CC Minutes - 06/13/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 ifa 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. Staff would be performing trailblazing work that would displace other work and require legal and consulting assistance. He said that absent any Ballot Measure 37 claims, the question for the council was whether to use the limited staff resources to begin work on the issue. He did not recommend beginning the work until after the end of the legislative session and estimated that a product would be available to the council in the winter. Mr. Kelly said that the complexity of calculations related to a tax or charge on increases in value were a mirror of the complexity of calculations required for Ballot Measure 37 claims. He urged staff to begin work sooner rather than later because of a number of land use topics on the council's agenda that could raise Ballot Measure 37 issues. City Manager Taylor asked for a motion to direct staff to begin work on the creation of a Ballot Measure 37 claims fund. Mr. Pap6 said there was a subtle difference between Ballot Measure 37 claim calculation and a fee because the burden of proof in a Ballot Measure 37 claim was on the applicant and the burden of proof for imposition of fees would be on the City. Mr. Klein agreed that the burden of proof was on a Ballot Measure 37 applicant when the claim went to court to determine compensation although how that would be implemented was uncertain. He pointed out that the City was only concerned about determining a reduction in value if a claim was filed, whereas creation of a fee or charge would require the City to determine the increase in value of every piece of property that might have been affected. Mr. Pryor remarked that it seemed fair to ask property owners to pay if City action increased the value of their property if the law also required the City to compensate property owners when the value of their property was reduced. He wondered if pursuing that policy would escalate the possibility of claims and indicated he was interested in exploring the implications of a fee or charge policy before the council acted. Mr. Poling commented that the issue of a fee or tax, like Ballot Measure 37, was very complicated and his initial reaction was negative. He concurred with Mr. Pryor's request for additional information before making a decision and would support a motion to direct staff to further analyze the issue and develop more details of the proposal. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a legal framework for, and identify the administrative costs and procedures to possibly implement- ing a "givings" tax/fee. Speaking to the motion, Ms. Bettman said she saw it as a way to implement any sort of planning direction that should be the City's policy because it was in the City's best interest. She said that the City would not have the funds to compensate property owners when it needed to regulate and therefore its "planning hands" would be tied because the Ballot Measure 37 issue would be raised every time there was a discussion about whether to implement a design standard, setback requirement or height limitation. She said without a compensation fund, the City would be in a completely deregulated environment. Mr. Klein clarified that the motion directed staff to develop an administrative analysis of the issue, including a range of options, rather than drafting an ordinance. City Manager Taylor added that the proposed policy MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 8 Work Session