Laserfiche WebLink
The second suggestion was to simply postpone action on the ordinance until there was greater <br />clarity about measure 7 and then take action on the item. Mr. Klein noted that the ordinance had <br />an effective date clause of July 1, 2001, and the council could postpone action and still meet that <br />effective date clause. He stressed that if the council wanted to eliminate risk then they should <br />refer the matter to the voters or postpone action. <br /> <br />In response to a statement by Councilor Nathanson that the council would simply be delaying <br />incurring the risk, Mr. Klein said that if the ordinance was adopted later then there would be more <br />knowledge regarding the impacts of measure 7 and the council could be better informed about its <br />decision. He added that referring the matter to the voters would also allow more time to assess <br />measure 7 impacts. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Nathanson regarding whether someone could make the <br />argument that the ordinance affected their property values immediately even though it would not <br />be implemented until July 2001, Mr. Klein said that he could envision someone making that <br />argument. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson commented about the ramifications of Ballot Measure 7 potentially involving <br />more than traditional land use and zoning code changes. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson remarked that there was sometimes a difference between a property owner <br />and a business owner. She raised the question that if a particular business lost revenue as a <br />result of the ordinance then a property owner could increase its value by putting a different <br />business on that same property. Mr. Klein noted that some ordinances being adopted in other <br />jurisdictions were including lessees as being affected by Measure 7 as well. He reiterated that <br />there was still not enough information on the impacts of the measure and there was really no <br />clue how the State legislature would define the measure. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly commented that measure 7 would take months or even years to sort out and <br />added that the council should not put a measure 7 hurdle in front of all their decisions. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor agreed that the council should not hesitate to pass the ordinance because of a <br />potential risk. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Rayor regarding referring the matter to the voters, Mr. <br />Klein said that the time for someone putting in a claim under measure 7 would be delayed until <br />the matter was passed by the voters. <br /> <br />Councilor Rayor commented that if the matter were referred to the voters then the vote would be <br />on the current form of the ordinance. He said that if there was a citizen-initiated measure, then <br />the content of the ordinance could be changed to please the makers of the initiative. <br /> <br />City Manager Johnson asked council to consider Council Bill 4748, an ordinance concerning <br />prohibited smoking; amending sections 6.230 and 6.240 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and <br />providing an effective date. <br /> <br /> Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved that the bill, with <br /> unanimous consent of the council, be read a second time by Council Bill <br /> number only, and that enactment be considered at that time. The motion <br /> passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2000 Page 9 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />