Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

required all new urban development to be on properties annexed to the City and, if the property could not be annexed, it also could not be developed. Mr. Clark asked if that would affect the City’s inventory of buildable lands or create a Measure 37 claim. Mr. Lidz replied that he did not think there would be a Measure 37 claim and he would research the question of buildable lands. He said that regardless of which authority approved an annexation, it had to meet a standard of reasonableness and that would apply to practices such as cherry-stemming. Ms. Taylor stated that many problems had been caused by noncontiguous annexations and when property changed hands, people did not know whether they were in the City or the County. She was in favor of eliminating noncontiguous annexation. She asked if the County could decide to create a special district, such as a library district that would include the City, if there was no boundary commission. Boundary commission Executive Officer Paula Taylor replied that under current Oregon law, cities could not be included in new taxing districts without their consent, although legislative changes might modify the rules for county public safety service districts. Mr. Lidz said the County could approve formation of a district or a city as long as it did not include part of the City of Eugene. Ms. Taylor observed that the impetus for abolishing the boundary commission came from local legislators and the County was in support of the legislation. She would not vote to oppose SB 417 but might support a neutral position. She thought the more transparent and responsive government was the better and the City Council was better known to citizens than the boundary commission. She felt the council would be able to manage the additional work of annexation hearings. Ms. Bettman was concerned with the staff recommendation to oppose SB 417 as a Priority 1 as that meant the City would use its most aggressive lobbying efforts to oppose the bill when sponsors were local legislators. She preferred a neutral position to one that was adversarial to the local legislative caucus. She did not feel there were enough benefits to the boundary commission to compel the City to fight for its retention. Ms. Bettman said SB 417 also raised the issue of home rule, as the boundary commission was an entity appointed by the governor and local elected officials had no voice in those decisions; that was counter to the City’s legislative posture. She intended to propose an amendment to support the legislation. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Yeiter said currently there were restrictions by Metro Plan policies and other regulations on extending utilities such as water and wastewater lines outside the city limits, with some exceptions for health and safety reasons that required a permit from the boundary commission. He said if there was no boundary commission, there would be no other regulatory authority to review those issues and provide oversight. Ms. Solomon foresaw a day when all of River Road and Santa Clara were annexed to the City of Eugene and everyone was on the same water and wastewater systems and subject to the same regulations. The City would benefit from taxpayer dollars for the services those residents enjoyed by living so close to the City. She was interested in annexation and reluctant to add another layer to the process through the boundary commission, but was concerned about noncontiguous properties. She asked if owners of noncontiguous properties could still voluntarily annex to the City if the boundary commission was abolished. Mr. Yeiter replied that if nothing else changed with respect to the Metro Plan or regulations, the property would have to be contiguous to some piece of City property in order to be annexed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 6 Work Session