Item 2C: Ratif. of IGR Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

all its records pertaining to development permits for the past five years when as a rule they are only interested in one particular item. He pointed out that if there is no fee in connection with records requests, there is no incentive to tailor requests and not impose undue burden for staff. Mr. Pap~ suggested that there be an attorney review of this issue. Mr. Hill pointed out that labor cannot be charged for the collection of information and that the City would be subsidizing large requests. He noted that it also appears the bill would prohibit the City from recovering costs from Measure 37 requests. Mr. Lidz stated that to the extent a claim involves a request of a public record, he is uncertain how many claims there will be in connection with Measure 37 that will in fact require a public records request. Ms. Bettman reasoned it would be prudent to have an amendment that encourages the public to be more specific in their requests; however, she went on to say that if the media asks for all the information regarding a specific issue, those requests should be granted. Mr. Hill pointed out that the City Council can waive cost recovery. Ms. Bettman countered that to include such language in statues supercedes councilor tenures. She revealed that through her tenure on the Police Commission, she has heard complaints from the public as to how difficult it is to retrieve information from the City. Ms. Bettman said she would like to change that perception. Ms. Taylor endorsed Ms. Bettman's comment. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Bettman, amended the motion to require that the public be more specific in their requests for public records. The amendment passed 3-0. The motion passed 3-0. HB 2731 IMPOSES FEE FOR ISSUANCE, OF FIRST OREGON CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. ALLOCATES MONEYS FROM FEE AMONG DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, COUNTIES AND CITIES.. (Priority 2 - Support with Amendment) Ms. Taylor moved to add an amendment that omits the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) from receiving its share (one third) of the fee that would be received from constituents. The motion failed for a lack of a second. - Ms. Brooks stated she does not expect the bill to move forward as the County is not pushing its passage. She opined that if ODOT is removed from the fees, it definitely will not pass, as it is a coalition effort. Mr. Pap~ stated that he could not support the amendment. Ms. Bettman stated she would not support the bill. Mr. Jones reasoned that with regard to the fee, it would be a stronger argument to start with a position of one-third each and negotiate back to a 50-50 split. Ms. Bettman questioned the number of exemptions that are listed in the bill. Mr. Jones responded that the list of users, who would be exempt from the $100 fee, is consistent MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 4