02/17/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e fire services. Mr. Whitlow said the tax base would not change once the area was annexed. Mr. Rutan asked whether the issue of public and private costs would represent preferential treatment or action outside of current policies regarding costs of service to properties and, if so, whether the City was incurring any costs that were unaffordable, unreasonable, or excessive. Mr. Rutan said he believed the answer to both questions was no, and that the costs were similar to other annexations and were within existing policy. He said some of the costs cited appeared to be inflated and most costs would be borne by the developer. Mr. Bennett said he thought the figures were important in deciding whether the City could afford the costs of development. Ms. Ehrman said she did not see the action as preferential treatment, but she asked whether it might be seen as turning our backs on long-time owners by adding a competitive piece of property. Mr. Holmer said he favored insisting on statements in the plan, that most costs should be covered by the developer. Ms. Wooten said she, too, wanted revenue information. She said that if other priorities exis~ed, she saw no substantial reason to spend the money and to rearrange priorities, given the existing sites for secondary manufacturing. e Mr. Miller said he wanted more information about revenue sources and percentages of additional costs. With regard to development of other parcels, he said he thought development breeded itself, and nearby development enhanced other properties. Ms. Schue said she was concerned about costs. She said the whole idea of land use planning in an urban growth boundary was to provide an orderly extension of services. She said services had been extended to undeveloped properties in other areas, with not much result. She said she was concerned about making investments sometimes years before any return, which was very difficult to finance, especially in the current situation. Mr. Bennett said he understood that the services would not be provided in advance of need, and he asked whether that was correct. Ms. Brody said the intent was to provide improvements as close as possible to the time that development actually occurred. She said advance investments in all cases might not be avoidable, but staff would try to provide better definitions. Mr. Bennett said he thought the council should deal with the property only if it was unique, which he believed was true. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1988 Page 9