Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ---~ <br /> e the individual to appeal; and that the overall cost of enforcement be reduced <br /> by substantial gains in efficiency. <br /> Mr. Eveleth noted that Planning and Development Department representatives, <br /> Marsha Miller, Dick Gassman, and Greta Utecht, and City Attorney Glenn Klein <br /> would be available to answer questions. <br /> Mr. Holmer asked for clarification on the appeals process. In response, Ms. <br /> Miller said that the Hearings Official decision could be appealed to the <br /> Circuit Court or, if the issue was determined to be a land-use decision, the <br /> decision could be appealed to the land Use Board of Appeals (lUBA). <br /> Mr. Holmer asked about the size of penalties which could be assessed and <br /> asked whether the City would be achieving full-cost recovery. Ms. Miller <br /> responded that fines range between $25-$500 each, depending on their severity <br /> as calculated in the Civil Penalty Matrix. Ms. Utecht added that assessing <br /> fines with the civil penalty mechanism would allow the City to recover its <br /> enforcement costs far more effectively than it has in the past because it <br /> provides an incentive for the violator to pay the fine right away. Mr. <br /> Holmer suggested the possibility of increasing the maximum fine allowable to <br /> $5,000. <br /> Mr. Boles asked whether staff had an opportunity to run the matrix on past <br /> enforcement violation cases to determine what the average fine might be. Ms. <br /> Miller said that an evaluation of past fines in the matrix revealed an <br /> average fine of $75-$100. <br /> e Mr. Holmer noted that the staff memo alternates between the term "civil <br /> penaltyll and IIfine." He said that he prefers the term "fine" because it <br /> sounds more forceful but said that whatever the term used, it should be <br /> consistent. Mr. Klein explained that the term "civil penaltyll was chosen to <br /> reflect that this would be a civil rather than criminal infraction. He said <br /> that the Oregon State Statue refers to this as "administrative civil <br /> penalty;" either term could be used with the same effect. <br /> Mr. Bennett noted that sometimes a potential violator may be hesitant to pay <br /> a fine because of a genuine disagreement over interpretation. He asked <br /> whether there is some procedure for handling the potential violator's need <br /> for clarification without the threat of an increasing fine. Mr. Eveleth said <br /> that there is an opportunity to get clarification from a Hearings Official <br /> before being assessed a penalty. Mr. Boles also noted that the matrix <br /> addresses this concern to some degree in providing a lower fine for <br /> individuals who are attempting to resolve the dispute. <br /> Mr. Boles requested a one-year review of the civil penalty enforcement <br /> program to determine its effectiveness in compliance. <br /> Mr. Eveleth pointed out that approximately 95 percent of the situations which <br /> require civil penalty enforcement are brought to the City's attention by <br /> persons who live near the proposed violation. Responding to a question from <br /> Mr. Rutan, he predicted that approximately 75 percent of those concerns <br /> e raised by neighbors are legitimate. <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 5 <br />