Item 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman questioned why the City would oppose the bill when it did not seem to apply to Eugene. Mr. Yeiter acknowledged that he could think where the bill would apply locally. Ms. Wilson thought the bill was introduced to address a specific situation elsewhere in the state. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. HB 2050 Ms. Bettman wanted staff to oppose the bill vigorously because it violated home rule. HB 2638 Mr. Yeiter recommended the City’s position on the bill be changed to Priority 3 rather than Priority 2, while maintaining opposition on the bill. Ms. Bettman wanted to oppose the bill with amendments that distinguished between voluntary and involuntary annexations. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to maintain a status of Priority 2, Oppose with amendments to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary annexations. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2760 Mr. Yeiter noted this was the bill that would be “gut and stuffed” in the end. Ms. Wilson recommended the City take a position of Monitor on the bill as it would be very different in the future. She said that staff would monitor the bill to ensure any amendments reflected the committee’s position on the related annexation bills. HB 3011 Responding to a suggestion from Ms. Bettman that the City monitor the bill, Ms. Wilson indicated she preferred the committee take an oppose or support position with amendments to address the principle items in the bill of interest to the City. Ms. Bettman confirmed with Mr. Yeiter that the bill eliminated noncontiguous annexations even if they were voluntary annexations. She thought that ability should be preserved because of the fact of the urban transition area. She also thought voluntary island annexations should be allowed in extenuating circum- stances or where a certain percentage of the street system being annexed created an island. Mr. Pryor noted the bill would prevent streets from being used to create a contiguous annexation, which he thought a bad thing. Mr. Yeiter agreed. He said the City had treated the urban transition area as though every thing was contiguous but other communities only annexed contiguous properties. He said that members of the committee working on annexation bills were concerned that annexation of streets could be misused. Ms. Bettman said she would be inclined to support many of the bills in question if the boundary commission was to continue, but it appeared the commission would be abolished, and if that was the case she wanted to preserve as much home rule authority as possible for the council. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 8