Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

If votes are allowed or required, oppose legislation that would allow the votes from the area being annexed to outweigh the votes of the city residents? Ms. Taylor did not think the City should oppose a bill that allowed the votes of the residents of the city to outweigh the votes of those being annexed. If a majority of those to be annexed were opposed to annexation, that position should prevail. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that if votes were allowed or required, the City supported legislation allowing the votes from the area being annexed to outweigh the votes of the city residents. Mr. Zelenka asked why the City residents would even have a vote in that case. He asked how such a process would work. Mr. Yeiter said that different areas do it differently; some mix the vote from the annexed and non-annexed areas, while others separate the vote so a smaller area could “trump” a larger area’s vote. The issue had not been settled by the courts. He confirmed that the City had never used such an approach. Ms. Bettman asked if the bills requiring votes all mandated a vote, pointing out the council would normally oppose such legislation based on home rule. Ms. Wilson said there were three proposed bills that required some sort of democratic process. Ms. Bettman objected to the requirement and did not think the City needed to take a position on the first question because of the violation of home rule. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Yeiter said that some of the proposed legislation supported Ms. Taylor’s position. Ms. Bettman thought the scope of the annexation needed to be taken into account and indicated she lacked sufficient information to take a position. Ms. Solomon objected to any proposed policy that suggested her vote was not as important as another resident’s vote. Mr. Pryor did not have enough information to take a position, but if the motion failed he would be willing to offer a motion that stated the City did not support anything that precluded home rule. The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Ortiz voting yes. recommend to the CCIGR that it take a Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to position that no issues around voting should usurp home rule or local control. The motion passed 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Oppose mandatory tax phase-in provisions, unless they are coupled with mechanisms that make it easier for the City to incorporate properties inside the UGB? Taxes during the deferral period should not be lower than before annexation? Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of the tax phase-in provisions, saying she opposed anything that usurped home rule. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Wilson said the bill would require all local jurisdictions to phase in taxes if it passed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 5 Work Session