Item 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor averred that it was very important to protect the farmland. Mayor Piercy wondered if the bill should be monitored. She asked what kind of changes the other members of the CCIGR would want to see in the language in order to keep “the good stuff” while retaining some flexibility. Ms. Bettman echoed Ms. Taylor’s comments. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson stated that the hearing on this bill would be on April 11. Mr. Yeiter commented that perhaps the reason there was a postponement of the 20-year land supply was that Rep. Barnhart hoped to resolve that situation. He underscored that the City of Eugene had ridgelines and forestlands, agricultural lands, or rivers and aggregate resources constraining growth; so long as Eugene needed to keep accommodating its growth in a certain fashion, something would have to occasionally give. HB 2025 Ms. Taylor asked why the staff recommendation was to oppose the bill. Mr. Yeiter replied that he had recommended a Priority 3 Oppose stance because he did not believe it affected current agreements wherein an annexation agreement was required before connection was made to city sewers. He thought there may be conditions in which some urban services, such as the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) or wastewater services, were provided outside the city limits and the flexibility to require an annexation agreement prior to renewing the contract or extending services would be beneficial. He felt the bill would restrict the City’s ability to require an annexation. Ms. Bettman said it seemed to her that the bill might affect the City’s ability to require a developer to become annexed when applying for a permit. Mr. Yeiter responded that he had interpreted the bill as pertaining to places where a service was already provided in that the City could not pull the service or add an annexation requirement even in the case of a service that had been discontinued for up to 30 days. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill was one of 12 bills that had been taken up by a work group so none of the bills would move until the work group was done with them. Ms. Taylor preferred to monitor the bill or to take a neutral stance. She did not think there was a point in opposing something that seemed to be protecting the rights of people who opposed annexation. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the recommendation to Monitor instead of Priority 3 Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3014 Ms. Wilson stated that this was not one of the bills that the work group was addressing. Ms. Bettman did not understand why the recommendation had a Priority 2. Mr. Yeiter explained that the bill provided a funding source for technical assistance for people trying to incorporate or consolidate areas MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 6