CCMinutes - 11/08/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that was allowed at the time the individual in question acquired the property, not the family member. Mr. Pap~ asked about corporate ownerships. Mr. Klein said the measure was ambiguous in that regard. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City should consider a general fee paid up front versus charging people afterwards. He perceived the City would have difficulty in collecting from those whose claims were denied. Mr. Klein said the City did not know the costs of implementing the measure and needed some experience before it could set a fee amount. The City could establish an upfront fee, but it was unclear whether the City could enforce the fee. He did not interpret the measure as precluding a property owner from going to court if they filed a claim but failed to pay local government a fee. Mr. Pap~ suggested an upfront fee could help the City's cash flow in processing claims. Mr. Klein agreed that was true if the claimant was willing to pay. Mr. Poling also commended legal counsel and encouraged the other councilors to work through the issues so action could be taken as soon as possible. He believed the work done by Mr. Klein and his staff could serve as a model for other communities. He thought more work remained to be done. Referring to Section 2.085(2), Mr. Poling suggested the ordinance be more specific and refer to the City Council rather to %lected officials." Mr. Klein said the use of ~City Council" would exclude the mayor, and he was attempting to avoid that, although he acknowledged the mayor did not vote except in the event of a tie. He said it was a policy question for the council whether the mayor should be included. Ms. Nathanson noted there was no cap on the fee and asked what happened when someone called the City for an estimate of what it would cost to file a claim. Mr. Klein said he would advise staff to answer honestly that the City does not know the cost at this time. He anticipated more would be known when claims began to be filed, and at that time staff could begin to give rough estimates based on past experience. City Manager Taylor said that would also encourage the applicant to provide as much information as possible and avoid the cost of City staff doing the needed research. Ms. Nathanson asked if there was a potential problem in not requiring public hearings. Mr. Klein believed it would be a political rather than a legal problem. He said it was possible the council could decide it always wanted to have a public hearing and revise the ordinance in the future accordingly. Ms. Nathanson recalled a time when the council held few executive sessions, even at a time when they may have been appropriate. That had changed over time. She wondered in this case what the council would want to impose on itself in terms of hearings. She said there were legitimate reasons both to hold and not to hold hearings. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Klein clarified that the ballot measure does not apply to conditions of approvals such as those imposed through conditional use permits, subdivisions, etc.; it applied only to land use regulations defined in the measure. Ms. Taylor also thanked legal staff for its work. She asked about the time allowed for the manager and council's decisions. Mr. Klein said the only time limit built in was the 180 days mentioned in the measure. He expected the manager would give the council an actual recommendation far in advance of when a decision was due. He did not want to include a deadline that the City could not meet. City Manager Taylor suggested the council may have to hold special meetings to meet claims deadlines. He acknowledged Ballot Measure 37-related activities would displace other council work due to the timelines imposed by the State. Ms. Taylor asked for more information on Section 2.090(4), which allowed the City to reinstitute the land MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 8 Work Session