CCMinutes - 09/13/04 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

safety item in the City and it would mm back some of the good will the City had worked so hard to establish with the residents in that area should the City force annexation. Councilor Bettman agreed with the comments of councilors Pap~ and Poling. She asked what grounds there were for the Lane Board of County Commissioners to deny the City authority to assess the properties. Ms. Cahill replied that the commissioners' decision was based on the number of letters of remonstrance they had received. Councilor Bettman opined that it was not necessary to ask the property owners how they felt about annexation as annexation would mean the properties would be assessed for the road improvements. She questioned why commercial development had occurred on an unimproved road. She thought there should be a plan that prevented further commercial development from being built there if it would generate increased traffic on an unimproved street. She opposed piecemeal annexation, however. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Cahill explained that staff had directed the Hearings Official to discontinue work the day after the testimony period closed as the City did not have the authority to move forward with the funding scenario that had been planned for the improvements, due to the County commissioners' decision. Councilor Kelly believed the standards were reasonable and the improvements were warranted, but said he would oppose the resolution because of the ill will it would create. Councilor Solomon said the property owners had not opposed the improvements in their entirety so much as they felt the planned improvements were excessive for the street. She agreed that much good will had been created with the River Road/Santa Clara area and this forced annexation could harm the progress that had occurred. She noted that a resident there had suggested an "Annexation Amnesty Day," adding that she thought it was an idea with merit. Councilor Nathanson said while it was obvious what the City stood to gain from the annexation, the City needed to ask what the property owners stood to gain. She acknowledged that many people benefit from living and working in the urban area without having to pay for the urban services or having to vote. She supported annexation in most cases. She commented that the project was necessary and inevitable, but that for the present, it would be better to select another project from the capital improvement project list. Councilor Meisner stated that he had been working on the idea of an "Annexation Amnesty" day with assistant City Manager Jim Carlson for "many months." He expressed hope that they would get a response to it. He felt testimony had indicated that the opposition to the improvements was not absolute. He noted that the Crest Drive neighbors had sought input on a different design of street changes and suggested that the City look into a more flexible design for River Avenue. He said he would not support a forced annexation. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Ms. Cahill said the interchange to Beltline Road would not be improved in this plan as it was not under the jurisdiction of the City. Mayor Torrey averred that, though the City largely focused on the River Road area, there were a number of islands of non-annexed property. He observed that many people in the River Road area had signs on their front lawns that expressed their extreme opposition to annexation to the City. He advised against approving MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 9 Regular Session