02/27/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e the funds. She thought the project is marginal and had not received loans from the Small Business Administration because of its nature. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the Disposition and Development Agreement for the Ax Billy Building as outlined in the staff memorandum dated February 20, 1985. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Wooten was pleased about the disposition of the property. She would like the council to be informed about efforts to lower the City's commitment and about the progress of the project. She wondered at what point the City would decide not to make additional contributions if memberships are not obtained. Mayor Obie complemented the staff on its tenacity in developing the project. He appreciated the Oregon Bank's commitment to the downtown, the Downtown Commission's creation of the project, and Mr. Bennett's personal guarantee. e Ms. Bascom and Mr. Holmer appreciated Ms. Wooten's questions and comments. Mr. Holmer thought the risk is bearable. Ms. Schue appreciated Ms. Wooten's concerns but did not share all of them. Because she is chairer of the Community Development Committee, she had discussed the project at length. She thought the opportunity outweighted the risk because the downtown needs the project, the building will be saved and be in private ownership, the jobs will be good for University students, the project fits City goals, and because she respects Mr. Bennett, the Downtown Commission, the Oregon Bank, and the staff. X. ANNEXATION REQUEST BY DOUGLAS AND JEAN WATERS (AZ 84-4) (memo, map, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Jim Croteau of the Planning Department presented the staff report. He discussed the extraterritorial water extension and annexation policies of the city. The applicants had applied for an extraterritorial water extension. City policy required them to apply for annexation because urban services are available and their property is contiguous to the City. There is a deferred sewer assessment against the property. Answering questions from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Croteau said the applicants' request for water extension was processed. Their well had failed. The staff explained City policies to them when they requested the extension. He did not think they would be willing to give up city water now. Mr. Holmer was not eager to forcibly annex property, but he agreed with the City policies. Res. No. 3903--A resolution forwarding a recommendation to the Lane County Boundary Commission for annexation of property located north on Shasta Loop, east of Barber Drive, to the City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1985 Page 9