06/13/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

prejudicial prior to the public hearings. He said he wished to give the group e of residents the best opportunity to present the issue to the River Road and Santa Clara residents free of any appearance of coercion. Mr. Bennett asked for some response to the ways in which the Planning Commission or City Council could respond to the petition effort. Mr. Wright stated that a political action committee should be formed to obtain funding for distributing information to the public and presenting the petition to the Boundary Commission. Mr. Hale said the Planning Commission and City Council would only make its recommendation to the Boundary Commission who would make the final decision. He said the group was asking the two groups for their support of the ballot proposal. He said the group must be sure that the commission and council were comfortable with the proposed tax rates. Mr. Bennett said that he supported the annexation proposal. Mr. Thwing commented that the motion was not as specific as the request made by Mr. Hale. He said it supported the concept of tax differential annexation but did not address the tax rates. He said he supported the concept but added that it may require some fine tuning in the future. Mayor Keller asked if the group had previously reviewed the proposed motion. Mr. Hale said the group was comfortable with the motion as long as the commission and council realized that they could not change their minds. Ms. Smith said the council was walking a fine line; however, she said she had not heard any major concerns with the proposal. Mr. Rutan said he felt the memo was well-worded. He said that many issues existed for discussion; he felt that the commission could concur with the concept. Mr. Thwing said he agreed with that interpretation. Ms. Mulder also concurred with that interpretation but questioned staff and e the NEAR Group if the commission and council would have any additional oppor- tunities to discuss the issue prior to the ballot election. Mr. Hale stated that the group will not make any changes unknown to the commission or council. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Holmer questioned if the Boundary Commission had any option to modify the petition as submitted. Steve Gordon of the Boundary Commission staff stated that the commission could approve, deny or modify and approve, such modifications dealing only with the boundaries of the annexation proposal. He said the commission could continue to deny the petition until it felt the substance was adequate. Councilor Hansen asked staff to outline what services would not be provided to the annexed area in the increment stages. He said he was not ready to agree on the rate percentages until he had that information. Mr. Gleason said staff could provide that information to both the commission and the council. He said the Planning Commission and the City Council must agree on the concept so that the NEAR Group could proceed. He said the key issue was that the process must be equitable to everyone concerned. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission as outlined in the June 13, 1984, Planning Department memorandum on the possible action concerning the River Road/Santa Clara annexation proposal. The motion carried unanimously, 7:0. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Eugene Planning Commission June 13, 1984 Page 7