CC Minutes - 02/14/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

The motion as amended passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposi- tion. B. WORK SESSION: Lane County Local Government boundary commission City Manager Taylor introduced Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter to discuss Senate Bill (SB) 417 related to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Mr. Yeiter stated that SB 417 was introduced by Senator Walker and representatives Barnhart and Edwards. He said the boundary commission was a State agency with seven members appointed by the governor and it was the last one in Oregon. He said that abolishing the boundary commission would shift annexation requests to a different section of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). He said that annexation of noncontiguous properties would no longer be allowed, although the City might be able to pursue annexations if they touched other noncontiguous pieces of City property. He said that annexation of vacant property that the owner wanted to develop would no longer be allowed if the property did not touch another part of the City. Mr. Yeiter said the City would assume responsibility for 25 to 35 annexations annually if the boundary commission was eliminated and a public hearing before the council would be required for each annexation. He said the Board of County Commissioners would assume responsibility for boundary changes and creation of special districts such as water districts, fire districts, park districts, library districts and public safety districts. He said elimination of the boundary commission would also mean there would be no independent review of water or wastewater extensions outside of the city limits. He said that staff recommended continued support of the boundary commission by opposing SB 417 as a Priority 1. Mr. Clark said he was in favor of dealing with annexation issues in a transparent and accountable way, and he was somewhat concerned that the existence of the boundary commission removed some accountability from the process. He thought it was appropriate that the council should be accountable to the people for annexations. He asked for clarification of the issues surrounding noncontiguous annexation. Mr. Yeiter said the issue primarily related to the River Road and Santa Clara areas because of the development pattern that had occurred there. He said the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) policies suggested that new development occur within city limits as cities were deemed to be the logical providers of services. He said that annexations were entertained on a voluntary basis at the request of the property owner and boundary commission law allowed noncontiguous annexations. He said in other jurisdictions a technique called “cherry-stemming” was used to run pieces of the city out to touch a property through street annexations. He said if Eugene lost the ability to do noncontiguous annexations, questions would arise about the City’s intent for vacant property not near a piece of the city. Mr. Clark asked if property could be developed under County standards. Mr. Yeiter replied that City and County standards were virtually identical and the City regulated the development permit process for the County. Mr. Clark asked if SB 417 would result in any major changes to current procedures. Mr. Yeiter said the biggest change would affect someone who wished to build a house on a piece of property not adjacent to city property and how that situation would be handled. City Attorney Jerome Lidz added that the Metro Plan MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 5 Work Session