01/11/1988 Meeting (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e petition proposed in the annexation shall be filed with the Boundary Commission. And, ORS 199.595 subparagraph 1, the same statute which, he noted, a court of appeals had declared unconstitutional as it related to the triple-majority annexation method, provided that the Boundary Commissionls final order in a proceeding initiated as provided by ORS 199.4920 (the triple-majority method) and ORS 199.490 paragraph 5 (which includes the island annexation method) shall not be subject to ORS 199.505,which provides for annexation remonstrance elections. Thus, Mr. Chapman said, although the electors of cities had the right granted in ORS 222.750 to vote on island annexations, the electors residing within the island territory being annexed were denied in ORS 199.195 paragraph 1 the right to vote--that statute being the same statute the court found to be unconstitutional as it related to annexations initiated by the triple majority method. Mr. Chapman reviewed the history of Thurber v. McMinnville. He read a statement from the Supreme Court discussion on that case, "But that it was ever intended that a municipal corporation already in existence should have authority to extend its boundaries so as to include new territory without the consent of the citizens of such territory is so repugnant to our ideals of fairness and justice that we cannot assent to the proposition. To do so would be to say that an enterprising municipal corporation containing, say, 500 voters might annex adjoining territory containing a thousand voters and subject them to the burdens of municipal taxation without their consent and against their will.1I He also cited that decision as follows: IIBut the right of the people of the district or territory sought to be annexed to be permitted to vote upon the question under some method is a constitutional one that cannot be taken away. This in effect disposes of the case.1I Mr. Chapman asked how the State of Oregon could justify allowing city electors to vote on annexation of territory, yet deny those electors within the territory being annexed their right to vote on the matter. Under the strict standard test, he said the State bore the burden of establishing not only a compelling interest that justified the law, but that the distinctions drawn by the law were necessary to further its purposes. He asked what constituted a compelling interest of the state regarding the proposed annexation and whether City Attorneys would research the matter before or after the issue went before the courts. Mr. Chapman cited the risk of legal defense costs for the island annexation procedure and asked what signal the island annexation policy would send to residents. He submitted a copy of his statement for the record. Jim Hale, 4064 Meredith Court, spoke in opposition to the annexation request. He said he was embarrassed about the proposal IS presentation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. He also asked what signal the annexation would send to residents. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 6