the measure would be similar to that event, which did not turn out to be much. City Manager Taylor believed the ordinance was the responsible response to Ballot Measure 37. He anticipated the council would revisit the ordinance in the future, and that the City would continue to challenge the legislature and courts to provide clarity about the measure. Ms. Bettman wished all those present a Happy Thanksgiving, saying that the council had many things to be thankful for, but Ballot Measure 37 was not one of them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 8 Work Session