Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/11/1984 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Dinner Session Treehouse Restaurant, Franklin Boulevard June 11, 1984 5 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor "Gus" Keller, Richard Hansen, Betty Smith, Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten John Ball, Freeman Holmer, Councilors; Brian Bauske, Dorothy Anders~n, Eleanor Mulder, Randall Thwing, Robert Bennett, Planning Commissioners; Micheal Gleason, Dave Whitlow, Jim Farah, Jim Carlson, Tim Sercombe, Bob Deis, staff. Mayor Keller opened the meeting at 5:25. He turned the meeting over to Mr. Bauske, Planning Commission president. I. PROPOSED ANNEXATION IN RIVER ROAD AND SANTA CLARA (material distributed) e Mr. Farah referred to the memos of May 17 and June 14, which gave the history and background of the proposed annexation. He said this movement for annexation was fostered after the 1983 incorporation effort was brought before the Boundary Commission where it was decided not to forward the incorporation proposal. City staff met with River Road/Santa Clara citizens interested in annexation who formed the NEAR Group (North Eugene Annexation Research Group). Attendance at their community-wide meetings was between 40 and 75 people. Mr. Farah emphasized that the proposal was coming from citizens in River Road and Santa Clara. Mr. Farah showed the area to be annexed, the dividing line between Santa Clara and River Road, and explained the tax differential concept as provided for in ORS 222.111. In arriving at the current proposal, Mr. Carlson explained that each City department was asked to estimate the cost of providing service to the extra area. The marginal costs are not necessarily the same as the overall per capita costs of providing services to the City. In the short term there are economies of scale. For Fire and Police the initial costs are almost the same as the full costs. In other departments the first year costs were not as great for many reasons. Mr. Thwing asked if the City will have to pay for the services. Mr. Farah replied that generally, in the short term, residential annexations do not pay. The NEAR proposal is a balance between providing city services and a balance in the costs to the City. This annexation will be less costly than most annexations because of the phase-in feature. The City would not be making immediate major capital improvements such as parks. Mr. Thwing asked who will pay for the shortfall. Mr. Farah said service and tax rates would be a decision of the Budget Committee. Mr. Holmer referred to attachment "A" which expl ained the percentages of the tax. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Paqe 1 e e -- Mr. Gleason pointed out that having a large population outside the city boun- daries is a cost to the City. The proposal is in everyone's best interest. Ms. Mulder asked for an explanation of an "augmented volunteer Fire Department," what would happen to the fire districts and will they maintain the volunteer fire districts, hence have differential tax rates within Santa Clara. Mr. Farah said "augmented" means what the Fire Chief feels is required for staffing along with the volunteer fire department, which would act as a second-call part of the department. Mr. Carlson said that, under State statute, there is automatic withdrawal from fire districts upon annexation. Because there is a 10-percent segment outside the proposed annexation in Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Fire Department is researching possibilities of a merger of that 10 percent with another fire district. The two water districts would be dissolved also. Mr. Carl son sai d "augmented" al so meant the Fi re Department woul d add staff to the aerial apparatus that will be put in at Goodpasture Island that would serve the River Road area, as well as put a rapid attack vehicle in the Santa Clara area to add to the vol unteer effort. Mr. Carlson, in answer to Ms. Smith, said there is a larger increase in taxes in Santa Clara even though the Santa Clara tax rate is lower than River Road. Mr. Hansen wanted to know the benefits for the City of the annexation. Mr. Farah cited the cost to the City of having unincorporated areas outside the city, the city's need to grow (Metropolitan Area General Plan) with 29 percent of Eugene's developable residential land in the proposed area, and the effi- ciency of services. Ms. Wooten asked if a feasibility study was being done for incorporation of the area. Mr. Farah said there was. It will be occurring simultaneously with the annexation proposal. The proposal will go before the Boundary Commission in the fall. Mr. Sercombe added that the annexation proposal could be voted on next March (1985). Mr. Carlson said the population in 1980 was 10,000 in River Road and 13,600 in Santa Clara. Mr. Farah explained why the members of the petition drive were asking the Eugene City Council to say that it is a reasonable proposal from the City's point of view. He said the petitioners are not required to take this step. Mr. Obie said if the annexation were successful, it would mean a city of 127,000 population. What would that do to the ranking of the City? Would new dollars come to the City that are not coming now. Staff said taxes on liquor, cigarettes, and gas would come in. There would be added dollars coming into the community. On the Federal level, the City would be competing for grants with larger cities. Mr. Carlson said that the figures are calculated in the revenue estimates. Mr. Gleason cited congressional delegations, effects on the State legislature, and said it was hard to calculate the benefits of a larger city. Ms. Wooten said she could acknowledge the figure/numbers. What happens to the people of River Road and Santa Clara in terms of their annexation she could not determine nor could she determine what the citizens of Eugene wished to do in this case. She called for a public hearing on the issue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 2 ~ Mr. Ball asked why there should be trepidation if members thought it was a good idea. If members think annexation is a good idea, they should say so and tell why. It is just good leadership. Mr. Bauske wondered if the long history of misunderstanding and mistrust would make an endorsement counterproductive. Mr. Farah asked if this was a reasonable proposal. Were the members comfortable with the tax differential process? Mr. Obie agreed with Mr. Ball, the constituencies were looking for direction in a very compl icated issue. It is a technical analysis and a recommendation is needed. Mr. Gleason said it made logical and equitable sense to go for a tax differential. It is a benefit to both communities and both will pay dearly if they do not share the same system. e Mr. Keller agreed it was good for the River Road/Santa Clara citizens. The Metro Plan said to include the people. It will be easier to develop that area. It is the first time the people have talked and it is important to encourage the process. Mr. Holmer agreed it was consistent with the Metro Plan and good planning. He did not want to alienate the River Road/Santa Clara citizens. He also agreed with Ms. Wooten that Eugene should have a public hearing. Mr. Bauske suggested it was a fine line. There was something to be said for not meddling in outside affairs and leadership. However, the council could say the technical elements are correct, making a clear separation between the technical and the political elements. Ms. Wooten agreed to endorse the data but not the petition. Mr. Thwing suggested endorsement subject to the citizens approval. Mr. Obie said he would like to encourage the petitioners to move ahead; that they invite the River Road/Santa Clara citizens to become a part of a city of 127,000. There are many more agendas to deal with jointly. Their future is aligned with Eugene's future. It is obvious that if they do not want to join and work together it would not be a good partnership. Mr. Farah said staff would work on a proposal that would say the council approves the proposal contingent upon the vote of the River Road/Santa Clara citizens. Meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. R~~ Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Beth Conant, Minutes Recorder) tit BC:je/CM7b7 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 3