Item 2C: Ratify IGR Comm.Action - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Klein discussed the issue of transferability, saying a Ballot Measure 37 waiver would be transferable for a limited period of time. The waiver was valid for five years; if it was not used within five years, it expired. The five years started when a jurisdiction determined a claim was valid. If the property owner went through the development process using the waiver, what was constructed on the property was an authorized use. The waiver could be transferred once, but there was no extension to the five-year waiver period if transferred. Mr. Klein said those wishing to file a retroactive claim would have 180 days to do so after the bill became law. Those with proscriptive claims could do so based on new regulations adopted by the council. Regulations related to public health and safety and regulations needed to meet federal requirements would be exempted from Ballot Measure 37 claims. If the regulation did not fall into one of those exemption categories, and there was a reduction in use or value, the property would be subject to a claim. Ms. Taylor said it did not appear the council could make new regulations if the bill passed. Mr. Klein did not think that was the case. He believed that claims would be tied to specific development proposals. If the council adopted a new land use regulation, a property owner could not file a claim until he or she was ready to develop a property. The council could then determine whether to waive the regulations or pay the claim. If a claim was not filed within five years of the adoption of a regulation, the regulation was grandfathered. Mr. Klein noted that statewide, less than 50 claims had been filed inside cities; more than 1,000 had been filed with counties. Ms. Bettman asked if there was any legal precedence in regard to the issue of transferability. She believed the bill gave proponents of the measure a major concession. Mr. Klein agreed, and said the proponents were willing to concede on other points for the sake of transferability. Ms. Bettman asked about the potential of a court challenge. Mr. Klein indicated the courts needed an actual case on which to rule. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein reiterated that claims other than Goal 5 claims inside the urban growth boundary could not be made retroactively. Mr. Pap6 asked about the potential of a compensation fund. Mr. Klein said the only dollars identified for that use were the deferred taxes from properties subject to the State's farm and forest tax deferrals. A property receiving a waiver was disqualified from the deferral, and the bill indicated that the owner must pay back the back taxes to the date when the regulation was first imposed. If a regulation was imposed 30 years ago, the property owner would be required to pay taxes for those 30 years. Mr. Klein said those dollars would be directed to a compensation fund established by the counties and they would be distributed to government entities in the same ratios as currently existed, but the dollars could only be used by cities and counties for compensation claims. Schools could use the money for anything they wanted. Ms. Bettman asked if legislature had considered capturing the difference between the value of a property receiving a waiver and its assessed value as a source of funding for the compensation fund. Mr. Klein said many concepts were discussed by negotiators, but he was unsure if that was discussed. Mr. Pap6 believed it would be very difficult to such a calculation. Ms. Bettman asked the major downsides of the bill outside of transferability, and the major upsides. Mr. Klein said the bill was better than the existing measure. If the bill passed, fewer claims could be filed against the City and the process was spelled out, which helped to avoid litigation. The City would not have MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 12, 2005 Page 4