HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIS PLANNER 11/5/2007
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Department:
Staff Contact:
S PRIN G FIE LD Staff Phone No:
C I T Y C 0 U N C I L Estimated Time:
ITEM TITLE: ANNEXATION TRANSITION UPDATE
November 5, 2007
Work Session
Developme~ces
Greg Mott <:f IIV'.
126-3774 110
30 Minutes
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Discuss the status of annexation transition planning and implications of changes in
annexation review standards.
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.
1. Council Briefing Memo, dated November 5, 2007, from Greg Mott, Planning
Manager
Senate Bill 417, enacted this past June, calls for the abolishment ofthe 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 4\ 7 as well as some of the consequences of this
law. Staff will 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.
Date Received
NOV 0 5 200']]
Planner: BJ
MEMORANDUM
City of Springfield
Date:
To:
From:
November 5, 2007
Gino Grimaldi, City Manager
Oregory Mott, Planning Division Manager
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
Subject:
Annexation Transitiqn 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 aBoundary
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 final6-month period to
process/complete all pending annexation applications and any others submitted between
now and December 31s'. 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 CQuld 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 (doubleltriple 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; U:ine,G,ounty ,
Clerk; LCOG GIS; affected schools, utilities and other service providers; secret~_~ecelved
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1
NOV 0 5 ZOWl!
Planner: BJ
the Departmentof Revenue; and the affected city. All of this work, before and'a.fter Council
action, becomes the sole responsibility of City staff, including Development Services, Public
. Works, City Manager, Finance and the City Attomey.
The substance of annexation has changed along with the staffing responsibilities. Under
the Boundary Commission rules (OR$ 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,alsoknown 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 ~nd Boundary Commission was not a land
use decision and therefore not subject to the ~ 20 day decision standard or the Dolan v. .
Tigard test for proportionality. As a result thelannexation 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 .~hich 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.
I 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 L.",.".;ve that the SDC amendment is in effecOa.tesJaereived
possible to amend the a,.t'.~t'.:ate 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. NOY 0 5 ZOODJ
','
ATTACHMENT 1 - 2
Planner: BJ