10/21/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Arnold said Section 1 of the initiative stated that the City "shall not" adopt an urban renewal plan and later referred to a "provision of such plan providing for the allocation of ad valorem taxes." He said Section 2 then e required submission to the voters, not of the urban renewal plan, but of the provision in that plan governing the allocation of taxes. He said the initiative was ambiguous about whether voters would be voting on the urban renewal plan or on the provision concerning the allocation of taxes. He said City Attorneys understood that the provision, rather than the plan, would be submitted to voters. Mr. Arnold said the City Attorneys had tried to address that ambiguity by referring in the question to the allocation of taxes that were increases in project value. Mr. Arnold said appellants had claimed that the phrase of limitation was not synonymous with a limit. He said the Legislature had provided the City with authority to use tax increment financing, and the legislation contained no requirement for a vote. He said the requirement of a vote was a limitation on the authority of the City. Mr. Arnold said appellants claimed that the ballot title was biased in its use of the word "prohibit" in the explanation and unfair because it did not highlight the requirement of voter approval. He said it was not appropriate to examine single words or portions of the title, which should be viewed as a whole. He said the last phrase of the explanation stated precisely the requirement for elector approval of the provision. He added that all substantive elements of the initiative were described in the title. Mr. Arnold said Mr. Harms's ballot title had been submitted as evidence of bias in the title prepared by Eugene City Attorneys. He said councilors had ~ received copies of a letter from Mr. Harms, who clearly expressed his opinion ... that the ballot title was a concise and impartial statement of the initiative proposed by the appellants. He said that was the limited purpose for which the letter had been submitted, and he said no position had been intended or taken by the City Attorneys. Mr. Arnold said he thought the appellants' suggestion about the measure's essence of voter approval confused their motives and intent with the language of the initiative that had been submitted. He said language in Sections 1 and 3 of the initiative placed limitations on the City's authority to approve urban renewal plans and required the City Council to change existing plans within ten days and therefore before a vote. Mr. Arnold said City Attorneys had attempted to fulfill their function of summarizing the language of the initiative. D. Questions from Councilors Ms. Ehrman suggested taking questions from councilors at this point in the meeting. No objections were expressed. Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Stotter whether it was his intent to require the people of the City of Eugene to approve urban renewal plans or amendments to those plans and on, perhaps, an annual basis, the allocation of tax increment funds for implementation of projects within those plans. Mr. Stotter said the first ~ MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 8