HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments Miscellaneous 12/17/2007
Consent to Annex
Page 1 of2
, (
.~
JONES Brenda
From:' MOTT Gregory
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 4:23 PM
To: JONES Brenda
Subject: FW: Consent to Annex
This one, too.
From: Ritter, Jerry [mallto:jerry.ritter@weyerhaeuser.com]
,
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:46 AM '
To: MOTT Gregory
SUbject: RE: Consent to Annex
Thanks Greg - appreciate the explanation and am glad to hear the city does not require consent to annex for building permit approval.
From: MaTT Gregory [mailto:gmott@ci.sprlngfield.or.us]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 20078:28 PM
To: Ritter, Jerry
SUbject: RE: Consent to Annex
Jerry,
(
Thanks for the update. The,answer to your question is, no, we do not require written consent to annex as a condition of building
permit approval in the urbanizable area (between city limits and ugb). We do' require such consent to annex form to divide property
through the partition process (see Section 5.12-139 Tentative Plan Conditions). We've changed the meaning of the word "Annexation
Agreement" to be a,fiscal obligation for people who are requesting annexation (see 5,7-113 Definitions for Annexation Agreement) as
opposed to its former meaning of consent to annex. Consent to Annex is also defined in 5.7-113 and is intended to be the meaning
given to such actions described in ORS 222.125 and ORS 222.170. Hope this answers your question. .
gmott
From: Ritter, Jerry [mailto:jerry.ritter@weyerhaeuser.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 20072:16 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.
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. Mv ouestion: 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 requirement 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.
, Date Received
So th.at I don't blindside you, I have a 5-page Legislative Counsel opinion from last year which I interpret to conclude ttrylH5lt city is
acting as a surrogate for a county in providing a service it can't require consent to annex. LC cites ORS, OABlMJd}c9'>MBC I can
'forward it to you via email 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. PI BJ
12/18/2007 \, anner:
"
Cons~?t.to Annex Page 20f2
As.Jim sure you know, the Oregon L~:i:',ure has taken a strong position against w':;-,;<d/coerced 'an(lexation in the last 2 sessions. As
a result, Oregon annexation law has changed significantly since 2005. Gino and Sitfeach 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.
Thanks,
Jerry Ritter
741-5723 office
968-8295 cell
Date Received
,
DtCl 7 i2CUt
'-. ---'
Planner: BJ
12/18/2007
Blank
Page 1 of 1
--.
....-t ,
JONES Brenda
From: MOTT Gregory
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 4:44 PM
To: JONES Brenda; .KARP GarY
Subject: RE: Code ,Amending Ordinances
I think so; either that, or at the end of the section.
From: JONES Brenda
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 2:36 PM
To: MOTT Gregory; KARP Gary
Subject: Code Amending Ordinances
Did we talk about, when we amend the Spririgfield De~elopment Code by Ordinance's, will we be listing
those at the end of each chapter. Like COrd. 1234, Amending,Section.....Adopted..November 3,2007)
Please let me know as soon as possible, as I am done with the amendments and just doing my last run
through.
Thanks Brenda
(]3rem{a Jones
Pfanning Secretary
225 'Fiftli Street
SpringfieY, Oregon 97477
541-726-3610 'FJIX 541-726-3689
.6jones@ci'V2ringfkf4.oLus
If you wou(J' uk! to see wliat s new at tlie City oj SpringfieY,go to: www. ci.sprinBfief4.or. us
Date Received
,
'LJ' f' 17 JZCl5t.
c. ~~ ,
L _J
12118/2007
Planner: BJ