CCMinutes - 11/24/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Papd wanted to have a limitation on what the City could charge for the claim applications. He liked Option 2, terming it fair and flexible. Ms. Bettman thought Option 3 was futile because the claimant had the option of going directly to court. Mr. Klein concurred. He indicated he had offered the option because from past discussion, some councilors appeared to like what Crook County was doing. City Manager Taylor noted that exempting the appraisal allowed him to feel comfortable with Option 2. Ms. Bettman did not support going forward with Option 2. She preferred Option las it recovered the actual costs of processing the claim, which she believed was the fairest approach. Under Option 2, taxpayers would subsidize the cost of the largest windfall claims that local governments received. She called for full- cost recovery for claims made. Ms. Taylor agreed that the taxpayer should not subsidize the cost of processing Ballot Measure 37 claims. Mr. Kelly commended staff's creativity but he was not supportive of Option 2 because he did not want the taxpayers and other City services to be %tuck with" a very large charge from a very large claim from a large, longstanding property owner. The proviso did not address the land use regulations in effect when the property was purchased, and that might be necessary to know. If the concept of ~family member" came up in the case of a corporate claim, that could require considerable research. He believed that the City's cost could easily reach five figures, and asked where that funding would come from. Mr. Poling thanked Mr. Klein for his research. He supported Option 2 because it was predictable for those seeking to file claims and, as the City developed history with the program, it could return to the ordinance if necessary and make the revisions needed to recover more. Mr. Meisner acknowledged Mr. Kelly's comments but said he wanted some kind of predictability for claimants. While he opposed the measure, it was a fact of life, and he did not want to put forward the message that the %ky was the limit." He agreed that the ordinance could be revisited. He hoped that staff would pay careful attention and in the case of large claims, pay close attention to the cost of claims processing as he believed they would go to court anyway. City Manager Taylor said he was persuaded earlier that staff could track the costs of the ordinance and if it turned out the costs were higher than predicated, return to the council with suggested revisions. Ms. Nathanson thanked staff for developing the options before the council. Mayor Torrey also commended staff for its work. He supported the motion because he thought it demonstrated good faith on the part of the City. Mayor Torrey noted that Eugene had defeated the measure, although it was supported by the remainder of the state. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments on the motion. Mr. Pap~ said he did not want the fees to be set so high that the City would appear to be retaliating against property owners who took advantage of their rights under the measure. Ms. Bettman did not think the City should be penalizing taxpayers by requiring them to subsidize Ballot Measure 37 claims. She said the City's response to the measure with regard to the need for definition was MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 4 Work Session