CC Minutes - 10/12/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman said that the City could spend a lot of money on the Planning Division but it could not enact much in a Ballot Measure 37 environment. She said the passage of the measure gave rise to the question of whether the division was needed at all. She said the motion did not stop work on other issues, but brought work on the ordinance to the forefront so the council could know if it had the compensation fund available as a tool when it moved forward with such things as natural resource protections. Ms. Bettman thought the issue needed to be addressed right away. If a person decided two months from now he wanted to upzone a property, that would have to wait until the council made a decision on the ordinance, because that was a way in which the City increased the value of a property. She said she was not saying “give us all that money back,” but rather saying the City needed to “recapture” a certain amount of the increased value to offset the City’s inability due to regulate due to passage of Ballot Measure 37. Ms. Solomon did not disagree with what Ms. Bettman was saying but did disagree with holding the rest of the council’s agenda hostage to a single ordinance. She did not support the motion. Mr. Poling asked about the timeline for enacting such an ordinance. City Manager Taylor indicated a work session was scheduled for January 2006. Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. He interpreted the motion as putting everything land-use related on hold. He said that residents were trying to conduct their normal lives on a daily basis, and the council would telling residents “time out” on everything related to land use actions. He did not think that was fair to the residents. He also pointed out the motion passed by the council in June directed staff to develop an ordinance, and that was already happening. There was no guarantee of the ordinance’s passage. Ms. Bettman believed her motion was being mischaracterized. She reiterated that the motion did not stop everything. The motion was very specific to situations in which upzoning or the removal of regulations would increase a property’s values. That would not stop those situations, merely postpone them. The motion elevated the priority of an ordinance establishing a compensation fund so the council had the money to pay claims rather than waive regulations. The motion “lit a fire” under staff to ensure the ordinance came forward soon. It was still up to the council to pass such an ordinance. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the meeting for three minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Speaking to Mr. Poling’s comments about residents trying to conducting their normal lives, Mr. Kelly asserted that part of people’s daily lives was having a sense they were living in a community that was planning and preserving important aspects of the community. For example, the CAFHN representatives wanted assurance of what their neighborhood would look like in the future. He pointed out that some of the provisions in the Chambers Reconsidered Project could have the effect of increasing property values, and the ordinance would present an opportunity for the City to realize some revenue in order to continue to help other neighborhoods preserve their daily lives. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the comments made by other councilors, but still opposed the motion. He said that the motion was not focused on the potential liability of Ballot Measure 37, but on how to find a revenue source to address Ballot Measure 37 claims. He believed it was difficult to know whether the Parks Plan and Goal 5 inventory would improve property values but the motion would halt those efforts. He believed those were major efforts that should not be postponed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 10 Work Session