10/26/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

as unfair to discontinue the incentives. Ms. Sirnio responded that the . commission felt the issue should be reviewed and possibly re-establ'ished as part of the annexation plan. Ms. Bascom asked why River Road was recommended as the first area flJr which an annexation plan should be developed. Ms. Sirnio replied that the City already provides many services there, and a survey in River Road indicated that if sewers were in place and it was clear how police services would be !provided, attitudes toward annexation might change. Mr. Van Landingham added that a map shows Eugene to be roughly circular, with the River Road area like a pie wedge cut out. Mr. Nicholson noted that the report recommends continuing with noncontiguous annexations, and asked Ms. Sirnio's position on the issue. Ms. Sirnio replied that her own opposition to noncontiguous annexations has not changed, although she feels that the approach of producing an annexation plan is sensible. Mr. Nicholson asked how the plan would make noncontiguous annexations more palatable, and whether the City would continue to approve every request no matter how it fit in with the overall plan. Ms. Sirnio responded that the commission recommends continuing with noncontiguous annexations while an overall plan is being produced. Mr. Van Landingham said the plan would set forth the City's approach to annexing a certain area, including the steps and the advantages and disadvan- tages. A vote of residents would occur if that is the method of annexation identified by the plan. He said the commission is seeking definitive action. He asked that if the council feels an annexation plan cannot or should not be . undertaken, it inform the commission of that as soon as possible. Ms. Ehrman said that the council had withdrawn funding for annexations from the budget. Jan Childs, Planning Division Director, stated that two separate . issues exist: I} the direction from Eugene Decisions that the City stop processing individual annexation requests and send them instead to the Boundary Commission, which is included in the Planning Commission's report; and 2} the longer-term development of an annexation plan, which the Planning Commission could identify as a priority for its 1993 work program. She said the possibility exists of obtaining State grant funds to support that work. Ms. Ehrman noted that the City's stance toward annexation has changed over time, and most recently has not been proactive. She said the commission's report suggests the resumption of a more proactive posture. Ms. Sirnio stated that annexation plans could be developed for the entire area between the city limits and the urban growth boundary (UGB), although it would not be necessary to attempt to prepare plans for all areas simultaneously. Addressing Mr. Nicholson's question about what would change under the commis- sion's approach, she and Mr. Van Landingham stated that the City would review the tools available for annexation and enlist the help of citizens in the area to be annexed in deciding how to bring the annexation about. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 26, 1992 Page 4 . 5:30 p.m.