Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

funding mechanism for Ballot Measure 37 claims so that the City could continue to plan and regulate land use. He asked why Mr. Klein was highlighting a potential dichotomy between assessing vacant properties only, or vacant and developed property. Mr. Klein replied that some concepts discussed by the legislature related only to vacant property; the question was what approach the City preferred. Mr. Kelly said he preferred that the City consider a mechanism that addressed all property and assessing the property after the value was increased. He said he would support a motion to direct staff to further refine the concept. Mr. Poling solicited a second round of questions and comments. Ms. Bettman said that property would not be assessed until the owner reaped the benefit of City action through an increase in market value or ability to develop the property in a different way. She said the fee would collect funds to offset the cost of claims and waivers and to acquire property that needed to be regulated or protected in some way. She said the purpose of Ballot Measure 37 was to compensate land owners when regulation impacted them negatively; it was not about deregulation. But because municipali- ties did not have funds to pay claims, it eliminated the ability to regulate property. She said the City took action all the time to increase the value of property and needed to recapture a portion of that benefit. She asked staff to determine how to calculate a fair amount to recapture. Mr. Pap6 referred to Mr. Klein's earlier comments regarding funding through farm and forest deferrals and asked how the City could participate in those funds when that land was outside of the City. Mr. Klein described the current process for collecting property taxes in an unsegregated tax account, which the County then distributed to municipalities based on the amount of taxes that were imposed, rather than paid. He said that the mechanism for distributing compensation funds would be similar. Mr. Pap6 asked if there was a way to ensure that fees the City collected remained available for claims and did not go into the General Fund. Mr. Klein said that the action of future councils could not be restricted without a charter amendment. He said that an ordinance could be written in such a way that the council would need to specifically amend the ordinance before funds could be moved in the budget process. Ms. Taylor asked how an increase in value could be determined and recorded if no fee would be collected at the time of an action. Mr. Klein said that those were administrative issues that staff would develop in greater detail if the council provided direction to proceed. He desCribed a number of hypothetical situations and possible approaches. Ms. Taylor asked if owners of adjoining properties could file claims based on actions related to another piece of property. Mr. Klein said that question could be addressed in an ordinance but administratively it was impractical. Mr. Poling called for a third round of questions and comments. Ms. Bettman pointed out that determining the reduction in value under Ballot Measure 37 included many complicating factors that the City was required to consider. She said if the City was compelled to determine a reduction in value it should be able to utilize the same type of strategies to determine what the increase in value was. She asked if a motion was necessary to direct staff to move forward with the issue. City Manager Taylor replied that the subject was very complex as there were no models to use as a basis. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 7 Work Session