Laserfiche WebLink
City Manager Jim Johnson provided the council with updates on the impact of several ballot <br />measures passed by voters at the November 7 election. <br /> <br />Regarding Ballot Measure 7, Mayor Torrey said that he would ask the Oregon Mayors' <br />Association to consider asking a third party to evaluate the recommendations of the lawyers <br />representing Oregon jurisdictions who reviewed the measure. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked that the City Manager provide guidance to the City Council about the impact of <br />measure 7 when it discussed the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) later in the month. He said in <br />the meantime, he hoped the staff work related to LUCU continued at full speed. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr asked where the estimate of the financial impact of Ballot Measure 7 had come from. <br />Mr. Johnson did not know, adding he thought the estimates were a "best guess." Mayor Torrey <br />indicated that the 1,000 Friends of Oregon had done an extensive evaluation of the costs of the <br />measure and recommended staff review that work. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated staff <br />intended to examine that estimate. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr asked if the estimates in question represented the cost to government or the cost to <br />private property owners from lost property values. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Johnson indicated measure 7 failed in Lane <br />County, but he was unsure how it did in Eugene. Ms. Nathanson observed that it was another <br />example of Lane County having a different position than voters statewide. She said that land use <br />actions, whether zoning or another kind of regulation, could either reduce a property's value or <br />lead to windfall gains. She was concerned that the voters statewide did not understand the give <br />and take in the issue, and the risk and opportunity involved in property ownership, which could <br />include a windfall gain from a land use action. Ms. Nathanson was troubled to know that Eugene <br />would face the consequences of a statewide vote on an issue local voters did not approve. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked about the impact of the measure on past ordinances. City Attorney Glenn Klein <br />did not know. Mr. Pap8 asked how an increase in property values resulting from a zone change <br />was calculated. Mr. Klein clarified that any increase was not a result of a change in zoning but a <br />result of development. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that the land use laws created the property value, and the measure attacked the <br />underpinnings of that. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson discussed local measures 20-36 and 20-37, noting the latter measure was passing <br />at this time. The fate of the measure was clouded because of the need to count write-in votes in <br />a separate process. <br />Regarding measure 20-36, Mr. Johnson indicated he would need direction soon if the council <br />wanted to go back to the voters with another, similar measure, as the deadline for filing a <br />measure was in January. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey did not support going out with another measure. He did think that the City needed <br />to do something to get the police out of City Hall. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed, and suggested a discussion of what could be done in City Hall that would make <br />things more bearable. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />