01/29/1986 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Miller favored Option #2 and agreed with Mr. Holmer about not adopting a tax differential program for those properties. However5 if Option #3 is adopted5 he would consider a tax differential program because more properties of non-consenting property owners would be included. Mr. Rutan said the triple majority procedures should be used when there are good reasons to annex properties and when owners want annexation. He said the boundaries of annexation proposals must be sensible. He favored Option #2 and with Mr. Holmer's exclusions because they were non-consenting property owners. Mr. Rutan did not favor a tax differential. He reiterated that the Metro Plan and the Urbanization Report indicate that the City will aggressively annex properties that comply with the criteria. Ms. Bascom liked the percentages in Option #2 although she was willing to approve the original proposal. She said a few owners of large properties kept the percentages low in the original proposal. Ms. Ehrman was bothered by the creation of islands of unincorporated properties. She favored #2 with the exclusions suggested by Mr. Holmer. She noted that the owner of Tax Lot 2300 did not consent to the annexation and lives on the property. She would like to have the owner of Tax Lots 102 and 100 consent to annexation. She said owners of residential properties would expect tax differential programs if the council approves tax differential programs for industrial properties. Ms. Brody responded that Tax Lots 100 and 102 would not be islands if Option #2 is approved. Answering questions from Mr. Hansen about the sewer charges if Tax Lot 2005 is excluded5 Mr. Lyle explained how sewer assessments are calculated. He said the exclusion would mean that the City would lose an assessment of about $35500. Mr. Gleason said owners who delay annexation of their properties have an advantage because other people's costs are raised. Responding to suggestions that the council might deliberate longer5 Ms. Brody said code requires council action within 15 days of their public hearings and February 10, 1986 is the latest they could take action. Ms. Ehrman made the following motion and5 with her consents Mr. Holmer added to it. Ms. Ehrman moved5 seconded by Ms. Wooten 5 to direct the staff to prepare a resolution and supporting findings to initiate the annexation of properties in the Airport Road vicinity (AZ 85-3) as presented in Option #2 and findings about the effect of the exclusion of Tax Lots 20045 20055 and 2300 from the proposal. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:1 with Ms. Bascom5 Mr. Hansen, Mr. Holmer5 Mr. Rutan5 Mr. Millers and Ms. Wooten voting aye and Ms. Ehrman voting nay. The councilors agreed by consensus that they did not want to approve a tax differential program for the properties. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 295 1986 Page 9