07/25/1990 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e from Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gary said the sign code bill did not provide for the City to pay compensation. He said that in order for a sign owner to receive compensation, a suit would have to be filed claiming the taking of property. Mr. Rutan said there was a great deal of precedent on the taking of signs. He said the council should be prepared to pay for the proposed revision from 15 years to 7 for sign compliance. He said he had calculated that the revi- sion could cost the City $150,000. He said the chances of litigation in this case were extremely high. He said it was not reasonable to pass this problem on to future councils. In response to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Gary said Mr. Rutan's analysis of the situation was good. He said the sign code bill was constitutional and he felt the City could defend against a charge of taking whether the period for compliance was 7 years or 15. However, he said the City's position would be very defensible at 15 years, and less so as the number of years were reduced. He said Mr. Rutan had used the correct calculation method for figuring the City's possible liability. He pointed out that the City would have to pay not only its own defense costs, but attorney fees for the plain- tiff if it lost a case of this kind. In response to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Gary said the bill was consti- tutional and could be defended if the time for sign compliance were limited to 7 years, although this defense would be more difficult than for a time limit of 15 years. e Ms. Bascom said the council's constituents seemed to be frustrated about the number of billboards in Eugene. She said the council had not reduced the number of signs as greatly as it had hoped it could. She said that Ms. Ehrman's amendment to the bill would help reduce the number of billboards, and if this cost the City some amount of money it was acceptable. , Mr. Rutan pointed out that the sign code would limit the number of bill- boards, regardless of the number of years listed for compliance. He said what was at issue was the costly removal of a few signs. In response to a question from Mayor Miller, Mr. Gleason said the Sign Code bill was an attempt to deal in a straightforward manner with the issue of billboards. Mr. Bennett said he was concerned about billboards within urban growth bound- aries. However, he said the process used by the council to revise the sign code had been good. He said he would like to support Ms. Ehrman's amendment for shortening the number of years billboard owners would be allowed to comply with the code, but that he felt the risks were too high. A vote on the motion to amend the sign code bill passed, 4-2; with councilors Schue, Ehrman, Bascom, and Boles voting in favor; and councilors Rutan and Bennett voting in opposition. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 25, 1990 Page 10