12/06/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, . V. Consideration of Code Amendment Re: Quasi-Judicial Hearings Manager said this was a house cleaning matter to amend the Code to - eliminate the need for a verbatium record of quasi-judicial hearings. A recent ruling against the City in an appea"' before the Hearings Panel was based on there being no such record. Thf~ amendment woul d be consi s- tent with State statutes and would apply to 111 quasi-judicial hearings. Mr. Delay said he was under the impression that land use decisions required a verbatium record. Stan Long, City Attorney, said the State statutes expressely do not require such, nor is there any constitutional requirement. He said minutes that state the substance of the meeting were adequate. He noted the reason for eliminating verbatium records was the expense and occasional difficulties with recording devices. C.B. 1804--Concerning quasi-judicial hearings; amending Sec. 2.399 of Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be e approved and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18310. VI. Consideration of Initiative and Referendum Ordinance Manager said this was a continuation of Council discussion November 22, at which time Council requested consideration of changing two aspects of the proposed ordinance. The revised ordinance has been distributed in which Section 2.981(2) initiative proposals to repeal ordinances or charter amendments approved at November or first primary elections will be placed on a ballot only at subsequent primary or November elections, rather than applying this limitation to all initiative proposals. Second, Section 2.976(1)(c) indicates signatures must be obtained within 100 days rather than six months. Mr. Lieuallen said he was going to oppose the ordinance. His main concern was the question of the time period for obtaining signatures on an initiative or referendum to be placed on the ballot. He felt it a mistake to limit the opportunity for the public to an initiative~ e 12/6/78--6 1b1-