10/21/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

part of her statement was correct, but the second part did not describe his intent. He said his intent was that voters would approve urban renewal e projects if they fit the incremental tax fi nanci ng. Mr. Stotter said the Downtown Plan, at least at one time, had provided an example of such an urban renewal plan financed by incremental taxes. He said the urban renewal plan and amendments to that plan, rather than the projects in the plan, would be subject to voter approval. Mr. Holmer said he tended to agree with the appellants' case with regard to the title or caption section. He said he saw nothing in the ordinance but an added procedure, which was not the same as "limiting City authority to develop through urban renewal." Mr. Arnold said Section 3 of the initiative required that existing plans be changed within ten days to eliminate any provision for the allocation of taxes, which City Attorneys understood to mean tax increment financing, although that term was not clear in the initiative as drafted. He said that requirement was a limitation and would occur before any vote. Ms. Ehrman said she had asked the City Attorney whether the initiative could be withdrawn and resubmitted. She said City Attorneys had said that could not be done, and she asked Mr. Gold whether he might consider redrafting the initiative. Mr. Gold said he did not plan to redraft the initiative. E. Appellants' Response Mr. Stotter said it was very clear to him after reading the City Attorney's response to the appeal that someone in the City Attorney's Office did not like the merits of the ballot measure. He said evidence included statements like the one that the measure did not "fit into Eugene1s form of government." Mr. e Stotter said the measure fit into Springfield1s form of government and could fit into Eugene1s form of government if the voters agreed. He said such statements indicated a bias on the part of the City Attorneys, and he was concerned that such a role was not appropriate. Mr. Stotter said he was concerned about reliance on the letter written by Mr. Harms. He said that was the opinion of one attorney, and others might feel di fferent ly. Mr. Stotter said Mr. Harms1s opinion was not relevant to whether the ballot title was concise and impartial, and the reason for submitting the ballot title was as a basis for comparison. F. Council Discussion Mr. Miller said he felt the City Attorney had made an appropriate case, and he recommended that the pet it i oners redraft the initiative to clarify ambiguities in the language. He said he thought the City Attorneys' description of the ballot measure was unbiased, and he saw no alternative but to reject the appeal. Mr. Holmer said he thought the appellants clearly had made their case and had done so very well. He said he believed the words they had identified did show predisposition in the title, question, and the fi rst paragraph of the explanation. He said he thought the rest of the title would more accurately reflect the language in the proposed initiative if it were described as "a e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 9