|
,, ',' . ~,': To: Financial Impact Statement Commi~ee Members
<br />" ' "~" ~' From: Linda Ludwig, Lea~m of Oregon Cities
<br />
<br /> " , ," . ','. ~: Est~ated Financial ~paet of Initiative 36
<br /> .,, '~ , ,, Date: July 28, 2004
<br />
<br /> : ,, Th9 Lea~e bas reviewed Initiative ~36 in order'to ascertain cos~ to
<br /> .. .... loc~ governments that would be associated with ~e idfiative if it were
<br />
<br />...... ., , ,, to pass ~ the November election. It is easy to see that the costs of
<br /> ' ', . ,,,: ,, ~ Initiative ~36, would be substantial- when comparing ~e initiative to
<br /> " ,',': me~od~lo~ ~at was used to evaluate the local govemme~t fiscal
<br /> ' · ,,...,, ,, impacts of a, prior.but essentially similar ballot me.ute, Me.ute 7.
<br />
<br />'... We be~eve that, if pa~sed~ Initiative ~36 wffi result in claim costs to
<br /> :, "' ' '., local government resembling Measure 7~s conservative estimates at
<br /> ' ' · ~.8 bffiion per year. Additiona~y, the League has asee~a~ed that
<br /> ",,, '"' .., ~ :there would be additional administrative costs to local governments
<br />, · · :' ..,, ,.:, m the range of $162-830 ~Hon per year.
<br /> "'"'~ " '"' Essentially, ~e intent and the language of~e me~ures is Similar~
<br />·, ' '." '". ,. creating a process, for pr,ope~ owners to seek compensation when state
<br />
<br /> ,, ,. ".,~ ' or local regulations diminish prope~ value. Although ~36 provides
<br /> , ' .. additional exclusions and a waiver provision that w~ not explicit h g7,
<br /> ," ,, ,: ,, ,, it ~lows for a broade~ set of potential claimm~ts ,~om multiple
<br /> ' ' /'. ,..,,,,,, generations of finally members of the cu~ent omer- l~ely resulting in
<br />-',.., , : ' ', ' costlier claims.'
<br />
<br /> :;,, ,' ~' ,' Additionally, ~ pu~eyors of good public policy, local gove~en~ will
<br /> · : ,,,' ' ' ':, ': likely Eeed to make an assessment of each claim, whe~er to pay or to
<br /> " ', '. , :' , waive, and the ramifications ofbo~ decisions. Tbs process at a
<br /> ~' ', ,,, ,. minimum would include ownership research, costs of an appraisal that
<br /> "~ makes multiple value determinations, staffrepo~s, assessments of
<br /> . ," ,, impacts to nei~bors, assessmenb of collateral impacts to inrxastrnctnre
<br /> : ,.~ ;, inves~nents, legal assis~nce and public heahngs. ~e result'would be
<br /> ,,"',~, ,, significant, costs to local govemmen~ even if the claim is waived or
<br /> ' denied.,
<br />'::. , '. ,, .;" ~,", ' Thee woula also potentially be costs to local governments that have
<br /> ,,.. ',, ' ,: ,, ,, been previo,usly borne by developers, such as c611ateral cos~ when a
<br />· ',. ',', .:. ,, ',' ' local government waived a foliation that put additional unplmmed
<br />,, . .,. ~, '., capacity on infrastmc~re systems or open space requirements.
<br />,,,~ , · ,. . Fina,cfng these cgsts often cu~ently occur t~ough system development
<br />
<br />
<br />
|