Laserfiche WebLink
7. ACTION: <br /> <br />Lane Plywood Measure 37 Claim for Compensation (M37 05-1) <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to adopt Attachment B <br />(Option 4). <br /> <br />Councilor Poling said he would support the motion primarily based on the conversation the council had <br />with legal counsel. He wanted to stress that each one of the Ballot Measure 37 claims would be decided <br />based on individual factors and the council would not be “rubber-stamping” them. He commented that the <br />ballot measure had a lot of problems associated with it. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman opined that the claim demonstrated that Ballot Measure 37 was nothing short of <br />institutional anarchy. She said the implications of either decision were complicated. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly agreed with councilors Poling and Bettman. He thought all of the possibilities were <br />“ugly.” He recalled that ads for the ballot measure suggested that people who wished to make homes for <br />their adult children on their land would be unable to do so and that they would not be able to gain <br />retirement income from long-time ownership of property. However, the cases that were being brought for <br />judgment had nothing to do with this. He hoped the voters would see the “monster they have created.” <br /> <br />Councilor Papé called it being between a “rock and a hard place.” He concurred with the councilors’ <br />comments. He was unhappy with the State Legislature’s apathy with the issue as the Legislature had been <br />warned in 2001 and had not taken that opportunity to address the issue. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon echoed her colleagues’ sentiments regarding the “utter predicament” the council faced <br />with this claim. She was uncertain that the proponents of the ballot measure understood what they were <br />writing into law. She did not believe that the staff recommendation was in the spirit of what the voters had <br />approved and said she would oppose it. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor said she would reluctantly support the motion. She agreed with Councilor Kelly’s <br />comments. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy commented that however the council voted on the item, it was apparent that she and the <br />councilors felt a tremendous responsibility for the future of the community. She felt the council had faced a <br />very difficult set of choices and she commended the legal expertise that the City Attorney brought to the <br />table. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. <br /> <br /> <br />8. ACTION: <br /> <br />Appointment of Presiding Municipal Judge <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to reappoint Judge Wayne Al- <br />len to another four-year term as Presiding Judge of Municipal Court, and direct staff to re- <br />new his contract. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy spoke glowingly of Judge Allen’s service. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 9 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />