HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments Miscellaneous 11/19/2007
Consent to Annex
. Page 1 of!
JONES Brenda
From: MOTT Gregory
Sent: Monday, December 17, 20074:23 PM
To: JONES Brenda
Subject: FW: Consent to Annex
Brenda,
Please put this message into the Journal File for annexation Code amendments. Thanks,
gmott
. From: Ritter, Jerry [mailto:jerry.ritter@weyerhaeuser.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:16 PM
To: MOTT Gregory
Subject: Consent to Annex
Hi Greg -
I'm reading over the proposed SDC amendments and don't see anything right off the bat that raises a red flag, other than the familiar
cites from the Metro Plan encouraging aggressive annexation policies which Springfield has wisely chosen not to pursue. I may have
some questions after a more in depth review. I have a couple comments that I'll bring up at the Planning Commission meeting.
v
I do have a question re consent to annex in exchange for the provision of extraterritorial services.
There are pretty clear legal grounds (e.g., ORS 222.115) for a city to require a consent to annex for the actual provision of
extraterritorial urban services,e.g., sewers, water. My auestion: .does Springfield still require consent to annex in exchange for acting
as a surrogate for the county in issuing building permits (without the actual subsequent provision of one or more urban services) within
the unincorporated UGB? That requireme'nt was in force back in 1995, Stu Burge informed us at that time that he would work to get it
eliminated. I never heard what the outcome of his plan, if any, there was.
So that I don't blindside you, I have a 5-page Legislative Counsel opinion from last year which I interpret to conclude that if a city is
acting as a surrogate for a county in providing a service it can't require consent to annex. LC cites ORS, OAR and case law. I can
forward it to you via emaH if you'd like although the format is a bit cumbersome. I would like to suggest that if this practice is still going
on, the city voluntarily agree as part of the SDC amendments to end the requirement. "
As I'm sure you know, the Oregon Legislature has taken a strong position against forced/coerced annexation in the last 2 sessions. As
a result, Oregon annexation law has changed significantly since 2005. Gino and Sid each have copies of OCVA's latest newsletter
with details. I'm happy to note that at no time during these legislative deliberations did Springfield's name come up as a a city that has
been abusing its annexation authority and I personally appreciate that very much. I'm hoping that tradition continues.
By the way, I sympathize with the extra burden that will now be placed on you and your staff with the demise of the Boundary
Commission. I urge you not to blame Senator Walker, the other sponsors of SB 417 or those of us who worked to get it through the
2007 Legislature. The sponsors were merely.responding to a flood of legitimate complaints going back 10+ years over the total lack of
accountability of that body to those its decisions impacted. It was past time for it to go.
J
Thanks,
Jenry Ritter
741-5723 office
968-8295 cell
Date Rec_eiY.ed
t \
NUV 19 '2(j)t
, ~
Planner: BJ
12118/2007