Barrie v. Myers

• Decision Date: 20 April 2000
• Citation: 998 P.2d 1270,330 Or. 277
• Parties: Scott BARRIE and Jon Chandler, Petitioners, v. Hardy MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent. Scott Barrie and Jon Chandler, Petitioners, v. Hardy Myers, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

998 P.2d 1270

330 Or. 277

Scott BARRIE and Jon Chandler, Petitioners, v. Hardy MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent.

Scott Barrie and Jon Chandler, Petitioners, v. Hardy Myers, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent.

(SC S47338, S47371).

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.

Argued and Submitted April 5, 2000.

Decided April 20, 2000.

David J. Hunnicutt, Oregonians in Action, Tigard, argued the cause and filed the petitions for petitioners. Holly A. Vance, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the answering memoranda for respondent. With her on the memoranda were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated ballot title review proceeding under ORS 250.085(2), petitioners challenge the ballot titles for Initiative Petitions 147 (2000) and 151 (2000). Petitioners are electors who timely submitted written comments concerning the content of the draft ballot titles submitted to the Secretary of State and who therefore are entitled to seek review of the ballot titles certified by the Attorney General. See ORS 250.085(2) (setting that requirement).

Initiative Petition 147 would allow governmental units to impose a "system development charge" to pay for costs associated with facilities or assets used for schools. Initiative Petition 151 would allow counties to impose an "impact fee" on new housing to finance new school construction and improvements to existing schools.

We have considered petitioners' arguments concerning the ballot titles certified by the Attorney General. We conclude that petitioners have not shown that the Attorney General's certified ballot titles fail to comply substantially with the standards for such ballot titles set out in ORS 250.035(2)(a) to (d) (1997).¹ See ORS 250.085(5) (setting out standard of review). Accordingly, we certify to the Secretary of State the following ballot title for Initiative Petition 147:

ALLOWS IMPOSITION OF "SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE" FOR SCHOOL FACILITES, ASSETS

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote allows governmental unit to impose "system development charge" (defined) for school facilities, assets.

RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote rejects allowing governmental unit to impose "system development charge" for school facilities, assets.

SUMMARY: Currently, governmental units may collect "system development charge"—defined as "reimbursement" or "improvement" fee (defined)—for costs associated with "capital improvement" (defined as facilities or assets used for: water, sewer, drainage systems; transportation; parks). Measure makes facilities or assets used for schools (kindergarten through 12th grade) a "capital improvement." School "improvement fee" may be used to acquire land, construct buildings only for particular development from which fee is collected. School property purchased, constructed shall not exceed that necessary for such development. Exemption: "affordable housing" (defined).

We certify to the Secretary of State the following ballot title for Initiative Petition 151:

ALLOWS IMPACT FEE ON NEW-HOME PURCHASES TO FINANCE SCHOOLS

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote allows fee on new-home purchases to finance school construction, improvements, other uses.

RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote rejects fee on new-home purchases to finance school construction, improvements, other uses.

SUMMARY: Measure allows county/school district agreement whereby county imposes impact fee...