06/11/1990 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Terry Smith, Public Works Administration, highlighted the major concepts presented in this agreement. He noted that within this proposal, sewer service would remain linked to annexation but that the effective date of annexation would be delayed ten years. Furthermore, nearly all property owners in this area should be connected to sewers by the year 2000; annexa- tion of Highway 99 property owners would occur no later than 2010. Finally, a nine-year, 31 percent tax differential plan would be provided by the City upon the effective date of annexation. This would result in these properties paying the full City tax rate as early as 2010, but no later than 2020. Mr. Gleason indicated that because tax differentials are being provided to all industrial and residential property owners across the board, this agree- ment is fair and equitable to property owners in the area. Tax differen- tials are intended to help make annexation more feasible for those property owners who have developed outside the city limits, but who now need addition- al City services. It is in the City's interest to provide the tax differen- tials because the current septic tank sewer system is a legitimate public health issue. He emphasized that the City, in providing tax differentials, is not providing a subsidy as was characterized in The Register-Guard. Mayor Miller commended Mr. Rutan for his efforts in crafting this agreement. Ms. Schue urged caution that the part of this process which recommends review of the agreement by the Council Committee on Infrastructure (CCI) may no longer be appropriate if the CCI is abolished. Mr. Boles said that discussions which have resulted in this agreement have been productive. He noted that because the council did not direct Mr. Rutan to negotiate an agreement on its behalf, several members of the community have expressed the belief that the council plans to approve this agreement without revision or review. Mr. Boles also expressed concern that the use of staff time unauthorized by the council was in violation of a council policy. Ms. Bascom noted that because this issue has been a long-standing concern this resolution represents a tremendous success. Regarding the use of staff time, Mr. Gleason said that the staff work used in negotiating this agreement was authorized by virtue of an adopted council policy which directed the staff to customize these proposals for given areas. Mr. Rutan agreed on the importance of remaining sensitive to the use of staff time. He pOinted out that in total no additional staff time was required because staff time which would have been used in less constructive confronta- tions was supplanted by these open negotiations. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Smith said that the Lane County Commissioners have been informed about the terms of this agreement. Mr. Holmer said that this process has been productive. He pointed out that the council should not adopt this agreement until the public had has a chance to debate its components. Specifically, he expressed concern with the en- forceability of the agreement. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 11, 1990 Page 2