01/27/1986 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Thompson read from ORS 199.490. He said Jim Ramseyer, Manager of Blachly- Lane Co-op, told him Blachly-Lane is not exempt from ad valorem taxes and representatives have not signed a consent petition for the annexation. Discussing a logical boundary, Mr. Thompson said he did not think legislators intended that the triple majority procedures should force annexation upon people. He said boundaries in the proposal were changed and properties were excluded to comply with the criteria for a triple majority. He said the criteria should not be a club wielded by a few. Fairness should be considered. He said the annexation proposal has a contrived boundary. It is not a logical boundary. He said the people who have made the area attractive to others are being punished. He asked the councilors not to support the proposal. Bob Bolton, 665 Spyglass, owns Tax Lot 1700. He said he had presented a petition with about 12 signatures of people who oppose the annexation and who own a simple majority of the land with a simple majority of the assessed value of the land in the proposed annexation. He said the City staff manipulated the properties to devise a triple majority proposal. He said no proposal could have been devised if all the properties had been treated in the same way. He discussed several examples of the manipulation. Mr. Bolton said the owner of Tax Lot 803 initiated the proposal. Tax Lot 803 has 115 feet of Airport Road frontage and the lateral sewer assessment will be $3,036. It is the smallest Airport Road frontage in the proposal. The lateral sewer assessment for Tax Lot 1700 will be $30,000. Mr. Bolton said property owners are concerned about the impact of the proposal on their cash flow just as the councilors are concerned about the impact of the proposal on the City's cash flow. Mr. Bolton said the owner of Tax Lot 2300 lives on the property; but the property is included in the proposal because there is a 4,000-square-foot building on the back of the property which is rented for an industrial use. However, the tenant is in bankruptcy. Mr. Bolton said the property owner has severe back problems and cannot be employed. Mr. Bolton said Tax Lot 2401 is one lot away from Tax Lot 2300 and is owned by Chuck Larson. It has a leased 10,000-square-foot building on it. The property is assessed at $142,000. The property was excluded from the proposal to meet the criteria. Mr. Bolton said Tax Lot 1800 was excluded from the proposal because it is on the edge of the proposal and because, if it is included, the triple majority criteria could not be met. He said Oregon case law indicates the annexation proposal is not legal. He read from a court opinion in the case of Portland General Electric vs the City of Estacada which indicated that statutes used for annexation proposals must be used reasonably and not arbitrarily. He said the City staff arbitrarily included and excluded properties to get a triple majority. For example, he read from the minutes of the Planning Commission pUblic hearing which indicated Tax Lot 1800 was excluded from the proposal because the owner did not consent to the annexation and its inclusion as a non-consenting property would have affected the triple majority percentages too much. Mr. Bolton said approval of the proposal will result in successful litigation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 4