Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman asked for clarification before she accepted or declined the friendly amendment. She asked <br />what road annexation scenarios would occur if only island annexations were prohibited. Mr. Carlson said <br />there were many options. He distributed a map illustrating annexation options along River Road that would <br />annex road right-of-way adjacent to annexed properties but not form islands. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman commented that annexation of the road rights-of-way was not required and the road could <br />remain under County ownership and maintenance. Mr. Carlson said there was a maintenance agreement <br />with the County and the City actually maintained those sections except for preservation activities. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said the council’s discussion had indicated the City did not engage in the practice of island <br />annexations. Mr. Carlson said it was a legal option for the City but had not happened in 15 years and had <br />never happened in River Road/Santa Clara. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz restated the motion she had asked Ms. Bettman to make for her: “I move <br />to direct the City Manager to halt the practice of adding the right-of-way to annexa- <br />tion requests in the River Road/Santa Clara area.” <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed with the restated motion. Ms. Ortiz agreed she had provided <br />the second. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark recognized the importance of the issue to River Road/Santa Clara residents but he was concerned <br />about taking a tool away from the City. He wished to be sensitive to City and County residents and the <br />process for transition. He said residents questioned the benefits of annexation and he thought there were <br />benefits, but it was a broader issue of shared responsibilities within a community. He said that residents <br />should share responsibility for tax-funded services such as human services and road maintenance. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark felt the need to represent the interests of his constituents who resided in the City, but as a show of <br />good faith, because the process mattered, he wanted to support this type of motion to avoid any de facto <br />taking of rights when the opportunity for an island was created. He said the motion went further than just <br />prohibiting islands and he was not certain he could support removing the tool for every area in the City. He <br />asked if the motion would take the City out of compliance with the Metro Plan and might there be <br />unintended consequences to the motion. He asked what effect there would be on City residents as opposed <br />to County residents if the motion passed. Mr. Klein said he was not aware of any conflict with the Metro <br />Plan but would have to research the matter further. He said he was not concerned with a motion that halted <br />the practice, but recommended that the council allow staff to bring back a resolution to amend in order to <br />avoid legal problems if there were challenges. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor said it was difficult to ascertain if there would be unintended consequences. He <br />recommended continuing current practices and was opposed to a public policy that stated the City would not <br />annex any road right-of-way because it created complex problems for police, fire and other services. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said she would not support the motion as it seemed to be a solution in search of a problem. <br />She noted the City only annexed street rights-of-way 50 percent of the time and last year there were 25 <br />annexations. She preferred to see the City put energy into developing an annexation proposal instead of <br />removing a tool from the City. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 9 <br /> <br />