10/21/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

proposed by the appellants. Mr. Arnold said background might assist in answering that question, and he explained that in drafting a ballot title for e an initiative, it was not the function of the City Attorney to guess what the intentions of the drafters might be. It was the function of the City Attorney to examine the words submitted in the initiative petition and to explain in one hundred words or less the subject of that initiative, he said, adding that the City Attorney looked at the document, not at the intention of proponents. Mr. Arnold said the City Attorney IS function in this case had been particularly diffi cult because the initiative contained a number of ambiguities. Mr. Arnold referred councilors to the ballot title contained in packets and noted that it contained a title or caption consisting of no more than 10 words, a description of the question that could not exceed 20 words, and an explanation that was limited by law to 100 words. He said he would address appellants' contentions as they involved those three areas. Mr. Arnold read the ballot title or caption, "Charter Amendment Limiting City Authority to Develop through Urban Renewal.1I He said appellants claimed that the use of the word "limiting" constituted bias and that the term IICity Authority" was misleading. Mr. Arnold said the Oregon Urban Renewal Statute had granted authority to the City of Eugene to use tax increment financing for urban development, an authority which the City currently exercised. He said the legislation did not require a vote of the electorate, and the word "limiting" had been used in the caption because the initiative contained words of limitation in Section 1, which stated, liThe City of Eugene shall not approve an urban renewal plan. . . II Mr. Arnold added that City Attorneys felt e it would be misleading to suggest that the initiative would not limit the City's authority. --- Mr. Arnold said the appellants also argued in their petition that the caption should refer not to the City but to the City Council. He said the ballot title was required to reflect the language of the proposed initiative, and Section 1 of the initiative referred to the City, not to the City Council. He said the petition also used the words "City Council II later in another section, and that was one instance of the ambiguities in the initiative. Mr. Arnold said appellants had proposed an alternative description for the question section, but their description exceeded the 20-word limitation. He added that City Attorneys' 20-word description of the question accurately summarized the proposed initiative. He said appellants challenged the City Attorney's wording, claiming that use of the word, IIpreventll was biased. Mr. Arnold said the State Legislature had granted Oregon cities the authority to use tax increment financing without voter approval, voter approval was a limitation on that authority, and the word IIprevent" was used to reflect that limitation on the authority of the City of Eugene. Mr. Arnold noted that the third section of the ballot, the explanation, was limited to 100 words. He compared the ballot title and the initiative, noting tha t the first paragraph of the explanation described Section 1 of the i ni t i at i ve I whi ch stated that the Ci ty II sha 11 not approve" future urban - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 4