HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Annexation Transition Update
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Department:
Staff Contact:
S P R I N G FIE L D Staff Phone No:
C I T Y C 0 UN C I L Estimated Time:
ITEM TITLE: ANNEXATION TRANSITION UPDATE
November 5, 2007
Work Session
Developme~,ices
Greg Mott -r:I ~
726-3774 ~
30 Minutes
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Discuss the status of annexation transition planning and implications of changes in
annexation review standards.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The 2007 Oregon Legislature abolished the Lane County Boundary Commission
and transferred all urban annexation responsibilities to the cities and all district
annexation responsibilities to Lane County. The law requires cities and the county
to assume these new responsibilities on January 2,2008.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Briefmg Memo, dated November 5, 2007, from Greg Mott, Planning
Manager
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Senate Bill 417, enacted this past June, calls for the abolishment of the Lane
County Boundary Commission, the cessation of city-county assessments to fund
Boundary Commission operations, and the termination of staff, all on June 30,
2008. However, because the Boundary Commission meets only once every two
months and because there are a number of annexations pending, the cities and Lane
County will process all annexation applications submitted after December 31, 2007.
It is this latter deadline that requires fairly swift action by the Council to implement
changes to the City Development Code and enable the City Council to assume
annexation responsibilities by the first of the year.
We have entered into an agreement with LCOG, principally Boundary Commission
staff, to provide us with assistance during this transition including review and
advice on new Code language; preparation offorms and documents; establishment
of protocols for notice of annexation; and assistance processing the first several
applications to "debug" our new responsibilities. This service will cost
approximately $12-$15 thousand dollars over the next 6-8 months and will be
funded by contractual services accounts that will be paid back through collection of
annexation comprehensive planning fees. The Council will also review proposed
new annexation processing fees now that this process is exclusively the
responsibility of the City of Springfield.
The attached Council Briefing Memorandum provides more detail about the steps
that must be taken to implement SB 417.as well as some of the consequences of this
law. Staffwill present this information during the work session and describe the
various changes that will impact the type, timing and processing of future
annexations to Springfield.
MEMORANDUM
City of Springfield
Date:
To:
From:
November 5, 2007
Gino Grimaldi, City Manager
Gregory Mott, Planning Division Manager
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
Subject:
Annexation Transition Update
ISSUE:
By enactment of the 2007 legislature, the lane County local Government Boundary
Commission ceases to exist on July 1, 2008; annexation to cities becomes the jurisdiction
of the affected city while annexation to districts, district creation, and district dissolution or
district consolidation is the jurisdiction of lane County. In acknowledgement of the
abruptness of this legislation and the limited opportunities to get on a Boundary
Commission agenda, applications to annex to cities submitted after January 1, 2008 shall
be processed solely by the cities. All preparations necessary for this transfer of jurisdiction
to occur by the deadlines specified are underway.
BACKGROUND:
. Senate Bill 417 abolishes the lane County local Government Boundary Commission
(Boundary Commission), extinguishes the assessment to cities that funds Boundary
Commission operations, and terminates the Boundary Commission staff, all effective June
30,2008. This legislation also amends most of ORS 199 (statute conferring Boundary
Commission authority) and shifts the annexation laws now applicable to Springfield to ORS
222. The "sunset" date for the Boundary Commission and Boundary Commission staff is
June 30, 2008, but the Boundary Commission will not process any applications submitted
after December 31, 2007. The Boundary Commission will utilize this final 6-month period to
process/complete all pending annexation applications and any others submitted between
now and December 31st. For example, the City is currently processing 9 annexation
applications submitted earlier this year but which have not gone before the Council for .
action. Each of these applications will be presented to the Council this year in order to be
included in Boundary Commission business in the first half of next year. This will allow
these applications to be processed using the same law in effect at the time of their
submittal. Annexations submitted after January 1, 2008 will be processed under the new
law (ORS 222) and under the sole jurisdiction of the Springfield City Council.
DISCUSSION:
The consequences of these changes are significant to Springfield both in terms of
procedure and cost. Until enactment of SB 417, the City's role in the annexation process
was to determine if services could be extended (how and at whose cost), request Council
adoption of a resolution in support of the annexation, and deliver to the Boundary
Commission staff the documentation used by the Council for this recommendation. From
that point forward the Boundary Commission staff would validate all signatures; confirm the
presence or absence of electors residing on the property; confirm the accuracy of the form
of annexation (double/triple majority; delayed effective date; extra-territorial extension of
services, expedited process); review, and if necessary, perfect the legal description;
prepare legal notices; prepare the staff report in response to legislative criteria of approval
and Metro Plan policies; and staff the Boundary Commission public hearings. Following a
Boundary Commission approval, Boundary Commission staff would provide all the
necessary notifications, including lane County Assessment and Taxation; lane County
Clerk; lCOG GIS; affected schools, utilities and other service providers; Secretary of State;
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1
the Department of Revenue; and the affected city. All of this work, before and after Council
action, becomes the sole responsibility of City staff, including Development Services, Public
Works, City Manager, Finance and the City Attorney.
The substance of annexation has changed along with the staffing responsibilities. Under
the Boundary Commission rules (ORS 199) non-contiguous annexations were permitted -
ORS 222 does not allow non-contiguous annexations1. The Boundary Commission laws
required Boundary Commission approval if water or sanitary sewer was extended outside
the city limits of the service provider, also known as an extra-territorial extension. ORS 222
does not address this circumstance therefore the annexation laws do not require these
services extensions to occur as annexations; however, the Metro Plan states that the
extension of any new urban service to unincorporated territory can only occur through
annexation, contractual annexation, annexation to an existing district, or creation of a new
district. (Chapter II-C, page 6).2 The draft ordinance currently being prepared for adoption
is consistent with these Metro Plan policies and includes extra-territorial extensions as a
form of annexation within the City of Springfield's jurisdiction.
The expedited procedure also is not included in the provisions of ORS 222 but this absence
does not preclude the City from providing such a process; the draft ordinance recommends
public hearings for all annexation applications but does suggest an exception for residences
on an undividable lot where sanitary sewer is already available to the property.
Under Boundary Commission law, annexations were approved by the Boundary
Commission and appeals of those decisions were heard by the Court of Appeals. Such an
arrangement meant the action of the Council and Boundary Commission was not a land
use decision and therefore not subject to the 120 day decision standard or the Dolan v.
Tigard test for proportionality. As a result the annexation process took considerably longer
than .120 days and may have included conditions of approval difficult to obtain in the normal
land use decision environment. Annexations which are the jurisdiction of cities are land use
decisions, are appealed to LUBA and may be subject to 120 day time lines.
Notwithstanding these circumstances, the draft ordinance does preserve annexation
agreements as a condition of approval.
The draft amendments to the Code will be released for public review on November 13th,
seven days before the public hearing on the 20th. The Planning Commission will forward a
recommendation to Council for their consideration during public hearing on December 3rd.
We have also contracted with LCOG to provide assistance for.a successful transition; this
includes preparation of forms and handouts; recommendations on pre- and post-annexation
procedures; audit of all city regulations pertaining to annexation; and assistance with
annexation applications submitted under the new laws and regulations. This work is
targeted for completion by December 31, 2007.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and discuss status of annexation transition planning and implications of changes in
annexation review standards.
1 Policy #12, Chapter ll-C, page 5 provides as follows: "When the following criteria are met, either Springfield or
Eugene may annex land which is not contiguous to its boundaries,"' This policy is now at odds with the
applicable statute Eugene and Springfield must observe when processing annexations.
2 The exigent nature of this legislation makes it imperative that the SDC amendment is in effect on 1/1/08; it is not
possible to amend the appropriate sections of the Metro Plan on such short notice and in any case, all three
elected bodies must adopt amendments to this section of the Metro Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1 - 2