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