The Sweet Home City Council is considering an ordinance that would set up a process for property owners to make claims for compensation under Measure Seven, which goes into effect on Dec. 7.
Many jurisdictions are passing ordinances that will allow rules and regulations to be waived instead of making payment for claims under the measure, which was passed by Oregon voters on Nov. 7. Several organizations and individuals, including 1,000 Friends of Oregon, have promised to challenge any jurisdictions waiving regulations.
Measure Seven requires government agencies to pay property owners for the difference in property values should a regulation restricting the use of a property reduce the value of a property.
City staff presented the City Council with two options to deal with Measure Seven at a local level, either the ability to waive regulations or to simply implement a plan to compensate property owners.
Many questions surround Measure Seven, City Attorney Robert Snyder said. Those include questions about how waivers affect surrounding property values, whether back taxes will be owed on properties with waived regulations and more.
These questions, and the breadth of Measure Seven, will not be answered until courts start ruling on related cases, Snyder said.
“We’re all shooting in the dark, and Sweet Home is not alone,” City Manager Craig Martin said. One common question across the state is whether a local jurisdiction can waive a requirement imposed through local governments by the state.
The ordinance proposal setting up a claims process will get the city and property owners to the point of determining who has valid claims, but answers to legal questions will come later, Martin said. “Quite frankly, nobody knows until somehow this gets settled out in the legislative session, beginning January, or by courts.
“I wish I had better answers,” Martin said of the questions around Measure Seven. “There are no answers.”
If Measure Seven is interpreted as broadly as it appears, Martin said, there is not a jurisdiction in the state that can afford the cost.
The council held a first and second reading of the proposed ordinance during its regular meeting on Nov. 28.
Under the proposal, persons asserting a claim against the city will need to fill at an application with information about the property, how a regulation gave rise to the claim and the effect of that regulation on the property and the amount property value was reduced with an opinion from an appraiser or by a statement of the methodology used to determine the number.
The City Council would then determine whether compensation is granted, the amount of compensation, whether any exceptions to the requirements of the compensation apply or whether the regulation should be deemed not to apply to the applicant’s property.
While this is going on, land use planning and the city’s periodic review of its land use ordinance and policies are continuing as before, City Planner Carol Lewis said. “We’re going to move ahead. We’re just going to continue with our normal business.”
At the same time, Lewis said, staff members are keeping Measure Seven’s implications in the backs of their minds.
Implementing a waiver process at the local, at this point, would be risky, Lewis said, at least until there is some direction from higher levels of government.
Lewis wanted to emphasize that the measure will impact more than land use but other government regulations as well. In Baker City, a claim has been made as a result of a non-smoking ordinance on public places.