Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />noted that staff responses to questions about the Lane County Boundary <br />Commission raised by Representative Campbell and Councilor Holmer were <br />contained in the background information for this item. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue said this bill addresses the issue of how to effectively control <br />annexation in areas of growth. She stressed that this is one of the purposes <br />of the Boundary Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer quoted an article in The Register-Guard (April 19, 1989) which <br />stated that "termination of the boundary commissions would return local <br />government boundary determination wholly to local electorates or local <br />government governing bodies or both. Because of the complex ramifications of <br />boundary proposals, and the fierce passions they commonly generate, local <br />electorates cannot be depended on to determine local government boundaries <br />best in the overall public interest.1I Mr. Holmer noted his complete <br />agreement with this statement and asked why local governments and local <br />electorates do not decide questions regarding boundaries in the overall local <br />public interest. He said any local governing body that is given unilateral <br />power to determine such a boundary will commonly, if not universally, be <br />caught in a conflict of interest. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Given this, Mr. Holmer said the chief defense of the boundary commission in <br />this area is that it allows for an expedited procedure. Mr. Holmer cited <br />several statistics pertaining to local annexations last year to support his <br />position that the Lane County Boundary Commission does not effectively <br />expedite the annexation process. He pointed out that it is not necessary to <br />retain the Boundary Commission to have an expedited process; this can be <br />accomplished under the general annexation law that applies in many other <br />counties throughout the state. Mr. Holmer added that the urban growth <br />boundary and Metropolitan Area General Plan provide a means for ensuring that <br />annexations are reasonable and fair. He felt the council would behave <br />responsibly with respect to annexations, and noted that State land use laws <br />also require this. <br /> <br />Mayor Miller felt the Boundary Commission provides for an efficient delivery <br />of urban services and equitable payment for those services. He did not feel <br />the existing laws ensure that these functions would be met if the Boundary <br />Commission were eliminated. Ms. Schue added that if HB 3413 passes, the City <br />would lose its authority to annex non-contiguous areas, because this type of <br />annexation is only permitted by a boundary commission. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom indicated her support for the Boundary Commission, which she feels <br />helps address the issue of who to include in the payment schedule for urban <br />services and promotes sounder decisions about when to proceed with <br />annexations. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue said she agrees with Mr. Holmer1s position that the Boundary <br />Commission does not completely solve the problems associated with annexation; <br />it is one tool among many for dealing with a very complex issue. However, <br />Ms. Schue felt the Boundary Commission is still needed. She said if it were <br />to be abolished, the City would have to deal directly with the Lane County <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br />Work Session and Meeting <br /> <br />April 19, 1989 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />