Laserfiche WebLink
annexation. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, City Attorney Glenn Klein said that a <br />public hearing would be required to approve, although not to initiate, an annexation request. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she would be willing to retain the tool in extenuating circumstances, given the fact that <br />public hearings and council oversight would occur, but not for “housekeeping” annexations that were often <br />controversial in nature. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought past City practice regarding annexation had created a problem. She wanted to listen to <br />the residents and was reluctant to oppose bills that allowed residents to vote. She said the council had given <br />direction to staff regarding the annexation of streets but she thought it important that people who annexed to <br />the city wanted to do so for the future of the city. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor liked the bills that phased in property taxes for properties annexing to a municipality. She <br />wanted to support those bills as she thought they might be an incentive for people to annex. She thought the <br />City would regret it if it forced people to annex later. She thought they would recognize the value of <br />annexing to the city over time. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor advocated for discussion of broad principles to guide the Council Committee on Intergovernmen- <br />tal Relations (CCIGR) rather than specific bills. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to have a general policy that Eugene have the <br />ability to use the island annexation process in extenuating circumstance and with the ap- <br />proval of the City Council, including a public hearing. The motion passed unanimously, <br />8:0. <br /> <br />Flexibility should be permitted to allow administrative approvals and/or approvals by a hearings <br />official rather than by an elected body for non-controversial annexations? <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded Ms. Ortiz, moved that flexibility should be permitted to allow ad- <br />ministrative approvals and/or approvals by a hearings official rather than an elected body <br />for simple, non-controversial annexations. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. <br /> <br />Support use of streets and waterways as boundaries for island annexations unless UGB and city <br />limits can be used as border for annexations? <br /> <br />Speaking to the issue of waterways serving as boundaries, Mr. Clark asked if ditches or street-side culverts <br />qualified as waterways. Mr. Yeiter said those may qualify as waterways, although the legislative definition <br />was not clear. Given that the UGB was largely defined by streets and waterways, particularly in the <br />northern part of the community, staff was concerned about a prohibition on their use as boundaries. In <br />addition, the City had been able annex non-contiguous properties through the boundary commission, and in <br />the absence of the boundary commission, someone wishing to annex would not be able to do so if their <br />property was not contiguous to a piece of the city. He acknowledged the practice of using streets had been <br />abused in other communities through a practice known as “cherry stemming.” <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that streets may be used to create contiguous <br />annexations for voluntary annexations in River Road/Santa Clara and within the UGB. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />