05/24/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

each as an entity. However, it did not indicate the City was taking ~ a position that one should and one should not be annexed if water were ~ provided. Regarding question No.2, urban services essential under the various options for annexation, the draft response related the types of services, level of services, and rates. Regarding question No.3, whether or not the City would consider alternative financing arrangement (i.e., tax increments or bancrofting), the draft cited the City would be willing to consider a variety of possible solutions such as graduated tax rate over a period of up to ten years. The draft did ask that Lane County assume the financial responsibility for any difference in rates to provide funds for the City to provide services in the area, or the City could establish a special district and earmark funds for improvement in that area. However, Mr. Saul noted there might be one limitation in that home rule authority would be used for formation of such a district, and home rule is now in litigation in the courts. He reiterated the draft response was consistent with the policy state- ment Council adopted May 11, 1978. He also noted for Council this is a very early stage of discussion with the task force and could not be considered the final definitive statement of precise strategy. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to authorize sending the response to the task force. In response to a question from Ms. Smith, Mr. Saul said it was assumed the Citizens Task Force would be able to use some of the recommendations as a starting point for discussion with Lane County. It was assumed ... staff would then respond further to either Lane County or the Citizens .., Task Force. Assistant Manager noted the staff had been meeting with the task force in discussing various items. Until matters become more specific, it is difficult to respond with any more specificity. However, staff is open and ready to work with them at any time. Mr. Obie suggested it might be a good idea to have an assigned staff person to work with this task force. He also expressed concern regarding the piecemeal approach to annexation. Mr. Saul said there might be some merit in treating River Road as a distinct entity from Santa Clara. Beyond that, however, there will have to be further dialog before consi- dering further fragmentation. Mr. Saul continued that the impression of the letter was to let the Task Force know the City is willing to consider a variety of options, but that judgment will have to be based on certain specific things. In response to Mr. Obie's question, he said if Council felt that was not the impression given by the letter, perhaps it should direct staff to rework that section of the letter. Mr. Delay felt the letter set a . tone for further consideration, noting the City is taking a highly responsive and highly responsible position. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. It 5/24/78--6 3''''