07/08/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and council has 30 days to act on the initiative petition measure. If council - takes no action in 30 days, the measure is placed on the ballot at the next . scheduled election at least 90 days after the finance officer has verified the signatures. Regarding the Gillespie Butte initiative petition, he and the City Attorney have reviewed that petition; and it appears that council could enact the initiative petition measure into substantive legislation. The resulting ordinance calls for the levying of a property tax and makes an appro- priation for the transfer of the Gillespie Butte property. However, council will have to place the property tax levy on the ballot for voter approval in order to fund the appropriation. The ordinance and resolution calling for the election must be passed by August 10, 1981, in order to place the property tax levy on the September 15, 1981, ballot. The second alternative discussed by council includes the unofficial acceptance of the initiative petition as being indicative of citizen interest in the transfer of the Gillespie Butte property. The council's procedure would be to enact an ordinance for a property tax levy and to make an appropriation for the expenditure along with a resolution and ordinance placing the property tax levy on the September 15, 1981, ballot. If this item were to go on the November 3 ballot, it would cost over $160,000. This would be the cost of issuing supple- mental tax statements. If the election were to be held on September 15, the only costs involved would be the election cost. He indicated that some of those who had circulated petitions were available to answer questions. Mr. Lindberg asked if the tax statement would list these costs whether the measure would pass or fail. Mr. Wong stated it would only be listed if it passes. Mr. Lindberg asked if other jurisdictions have items on either of these e election dates. Mr. Wong stated that he does not know. Mr. Lindberg asked if this item were placed on the ballot by initiative, if the costs would be the same as for the council placing it. Mr. Wong stated that they would. Processing costs would not be included. Mr. Lindberg asked how many signatures there are now. Katy Barnes, speaking from the audience, stated there are upwards of 9,600 signatures. Mr. Obie stated that one thing previously discussed by the council was if this was held until the November election ballot, whether EWEB would be willing to hold the property for that length of time. Mr. Wong responded that they would like to sell as soon as possible, so therefore EWEB would like to see this on the September ballot. Mr. Obie asked for the last date council could act to place this on the September ballot. Mr. Wong replied August 10. Ms. Smith stated that a letter received from Keith Parks, EWEB, indicates that the September ballot would be their preference and she feels that should be taken into consideration. Mr. Gleason said that EWEB states that market value of this property has changed and that is how they would like to sell it so the cost may be higher than the original amount that was anticipated. Mr. Obie stated that he would like to be able to borrow the petitions and do an informal check through some of them to determine the approximate number of signatures. If it appears from a random sampling that there are enough sig- natures that are valid, this should be set on an agenda prior to August 10 in - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 6