01/23/1989 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Everett Hall, 265 Knoop Lane, reported failing septic systems in the area proposed for annexation. As owner of six of the tax lots in the proposal, Mr. Hall requested annexation in order to connect to the City sewer system. Harold Chapman, 51 Chapman Drive, distributed an annexation map dated July 30 and reviewed the sequence of events following Mr. Hall's May 10 request for annexation. He cited postponements and delays in the process and referred to a March deadline for a tax differential program which he said was one of the reasons Mr. Hall had requested annexation. Mr. Chapman said the Boundary Commission would not consider Mr. Hall1s request before its April 6 meeting and he requested delaying action on the annexation proposal in order to first decide whether the tax differential program should be extended. He questioned the council taking action on the issue until the Ward 6 vacancy has been filled. Mr. Chapman referred to Mr. Hall's position as a City employee, saying that Mr. Hall should have taken his request for annexation directly to the Boundary Commission and he listed other annexation requests on which the commission had already taken action. Finally, Mr. Chapman maintained that annexation would result in a property tax increase for the residents of Santa Clara and he said the tax differential program had lost credibility. As a result of the Hall request, Ms. Czerniak said others in the neighborhood were contacted in an attempt to make a larger proposal which would not be non-contiguous. Referring to Mr. Chapmanls comments regarding expedited annexation requests, Ms. Czerniak said guidelines the council provided 'staff included recommendations regarding when property owners should go directly to the Boundary Commission. Those guidelines specified annexations that included all consenting property owners and annexations that included undeveloped residential property or industrial or commercial property with less than five residential units on those properties. She said this annexation request did not meet the last of those guidelines and for that reason staff did not recommend that Mr. Hall go directly to the Boundary Commission. Regarding the tax differential issue, Ms. Czerniak said the length of time required to process annexation requests through the Planning Commission, City Council, and Boundary Commission prevented this annexation from becoming effective until after the April Boundary Commission meeting. This and several other annexations will be in process and Ms. Czerniak said staff intends to request that council extend the tax differential program. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said the resolution being considered by the council would extend the tax differential treatment to this particular annexation request. The policy governing council IS actions on annexations will expire March 31. He said the City Attorney's Office interprets a prior council resolution on tax differential to control annexations that are initiated before the council at the time the policy is in effect, and not necessarily annexations that are complete in terms of final passage by the Boundary Commission at the time the policy expires. Regardless of interpretation of the policy adopted last year, Mr. Sercombe said the MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 23, 1989 Page 5