Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Clark agreed that the current annexation strategy was not working well because of the tension it had <br />created in the community. He was not opposed to abolishing the boundary commission, as it created a more <br />direct and accountable way to address the issue. He thought it was a good thing to offer those who were not <br />City residents an opportunity to have a voice at the table by becoming residents, but the political reality was <br />that the bill would pass and be enacted. He said the City could better spend its time developing a more <br />inclusive strategy. <br /> <br />Regarding the council’s adoption of Resolution No. 4903, Mr. Clark said if abolishing the boundary <br />commission changed the strategy for noncontiguous annexations, then the City must retain the ability to <br />annex streets in order to be able to successfully annex the willing. City Manager Taylor replied that the <br />resolution did not preclude that; it prohibited use of the annexation of right-of-way to create a wholly <br />surrounded island that then could be annexed without the agreement of the property owner. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said the council often discussed the rights of City residents and the rights of County residents, but <br />seldom spoke of the responsibilities. He noted that people who lived nearby and enjoyed benefits the City <br />provided did not contribute financially to events like Project Homeless Connect. He said there were close-in <br />County residents who had a duty to participate in the City of Eugene’s responsibilities. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to direct the <br />City Manager to support Senate Bill 417 as a Priority 1. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated the bill did not stop annexations; it just increased elected officials’ accountability for <br />decision-making around annexations. She said it would provide a more respectful annexation policy as <br />opposed to an aggressive and adversarial one. She said the discussion had focused on the opponents’ <br />perspective that the bill was about annexation instead of the proponents’ perspective that it was about <br />accountability. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to extend the time by 10 minutes. The <br />motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said the bill would pass and it was important to maintain a good relationship with its sponsors. <br />She had lobbied against similar legislation during the last session and sponsors of that bill had given the City <br />one year to show why the boundary commission should remain. She did not think that had happened and she <br />would support the substitute motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling echoed comments from Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Clark. He could not <br />support the amended motion and favored the staff recommendation to oppose the bill. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka indicated he was not certain how the situation would be improved by abolishing the boundary <br />commission, particularly if there was no opportunity to amend the legislation to address noncontiguous <br />annexations. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor stated he did not believe in forced annexations and was not interested in doing that. He did not <br />want to lose investments in infrastructure and strategies. He would not support the amendment but would <br />consider supporting a neutral position. <br /> <br />The motion to amend by substituting support for Senate Bill 417 as a Priority 1 <br />failed, 5:3; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br />