Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly asked why a defendant survey was conducted in 2002, 2003 and 2004 but not in 2005. Ms. <br />Nelson said that because of budget constraints the survey, which had previously been done twice a year, was <br />now done once each year. She said the lack of a survey in 2005 was due to a change in timeline for the <br />distribution of the survey. She said a survey was recently completed but results were not available in time to <br />include in Judge Allen’s evaluation. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé complimented the council for requiring judicial reviews. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman also appreciated the evaluation process. She suggested that in order to increase the response <br />rate from interested parties, the evaluation committee could conduct follow-up phone calls to encourage a <br />higher response rate. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy also thanked the committee. She asked why such a small number of defense attorneys <br />participated in the evaluation. Judge Leonard said that only a small number of attorneys practiced in <br />Municipal Court because of the contract to provide public defender services and a high percentage of <br />defendants were indigent; consequently, most defense attorneys in the community did not appear in <br />Municipal Court or did not appear often enough to do a fair evaluation. <br /> <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION: Measure 37 Givings Tax <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor said the council had been searching for a balanced and measured response to Measure <br />37 since it was passed by the voters. He said there had been two work session to discuss options. He <br />introduced Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir and City Attorney Glenn Klein and <br />complimented their efforts to develop innovative recommendations for the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein highlighted the detailed information provided in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). He said at its <br />January 25, 2006, meeting, the council directed staff to consider Option 1 and a modified version of Option <br />3 of the four options presented. A staff team reviewed those two options, conducted financial analyses and <br />concluded that Option 1 could be implemented without significant administrative costs and most of the <br />money raised could be set aside for payment of Measure 37 claims. Option 3 would entail greater <br />administrative costs to implement and a greater share of the revenue would not be available to pay claims. <br /> <br />Continuing, Mr. Klein said the analysis used 2005 as an example year for implementation and found that as <br />a result of upzonings, there was an increase of about $2.25 million of additional real market value. He said <br />a tax imposed on just that upzoning value would result in $113,000 for each five percent of tax. He said <br />that 2005 was a fairly typical year with 25 upzonings, but that number could vary from one year to another. <br />He said the recommendation based on council direction to date and the ability to implement without <br />significant administrative costs was that the council direct staff to draft an ordinance to implement Option 1 <br />with the tax rate to be determined. He said the ordinance, which would involve amendments to Chapter 9, <br />would go first to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the council. Both the commission and the <br />council would hold public hearings and discussions on the draft ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy solicited comments and questions from the councilors. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that Measure 37, by requiring compensation but not providing funding for it, placed <br />jurisdictions in the situation of not being able to do land use well unless they developed funding sources for <br />those claims. He complimented staff for creative thinking and a thorough analysis of options. He initially <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />