Laserfiche WebLink
City Manager Taylor said that annexation of noncontiguous property could only occur if it was adjacent to <br />an already annexed noncontiguous portion of the City. He said Resolution No. 4903 adopted by the council <br />on February 12 established procedures for approving those types of annexations. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon asked if legislators introduced SB 417 on behalf of residents in unannexed areas. She asked if <br />the bill sponsors would be willing to amend the bill to provide greater flexibility on the issue of noncontigu- <br />ous annexations. City Manager Taylor said that most discussions leading to the legislation were from the <br />perspective of making annexations to the City of Eugene from the River Road and Santa Clara areas more <br />difficult. Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson said that the bill’s sponsors were unlikely to <br />agree to an amendment as they were opposed to annexation. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon opined that it was unfortunate legislators did not realize the impact of SB 417 on the City of <br />Eugene. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy clarified that she had received a call from Senator Walker to discuss SB 417. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor observed that the issue was not about the boundary commission; it was about annexation <br />strategy. He said the council would need to decide whether it was willing to surrender the City’s current <br />annexation strategy by abolishing the boundary commission and develop another approach. He said in order <br />to endorse the City’s current annexation strategy, which included noncontiguous annexations, the council <br />would need to support the boundary commission. He said that supporting SB 417 meant the City would <br />need to develop another annexation strategy, which would be a challenging task. He was not certain he was <br />willing to entirely redesign the City’s annexation strategy and would likely support the boundary commis- <br />sion for that reason. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked what impact abolishing the boundary commission would have on City resources. City <br />Manager Taylor said the City currently paid $38,000 annually for boundary commission services and the <br />cost of having City staff perform those tasks would probably be somewhat higher. He said that was not as <br />great a concern as the impact on annexations. He said given the City’s transition plan, the net result would <br />be a halt to annexation of noncontiguous properties; the agreement to not annex rights-of-way would make <br />the orderly transition to urban development even more difficult. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka echoed Mr. Pryor’s remarks as the discussion had convinced him of the need to oppose the <br />legislation on a Priority 1 basis. He felt the City was on the right path with its annexation policy and he was <br />unwilling to start over again if the boundary commission was abolished. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said the bill was proposed because there was a problem with annexations. She said there was no <br />face to the boundary commission, which was an anonymous group appointed by the governor. She, as an <br />elected official, had difficulty obtaining any information about the commission and could imagine how hard <br />it was for her constituents. She thought the council should go to the voters and ask them when they wanted <br />to be annexed and if they were opposed, the process should be stopped. She said the independent spirit in <br />River Road and Santa Clara needed to be respected and she was not willing to oppose the legislation. She <br />said the council was accountable to the voters and people expressed their opinions through voting; if people <br />were upset about being annexed it would make it difficult for the City to get ballot measures approved. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to remain <br />neutral on Senate Bill 417. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br />