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

Home Browse Search

e e e Responding to questions from Ms. Ehrman and Mr. Holmer, City Attorney Tim Sercombe said case law indicates that the council must act reasonably in initiating annexation requests. Services must be available logically, they must comply with the City's policies and State law, and the boundary must be reasonable. The creation of islands is not unreasonable. He said the council should not divide the proposal into three annexation requests; but the council could exclude some properties from the proposal. Replying to questions from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Carlson discussed the criteria used to assemble the proposal. The location of the sewer lines was one of the criteria. He said the proposed location of the sewer lines is where they will best serve the properties of consenting owners and the maximum number of other properties. Mr. Sercombe said the proposal complies with the criteria in the City's code and State law. The councilors must make a political decision as to whether the configuration is proper in their view. Responding to questions from Ms. Schue, Mr. Carlson said the owner of Tax Lot 1700 will only be assessed for the portion of the sewer constructed. However, eventually the sewer will probably be extended along all of Airport Road and the owner will be assessed for it then. The City is planning to construct the shortest line possible to serve the properties in the proposal on Airport Road. The eastern end of Tax Lot 1700 is vacant. The properties of consenting owners south of Airport Road are developed. Replying to questions from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Carlson said the criteria for a triple majority proposal make assembling a proposal difficult. The effect is an attempt to be fair to non-consenting property owners. Mr. Holmer responded that non-consenting owners do not have the right to vote on an annexation when the triple majority process is used. Mr. Sercombe discussed other processes which provide for an election in the affected area. Answering a question from Mr. Hansen, Mr. Carlson said the City staff suggested the applicant contact all the owners of properties in the area west of Highway 99. None of the applicants spoke when Mr. Hansen asked for rebuttal testimony. There being no additional requests to testify, Mr. Hansen closed the public hearing. The hearing was recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9 p.m. Ms. Ehrman said it is difficult to assess an annexation proposal that includes non-consenting property owners. She noted that the proposal also included people who want to be within the city and it complies with the triple majority criteria. Mr. Miller said he was concerned about fairness. He said a decision would be easier if the triple majority proposal included all the properties in the industrial node west of Highway 99 North. He said policies indicate that all the properties within the urban growth boundary will be annexed to the cities and that the cities will not go beyond the urban growth boundary. However, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 7