Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 11/08/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall November 8, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Taylor said she received a letter from a constituent regarding human waste in the Amazon Park area and requesting that rest room facilities be installed. She noted that the collector street issue in the Crest Drive area continued to be a concern for residents, and thanked City Manager Dennis Taylor for reschedul- ing the agenda item related to the classification of streets in that neighborhood. She hoped a context- sensitive design could be found, and that residents living outside the neighborhood using the streets would be required to share in the cost of improvements as it was her belief those individuals would benefit more from those improvements than those actually living on the streets in question. She also hoped the installation of more stop signs to slow traffic was considered. Mr. Poling noted an article in that day's edition of The Register-Guard regarding a bicycle bridge over 1-5 connecting Eugene and Springfield and a proposed bicycle path access to the proposed bridge through a residential cul-de-sac. He had been in contact with representatives of the Oregon Department of Transpor- tation (ODOT) regarding the situation, and those individuals agreed to do an on-site visit, talk to the residents, and consider possible adjustments to the route. He expected to hear more from ODOT in a couple of weeks. Mr. Poling indicated he would be missing some upcoming meetings due to some scheduling conflicts, and he would attempt to attend meetings via speakerphone when possible. He apologized that he might have to miss meetings. Ms. Nathanson referred to the subject of interdepartmental cooperation, and acknowledged and compli- mented the City Manager's efforts in getting the City's executive managers to work better together as a team on issues that affected more than one department. She expressed appreciation for the presence of staff from all impacted departments when the council discussed a particular ordinance or issue. Ms. Nathanson encouraged the manager to continue that practice. She thought it very important to take a multidisciplinary approach to problem-solving. Ms. Nathanson said she had shared her pride about Eugene's experience in working with private telecommunications providers in a team setting during some remarks she made before the recent League of Oregon Cities (LOC) convention. She encouraged that such interdepartmental cooperation continue to be fostered. Mr. Meisner noted that improvements to the 3rd/4th Avenue connector were planned for the upcoming year, and noted the commencement of staging for those improvements, which he was pleased to see. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Meisner said he attended a recent event for retiring Alternatives Modes Coordinator Diane Bishop. He hoped the council could find a way to thank her as a body. He said that the City's nationally recognized bicycle path system was due to the efforts of many, but Ms. Bishop had done much of the actual work involved. Mr. Kelly reported he had attended a press conference for the kickoff of the Oregon Bounty Program earlier that day at the Market of Choice. He said the program was an example of several State agencies working together and focusing on the tourism and economic development aspects of promoting Oregon wines and specialty foods. He commended the Market of Choice for its promotion of local products. Mr. Pap~ congratulated Ms. Nathanson for her receipt of the James C. Richard Memorial from the League of Oregon Cities in recognition of her many years of public service. He said it was a well-deserved honor. City Manager Taylor noted that the award given to Ms. Nathanson was one of three prestigious awards given at the conference annually. He congratulated Ms. Nathanson for the award and acknowledged her work on telecommunications issues locally and at the national level, and her service as a member of the National League of Cities Board of Directors and the league's Information and Telecommunications Committee. City Manager Taylor reported that the City was well-represented at the League of Oregon Cities conference. Representatives included Mayor-elect Kitty Piercy and City Councilor-elect Andrea Ortiz. City Manager Taylor said that it was clear that implementation of Ballot Measure 37 was going to be a challenge for many Oregon cities and counties, which frequently looked to Eugene for leadership in such matters. He said that many cities were also concerned about the possible loss of State shared revenue in the upcoming State legislative session. Such shared revenues enjoyed bipartisan support. Cities and counties had been successful in retaining those funds in the last few sessions. He anticipated that funding would be threatened. City Manager Taylor noted that only two states in the country had been successful in maintain- ing State shared revenue levels in recent years. Mayor Torrey also congratulated Ms. Nathanson for receiving the LOC award. Mayor Torrey noted a recent constituent contact regarding a personal property loss she suffered from theft, and said he had asked the manager and Police Chief Bob Lehner to follow-up with the victim, which occurred immediately. However, he believed there was a problem in that the City was responding after the fact as opposed to providing the public with information about ways to stop such losses. Mayor Torrey thought that although the City had done a good job in reducing crimes against people, it had not done a good job as it related to crimes against property. He said the victim subsequently indicated her willingness to participate in a public service announcement regarding crime prevention, and hoped some follow-up by the manager would occur. He pledged to seek time for such announcements from local broadcasters. Ms. Bettman noted that Tod Schneider of the Eugene Police Department did a great deal of work on crime prevention, and suggested the City's cable television program feature a program with him explaining best practice approaches to victim vulnerability. City Manager Taylor concurred. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 2 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Evaluation for City Buildings City Manager Taylor introduced the item, saying staff would like to review the City's efforts in promoting sustainable, effective green practices throughout the organization in existing buildings. Ms. Solomon arrived. Facilities Manager Glen Svendsen said that new buildings receive considerable focus in terms of sustainabil- ity, and operation and maintenance practices are more often ;;under the radar." He said staff would review how the City was applying the United States Green Council's LEED Existing Building (EB) criteria to existing buildings. He called attention to the Agenda Item Summary (ALS) for the topic, which included a summary of what the City was doing now. Mr. Svendsen noted that Ron Sutton and Lynne Eichner Kelley of the Facilities Division were also present for the item. They had developed the idea of applying LEED-EB criteria on an inventory-wide basis, which the criteria were not designed to do, but they had believed there could be value to the exercise. That led to a request from the International Facility Managers Association to present a paper at the association's October 2004 conference. The presentation the council would hear was a shortened version of that presentation. He said staff would highlight some policy and budget issues for future council direction at the end of the presentation. Mr. Svendsen commended the proactive efforts of Ms. Eichner Kelley and Mr. Sutton. He believed the efforts reflected the extent to which sustainability had become integral to Facility Management's operations. Mr. Sutton provided a PowerPoint presentation on the topic. He emphasized the impact of environmental and budgetary impacts of ongoing operations on existing buildings. He said that the City used LEED-EB as a means of achieving a common standard to use as a benchmark to measure progress against the criteria applied specifically to existing buildings. He hoped that the US Green Building Council developed a LEED organization certification as the City would be interested in pursuing that on a pilot basis. Mr. Sutton said that staff decided to apply the criteria with the realization that operations and maintenance functions were not exclusive to a single building. Consistent standards established across the building inventory were important to efficient operations. Staff wanted to realize the benefits of the criteria in a larger context. While there were likely only five buildings that would be certified and 95 that would not, it did not mean staff could not apply the criteria to the other 95 buildings to maximize their sustainable operations. Mr. Sutton emphasized that the program was not just a facilities management program, but touched all departments in the City. The organization had considerable energy around the topics of green buildings and sustainable, and the LEED-EB gave the City the tool to harness that energy and focus it more productively. Ms. Eichner Kelley discussed how the City was using LEED-EB, reporting that the City first examined the prerequisites, or base requirements, for certifying a building. Staff determined that the organization met two of the prerequisites and assessed the organization against the remaining ten. She referred the council to a list of the prerequisites assessed, noting that they generally fell into two groups; about five were policy- and procedure-based, which staff decided to apply organizationally; the remaining five were operations- and equipment-based. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Eichner Kelley reviewed the six phases of LEED-EB implementation: 1) assess current operations against LEED-EB prerequisites; 2) implement all prerequisites appropriate on organization-wide basis; 3) assess organization-wide credits already being implemented and implement those near to meeting LEED-EB; 4) implement building-specific credits; 5) LEED-EB certification of specific buildings; and 6) maintain certified building status and all ongoing program elements. Mr. Sutton said the results of the process were a comprehensive understanding of current sustainability efforts, immediate improvements to City operations, and an understanding of how the City measured up against the LEED-EB benchmarks. In regard to existing sustainability efforts, Mr. Sutton showed the council slides of solar panels in use at Amazon Pool, native species plantings at the Park Blocks, and a diagram showing direct digital controls used to monitor heating and ventilation system in City buildings. He briefly noted some of the immediate improvements, which included expanded recycling, improved refrigerant monitoring/reporting, and adoption of Green Seal standards. Speaking to how the City measured up against LEED-EB standards, Ms. Eichner Kelley said of the ten prerequisites examined by staff, the City satisfied or had some elements of nine; one, Retrocommissioning, would be more difficult to achieve. There were 20-25 elective credits that would be relatively simple to achieve. Given the base level of certification for LEED-EB was 32 credits, Ms. Eichner Kelley did not think building certification would be difficult. Mr. Sutton emphasized all work done to this point was included in the work plan, and done in-house with existing staff. He said the City needed to keep working to improve in-house expertise, secure funding for Retrocommissioning services, and secure organizational, staff, and council support for improvements to City sustainability policies and practices. He noted the benefits of the process, which included better interde- partmental communication, added efficiencies, and increased quality of the work place. He believed there was also a benefit to the public using City facilities. Mr. Sutton concluded by saying that staff wanted to move from a traditional maintenance philosophy to a system that embraces and promotes sustainable principles. He offered to make the same presentation to organizations who want to know how to get started on a similar process. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments and questions. Ms. Taylor commended the presentation and determined from Mr. Sutton that staff was willing to offer the presentation to the neighborhood associations. Ms. Bettman concurred with the benefits of certification. She said during the recent LOC conference, participants toured Energy Trust, which was an interesting program. The program had about $15 million annually to distribute to businesses and agencies that wanted to invest in their existing buildings or build new buildings. Energy Trust was currently soliciting projects, but unfortunately, the agency's service area excluded Eugene because of the programs the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) operated. Ms. Eichner Kelley clarified that natural gas projects in Eugene qualified for Energy Trust funding, and the City had worked with the agency on the new fire station. Ms. Bettman encouraged staff to take advantage of those funds if possible. She asked how the City could secure similar benefits for electric power projects, acknowledging EWEB operated some programs but not at the scale the Energy Trust operated on. Ms. Bettman described a retrofitted project that she toured, which included the provision of extra windows and interior walls that were also windows to maximize the ambient light. The energy bill was lessened by the presence of ambient light and workers' performance had been enhanced. Mr. Sutton said the City had MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 4 Work Session some similar energy studies on its existing buildings. He noted that Ms. Eichner Kelley was the City's resident expertise and liaison to EWEB and the Northwest Energy Council. The City had taken advantage of EWEB incentives for both energy studies and reimbursements based on the energy saved. Mr. Sutton said the City had done about as much as it could in terms of energy efficiency and big projects, and now was trying to fine-tune its efforts. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Eichner Kelley overviewed contributions to the library from EWEB, saying the agency had been as generous in its assistance and incentives as she believed the Energy Trust would have been. EWEB helped the City make some informed choices about the building. Ms. Eichner Kelley noted that the Oregon Department of Energy also operated programs such as the Business Energy Tax Credit that nonprofits and government agencies such as Eugene could take advantage of with a pass-through partner. Mr. Svendsen said that the City had an opportunity for a Business Energy Tax Credit in the amount of about $15,000 available now for interested businesses. He invited interested businesses to call him. Mr. Kelly complimented staff on its specific accomplishments and its dedication to the City's sustainability goals. He asked for more information about Retrocommissioning and its resource implications. Ms. Eichner Kelley characterized Retrocommissioning as a detailed energy study of an existing building with the point of returning the building to its original design intent and finding opportunities for improvement. She said that frequently, equipment changes are involved, and those can be expensive. Mr. Sutton said the City would have to identify funding to meet that prerequisite. Mr. Kelly believed the LEED-EB approach made good environmental sense as well as good economic sense in terms of the life cycle costs of maintaining City buildings. Mr. Kelly did not think the City did a good job of celebrating its own successes, and recommended that it in this case staff go to various local business organizations such as the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce to share the presentation. He suggested the potential of the City providing a training/consulting service on LEED-EB to the private sector. Mr. Sutton indicated staff was more than happy to share the information with others. Mr. Pap~ also congratulated staff for its progress. He thought the approach showed leadership through example. Mr. Pap~ asked if staff would be assisted by the council taking a position on the standards that it hoped the City would strive for. Mr. Svendsen said yes, noting that staff had tentatively recommended designing to a silver standard. Mr. Pap~ wanted to have a work session on the standards that the City would pursue. Mr. Sutton added that would be useful from both a Facilities Management Division and organizational standpoint. Mr. Meisner also commended staff for its effort. He asked to what degree other local public entities were involved in LEED, such as School District 4J. Mr. Sutton was unsure. He said Eugene was happy to share the information it had developed with the school districts. Mr. Meisner thought it critical for consultation, assistance, and education. Mr. Meisner referred to the City's ~Working City" cable program and suggested that the information presented by staff could be shared with the public via that route more quickly and more comprehensively that it could be shared through one-on-one presentations. He agreed that the City did not do a good job of MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 5 Work Session talking about what it did well. Mr. Svendsen indicated that the program would be featured on "Working City" during December. C. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Real Property Compensation; Adding Sections 2.070, 2.075, 2.080, 2.085, 2.090, and 2.095 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date City Attorney Glenn Klein joined the council for the item. He said that there continued to be considerable confusion about the impact of the passage of Ballot Measure 37. Discussions at the League of Oregon Cities indicated many cities were unsure about the approach they would take to the implementation of the measure. Mr. Klein reported that the Oregon Attorney General indicated the effective date of the measure was December 2, 2004, rather than December 3. Mr. Klein reviewed the elements of a draft ordinance developed by legal counsel to implement Ballot Measure 37 at the local level. Councilors asked questions clarifying the details of the ordinance. Mayor Torrey recommended the council consider taking action on the ordinance following the second public hearing. Mr. Meisner commended the mayor's suggestion. Mr. Meisner referred to Section 2.075(2)(a) and (b) on page 3 of the ordinance and asked why the City would request information on all owners in subsection (a) if in subsection (b) it required the property in question to be in the sole ownership of the claimant. He suggested the use of the word "sole" might be inconsistent. Mr. Klein agreed. Referring to Section 2.085(2), Mr. Meisner thought the process made sense but the section in question made no requirement for findings or even a statement of reasons by the City Manager. He asked how the council could figure out the reasons that the City Manager objected to a claim. Mr. Klein indicated there would be a description of the claim, what the investigation revealed, the recommendation, and the rationale behind the denial. Mr. Meisner suggested the ordinance be modified so that a reference was made to the need for a statement of reasons for a denial. Mr. Meisner appreciated the risky nature of subsection 2.090(5), making the waiver personal to the claimant. He asked if Mr. Klein believed that would withstand a constitutional challenge on the basis of restraint of alienation. Mr. Klein said yes, given the manner in which the measure was written and based on the conversations he had with different attorneys. He had not heard anything to convince him it would not survive a challenge. It was possible the courts could rule against it. Mr. Meisner asked if the City had received any notice of potential claims. City Manager Taylor said no. Ms. Bettman commended the City's legal staff for its work. She said it was clear at the League of Oregon Cities conference that Eugene's legal counsel was much more prepared than the counsels of other communi- ties, which were going to wait and see what happened. She believed that defining the provisions in the measure would require litigation to be resolved. Ms. Bettman asked for an example of a transportation ordinance as referred to in Section 2.070(2)(c). Mr. Klein said the measure did not define the term "transportation ordinance." He suggested the measure MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 6 Work Session intended to refer to transportation system plans, transportation systems development charges, transportation utility fees, or access regulations. He did not know for sure. The ordinance in question must be related to transportation. He said the term was not used in the State's definitions of land use regulations. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 2.085(b) and asked why the City Manager would recommend the City investigate further given the limited time, as opposed to the City Manager doing further investigation before making a recommendation to the council. Mr. Klein said that the provision was included as a "catch all" to address potentially very unusual claims and very expensive investigations. He said the provision may not be needed. He added he anticipated that after a couple of months' experience in implementing the measure, staff would suggest revisions to the ordinance. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the inclusion of Section 2.085(d), which suggested the potential that a property could be acquired by condemnation. She said if the City was to pay for a claim it might as well leverage that claim for community benefit. She asked how the property in question would be valued, and what provisions of the law would apply to the property, the current provisions or default provisions. Mr. Klein said staff needed to discuss that issue with appraisers, because in a condemnation case, ultimately an appraiser would determine the highest and best use, and how that played out in a Ballot Measure 37 environment was not known. Ms. Bettman expressed interest in having a standardized mechanism to look at all such cases. Mr. Kelly said it was his belief that the passage of Ballot Measure 37 would have a negative impact on Eugene's livability and on farm and forest land across the state. However, it was the law of the land. Mr. Kelly said the ordinance appeared to allow Eugene to implement the measure in a straightforward manner that was fair to the property owner and flexible for the City. He also complimented Mr. Klein for his creative and speedy effort. Mr. Kelly appreciated the provisions of the ordinance related to cost recovery given the difficulty of projecting the cost of processing a claim, as some may be more complex than others. He preferred not to set an arbitrary fee. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Klein to comment on Section 2.090(1), which indicated the council may choose to have a hearing. He suggested the council needed a process to decide whether to have a hearing, and that should be based on the facts of the case. Even if there was no hearing, he wanted a mechanism for notice to be included in the ordinance. He suggested that a mechanism similar to that used for the removal of trees be considered. Mr. Pap~ joined in the council's compliments to legal counsel. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding Section 2.075(1), Mr. Klein suggested that it was unlikely a short-term tenant would submit any claims because by the time their claim was processed they would no longer be a tenant. He said that Ballot Measure 37 stated that one must have ownership or an ownership interest in a property at the time a claim was filed. Mr. Pap~ noted Section 2.090, which stated that waivers were personal to the claimant, and asked about property transfers inside a family. Mr. Klein said as the measure was written, there was no symmetry between the family ownership issue and waiver issue. The ownership issue comes up in the context of whether the owner has a claim and what regulations were in question. In terms of the waiver, the measure indicates that a regulation could be waived to allow the current property owner to use the property in a way MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 7 Work Session that was allowed at the time the individual in question acquired the property, not the family member. Mr. Pap~ asked about corporate ownerships. Mr. Klein said the measure was ambiguous in that regard. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City should consider a general fee paid up front versus charging people afterwards. He perceived the City would have difficulty in collecting from those whose claims were denied. Mr. Klein said the City did not know the costs of implementing the measure and needed some experience before it could set a fee amount. The City could establish an upfront fee, but it was unclear whether the City could enforce the fee. He did not interpret the measure as precluding a property owner from going to court if they filed a claim but failed to pay local government a fee. Mr. Pap~ suggested an upfront fee could help the City's cash flow in processing claims. Mr. Klein agreed that was true if the claimant was willing to pay. Mr. Poling also commended legal counsel and encouraged the other councilors to work through the issues so action could be taken as soon as possible. He believed the work done by Mr. Klein and his staff could serve as a model for other communities. He thought more work remained to be done. Referring to Section 2.085(2), Mr. Poling suggested the ordinance be more specific and refer to the City Council rather to %lected officials." Mr. Klein said the use of ~City Council" would exclude the mayor, and he was attempting to avoid that, although he acknowledged the mayor did not vote except in the event of a tie. He said it was a policy question for the council whether the mayor should be included. Ms. Nathanson noted there was no cap on the fee and asked what happened when someone called the City for an estimate of what it would cost to file a claim. Mr. Klein said he would advise staff to answer honestly that the City does not know the cost at this time. He anticipated more would be known when claims began to be filed, and at that time staff could begin to give rough estimates based on past experience. City Manager Taylor said that would also encourage the applicant to provide as much information as possible and avoid the cost of City staff doing the needed research. Ms. Nathanson asked if there was a potential problem in not requiring public hearings. Mr. Klein believed it would be a political rather than a legal problem. He said it was possible the council could decide it always wanted to have a public hearing and revise the ordinance in the future accordingly. Ms. Nathanson recalled a time when the council held few executive sessions, even at a time when they may have been appropriate. That had changed over time. She wondered in this case what the council would want to impose on itself in terms of hearings. She said there were legitimate reasons both to hold and not to hold hearings. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Klein clarified that the ballot measure does not apply to conditions of approvals such as those imposed through conditional use permits, subdivisions, etc.; it applied only to land use regulations defined in the measure. Ms. Taylor also thanked legal staff for its work. She asked about the time allowed for the manager and council's decisions. Mr. Klein said the only time limit built in was the 180 days mentioned in the measure. He expected the manager would give the council an actual recommendation far in advance of when a decision was due. He did not want to include a deadline that the City could not meet. City Manager Taylor suggested the council may have to hold special meetings to meet claims deadlines. He acknowledged Ballot Measure 37-related activities would displace other council work due to the timelines imposed by the State. Ms. Taylor asked for more information on Section 2.090(4), which allowed the City to reinstitute the land MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 8 Work Session use regulations in place when the property owner making a claim purchased their property. Mr. Klein said in lieu of compensation, a governing body could modify the regulations to the owner to use the property for a use allowed at the time of purchase. He believed that property owners would probably know what was allowed at that time before they filed a claim. Mayor Torrey suggested the City notify the State that if Ballot Measure 37 caused the City to be outside of State mandates it should be indemnified. Mayor Torrey asked if the actions taken by individual cities in Oregon could set precedents for others. Mr. Klein said not directly, but they could through case law as decisions were appealed to higher courts. Mayor Torrey also complimented Mr. Klein for his firm's work, and determined from Mr. Klein that several members of his firm and several members of City staff had participated in the development of the ordinance. Mayor Torrey said that Eugene was the leader in the State in terms of analyzing and preparing for the passage of the measure. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of council comments and questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said there was nothing in the measure to force property owners to consolidate claims. He believed property owners could file separate claims on separate regulations, but he noted the ordinance was structured to allow the council to consider more than the regulation the property owner wished to waive. The ordinance gave the council the ability to modify more than a single restriction back to the use that the property owner could have made of the property before the institution of Oregon's land use system. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the possibility a property owner could "cherry pick" from among the provisions in the code, and she did not think the ordinance adequately addressed that. For example, a developer could ask the City to waive code standards for a multiple-unit housing project, but it was the code that gave the developer the ability to up-zone. Ms. Bettman did not think the council could make piecemeal decisions, and thought it fairer that the property in question revert back to its original zoning and code regulations in place at that time in all cases. Ms. Bettman spoke to the effect of the measure on future planning, questioning whether adoption of a cell tower ordinance with a 1,000 foot setback would create claims. Mr. Klein indicated that staff planned to review the City's regulations and attempt to identify where such potential issues existed. City Manager Taylor indicated there would be both work plan and budgetary implications from that review, and he suggested that legislative action could be required to address some of the internal inconsistencies in the measure. Mr. Klein reported that Lane Shetterly of the Department of Land Conservation and Development indicated that the State did not want to place local governments in a difficult position in terms of how they addressed the measure, and the State would be willing to talk to the local jurisdictions about how to address pending work plan items, such as the Goal 5 periodic review work tasks. He deferred further comment to John Van Landingham, chair of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, who indicate he could not discuss details until after the commission's December 4 meeting, but he believed that Mr. Shetterly had the commission's support. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's suggestion that all claims revert back to the land use regulations in place prior to adoption of the State system, Mr. Klein indicated staff could draft the ordinance to include the default, but it MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 9 Work Session meant the council could lose some flexibility. At this point, he preferred to retain the ordinance's flexibility. If a default position were included in the ordinance, the council could only regain flexibility for a particular claim by amending the ordinance before acting on the claim. He agreed the council should be acting consistently, but he feared without any experience in dealing with claims, it would be difficult to have such a policy debate about the issues. He said that additional work sessions would be scheduled with the council to discuss additional policy issues before the council addressed individual claims. Mr. Pap6 asked about the potential an organization such as 1000 Friends of Oregon would sue the City for injunctive relief for not meeting the standards of the current statutes. Mr. Klein did not think the City of Eugene would face that situation as it did not enforce many State statutes. When the City took land use actions, it was generally enforcing its own codes, which it could waive. Counties would have more of a problem because counties enforce many State statutes, which cannot be waived. Mr. Klein was concerned about the possibility that the State would inform the City it must complete its Goal 5, which could result in additional restrictions, which would then result in more Ballot Measure 37 claims. Discussion was occurring at the state level about how to deal with situations where a jurisdiction must administer and enforce a requirement it did not adopt and could not waive. Mr. Pap6 asked what happened if the City Council determined it was in the public interest not to waive a regulation but it had no money to pay the claim. Mr. Klein said that could happen, and if the City did not pay a claim, after two years from the date the claim accrued, the property owner could probably use the property in a way that would have been allowed at the time the property was acquired. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Klein to speculate on whether the costs to claimants would be mostly legal fees. Mr. Klein said yes, as well as costs resulting from appraisal and consultant fees. Ms. Taylor suggested that taking action after two hearings was less onerous than taking action after one hearing, but she still preferred to postpone action until December 1 to allow the council to take advantage of any good ideas that were suggested at the public hearing. Mayor Torrey suggested the ordinance could be amended on November 22. Mr. Klein said the council could put the ordinance in place as planned and amend it on December 6. Mayor Torrey asked if the City had discussed the urban transition area with Lane County. Mr. Klein said some preliminary discussions had occurred. Lane County enacted the City's regulations and would be in the position of waiving them. City Manager Taylor indicated he would soon discuss the issues with County Administrator Bill Van Vactor. Mayor Torrey solicited a third round of council comments and questions. Referring to the urban transition area, Ms. Bettman suggested the "Pottery Barn" rule: "you waive it, you pay for it." Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 10 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 11 Work Session