Laserfiche WebLink
upzoning occurred or when they actually took advantage of it. Mr. Klein said that he would respond in <br />writing before the next council work session on the subject. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly said that the testimony opposed to the ordinance did not address where the City would get <br />money to pay Ballot Measure 37 claims. He welcomed alternate ideas. The City had between $300,000 and <br />$6 million in claims pending, and there was no final deadline for claims. Councilor Kelly said that creation <br />of a fund to pay for valid claims could help the City to preserve its regulatory authority to continue to plan <br />and adopt new land use laws. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly asked that another work session on the topic and council action be scheduled in this <br />calendar year. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly asked Mr. Klein to provide a response to the point raised by Ms. Cuellar about the rezoning <br />of agricultural land inside the UGB and a response to the claim made by Mr. Welch that the ordinance was a <br />land use regulation. He complimented staff on the well-drafted ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilor Papé asked how market value would be established. Mr. Klein said the assessor’s valuation <br />would be used but it could be challenged by the property owner. If the property owner got an appraisal that <br />differed from the assessor’s data, the City could get its own appraisal. Councilor Papé pointed out that the <br />assessor was behind in his property assessments and asked how the City could get real values. Mr. Klein <br />said he would respond in writing. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Councilor Papé, Mr. Klein confirmed that there were no exceptions in the <br />ordinance for nonprofit agencies, and he did not think that was in opposition to State law. The charge would <br />not be considered a property tax under either ballot measures 5 or 47/50. Councilor Papé asked if <br />conditional use permits were covered by the ordinance. Mr. Klein said no. He reiterated that the charge was <br />only triggered by a rezoning, annexation, or a change in designation in the Metro Plan. Councilor Papé <br />thought that the granting of conditional use permits could increase a property’s value as well. <br /> <br />Councilor Papé said the ordinance appeared not to restrict the use of the funds collected as a result of its <br />adoption. He wanted to restrict the use of the funds so they could be used for nothing else but paying Ballot <br />Measure 37 claims. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman thanked those who spoke and also thanked staff for its work on the ordinance. She said <br />the ordinance was simple and fair. She supported Councilor Kelly’s suggestion for a work session and <br />action by year’s end if possible. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman referred to the school district property and asked if the school district could secure the <br />rezoning and sell the property and then the value-added would not be triggered until the purchaser applied <br />for a permit. Mr. Klein said no, not the way the ordinance was drafted. If the school district applied for the <br />zone change, it would be treated like any other private property owner. Councilor Bettman suggested that <br />was the cost of the measure; the fact the school district’s property was worth more if zoned differently had <br />everything to do with the City’s regulation of other property and the City’s provision of services. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked how real market value was calculated as compared to how it was calculated for <br />Ballot Measure 37 claims. It appeared the ordinance excluded improvements from the calculation. Mr. <br />Klein confirmed that. She asked how Ballot Measure 37 calculated value for a claim. Mr. Klein said there <br />were three different ways properties were valued for Ballot Measure 37 claims. Occasionally an appraisal <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 5 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />