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

Home Browse Search

- e e Mr. Holmer said he would oppose the proposal as presented. However, he hoped action would be deferred to Wednesday, January 29, so that the staff can present additional information. He would like to consider the costs of a tax differential program. He would like to know how the council can change the proposal. He assumed Tax Lots 1900 and 2001 could be separated and the owners invited to resubmit an annexation request. He believes in compact urban growth, but he did not like the apparent gerrymandering of this proposal. He said annexations should include contiguous properties that represent a neigh- borhood and Tax Lot 102 seems to be in the neighborhood of the properties in the proposal south of Airport Road. He said Tax Lots 100 and 800 are spurs to provide access to large agricultural properties, and he could exclude them from the annexation. A compact unit representing proponents of the annexation between Enid Road and Airport Road that also includes 2401, 2500, 2700, and 2701 would seem to be logical and consistent. He would be willing to exclude Tax Lots 2800 and 2900. Answering a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Sercombe said Mr. Holmer's sugges- tions might not require an entirely new proposal. The council can exclude properties from the proposal; but, if Tax Lots 1900 and 2001 are excluded from the proposal, a new proposal will be needed to annex them in the future. Mr. Hansen agreed with Mr. Holmer's statements. He said he generally supports annexations, but this proposal seemed to be manipulated. He is interested in a tax differential program and in separating the properties. Ms. Brody restated Mr. Holmer's requests. She said he would like to exclude Tax Lots 1900 and 2001 and all the non-consenting property owners south of those lots; ask the owners of Tax Lots 1900 and 2001 to resubmit an annexation proposal later; reconfigure the southern part of the proposal to comply with the triple majority criteria and to include Tax Lot 102; and to minimize the islands and the number of non-consenting property owners. Ms. Brody suggested the application fee be waived if the owners of Tax Lots 1900 and 2001 resubmit a proposal. Several other councilors asked for additional information. Ms. Bascom said changing the proposal might be costly to the City because sewer extension costs will be deferred. She asked the staff for information about the additional costs. Mr. Rutan supported Mr. Holmer's statements. He asked for additional information about the excluded properties because they are zoned industrially and he thought they should be treated as zoned. He said the boundaries of the proposal seemed to be gerrymandered to get the triple majority. For example, the sewer will be extended to Tax Lot 1700 which was included, and the sewer will also be extended to Tax Lot 1800 which was not included. He would like to approve the applicants' request without including so many non-consenting property owners. Mr. Hansen said he would like the council to consider the City's policy of not charging interest on deferred sewer assessments. He suggested the deferrals should be adjusted for inflation. Ms. Brody said property owners will have to be notified and a new hearing held if non-consenting property owners are added to the proposal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 9