CC Minutes - 10/16/06 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

was submitted that included an appraisal of the land value without improvements; sometimes the appraisal would include land improvements; and most of the time the majority of claims were filed without any appraisal at all, and included a statement from the property owner or representative stating their opinion of the value of the property without regulation. Councilor Bettman asked if the courts had shown consistency in how land value was calculated. Mr. Klein said there were no cases that had addressed the issue. Ballot Measure 37 cases were just beginning to get filed, and the issues litigated thus far were more preliminary in nature, such as the question of who could file. Mr. Klein said most claims filed had either been denied or waivers had been granted. He was not aware of any cases where governments had paid a claim. Councilor Solomon said that the ordinance continued to feel like double taxation to her and she continued to oppose it. She asked about Mr. Welch’s remarks about the deadlines for filing Ballot Measure 37 claims. Mr. Klein said that the measure stipulated that claims must be submitted in two years or December 2 of this year or two years from the date a government applied the regulation to a piece of property. The initial deadline was for submitting a claim to a local government without submitting a land use application and applied to regulations existing as of the day the measure took effect. A property owner submitting a claim after December 2 would first have to go through a land use process and have the application denied; at that point, the owner had two more years to pursue the claim. Councilor Pryor asked how many current Ballot Measure 37 claims the City of Eugene faced. Ms. Muir said three were submitted. Lane County had received somewhere between 50 and 200. Councilor Pryor asked if Lane County had a Ballot Measure 37 fund. Mr. Klein said no. Councilor Pryor asked how Lane County was handing such claims. Mr. Klein said that the Board of County Commissioners was granting waivers. Councilor Pryor determined from Mr. Klein that no other Oregon city had such a fund as that being contemplated. Councilor Pryor said the ordinance represented uncharted waters. He said conceivably, the City could grant waivers instead of paying compensation. He questioned whether the City needed a fund of this size as it appeared the City could raise a great deal of money to pay claims that never occurred. Councilor Pryor was also concerned about the notion of double-taxation and thought the concept needed more development. He pointed out that no other city appeared to feel the need for such a fund. He supported having an additional work session as he was not prepared to support the ordinance at this time. Councilor Bettman said governments were waiving regulations because they lacked money to pay the claims. She questioned whether the City would need a planning division if the council could not pass new land use ordinances or regulations governing development because each one triggered a Ballot Measure 37 claim. The City would simply be waiving the regulations, and then one must ask if it was worth it to pay millions of dollars to pay for a planning division. Councilor Bettman asked Ms. Muir how many Planning Commission work priorities had Ballot Measure 37 implications. She believed that opportunity siting and infill standards had the potential of triggering many claims. Ms. Muir agreed, and noted that the new south hills standards could also trigger claims. She said she would provide that information to the council. Councilor Bettman said that Portland Metro was looking at a “windfall” tax to purchase conservation easements tied to Ballot Measure 37 claims. She would like to explore that possibility in Eugene. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 6 Public Hearing