Item 1: Ordinance Concerning the Transition of Annexation Procedures

Home Browse Search

those areas driven by state statute or adopted council policy, as well as those areas which the council has full discretion to modify. Annexation Review Process Councilor Bettman commented on the proposed 2-track process for annexations. In the proposed ordinance, the council is not required to (but may opt to) hold a hearing before acting on 1 applications submitted with the consent described at proposed EC 9.7810(2). The council is required to hold a hearing before acting on applications submitted with the consent described at 2 proposed EC 9.7810(3)(a) or (3)(b). This approach is consistent with the state statutes that now govern annexations in Eugene (ORS 222). Councilor Bettman questioned whether it might be simpler to have public hearings for all applications (likely in some batched approach) rather than having to determine which applications should be approved with or without a hearing. In the event there is interest in considering alternative approaches, staff has provided some options to consider: Option 1: Maintain 2-track process as proposed . Allows council the discretion to forego a hearing when one is not required by state law, or to hold a hearing when the proposal requires more discussion or evaluation through a public hearing process. Advantages: Maximizes flexibility to the council. Allows council to devote more substantial time to complex requests, while being efficient with routine requests. Responsive to public input requests. Manageable administrative impact to staff. Disadvantages: Could create some redundancy for applicants and council (applications that are pulled for public hearings will be in front of council twice). May create difficult decisions for council on when, and under what circumstances to require public hearings. Option 2: Require a public hearing process for all annexations . Create a one track process by requiring all annexations to be reviewed through a public hearing process. Advantages: Simplifies role of the council by eliminating a decision point regarding whether to require a public hearing or not. Eliminates multiple step process for those applications which would require a public hearing under the 2-track process. Maximizes opportunity for public input. Disadvantages: Eliminates flexibility for the council to choose appropriate decision path. Would likely increase time spent per application by council and staff as public hearing process is more involved. May create false expectations with the public about the scope of the public hearing (e.g. site specific annexation issues vs. broader policy discussion). For council’s reference, staff has prepared a rewritten draft of EC 9.7820 to carry out Option 2 Option 2 -- REWRITE OF EC 9.7820 TO PROVIDE FOR attached to this memo as “ HEARING ON ALL ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS .” 1 State law does not require a hearing on applications described in ORS 222.125, implemented at proposed EC 9.7810(2). 2 State law requires the City Council to hold a hearing for any application described in ORS 222.170, implemented at proposed EC 9.7810(3). Page 2 of 8