CCMinutes - 11/24/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

because the ballot measure was skewed in favor of the claimant. It had no built-in balance in terms of protecting the City or taxpayers. That was the council's task. She said there was nothing wrong with charging actual costs, but there was something wrong with capping the cost for the claimant and asking the taxpayer to pick up the difference. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Klein called the council's attention to possible changes to Section 2.090(1) related to a public hearing for claims. Ms. Bettman asked for more information about the possibility of applying the regulations in effect at the time a property was purchased by the owner. Mr. Klein indicated that would be part of the waiver or modification. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the text for Section 2.090(1) reviewed by Mr. Klein. Ms. Solomon clarified with Mr. Klein that the amended ordinance required the City Council to hold a public hearing if it chose to either waive regulations or pay compensation. Mr. Pap~ felt it was reasonable to have a public hearing if the council was going to waive a regulation but thought it should be discretionary for small claims. In those cases, he thought it appropriate for staff to make a determination that compensation should be paid. He was willing to consider a threshold beyond which hearings were held. Mr. Kelly concurred with the remarks of Mr. Pap~, saying he did not see an upside to holding public hearings on very small claims. If a claim had the potential for a negative physical impact on the land he wanted to hold a hearing, and the ordinance as initially drafted provided for that. Ms. Taylor said that the claims involved may be very significant and public hearings should be used to keep the public informed. If a claim was insignificant and the public did not care, the public hearing would be very short. Mr. Poling believed staff would recognize when a claim amount reached a critical point and should be subject to a public hearing. He opposed the amendment. Mayor Torrey indicated that in the case of a tie, he would oppose the amendment. Ms. Bettman argued that if the City was going to have predictability in its fees, it should have predictability in its processes. She supported the amendment because she believed there was value to having public hearings to address all the issues that would be raised by the measure. She said that people would become more aware of what was going on, and public hearings would have an educational component to them. She did not think the public had heard the last of the measure. Mr. Kelly said he would have supported the amendment if there was no other notice for a claim. He pointed out that claims would be posted on the City's Web site and the relevant neighborhood group notified. He thought that would give even small claims public exposure. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 5 Work Session