HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 11/5/2007 (2)
--.:...~
MEMORANDUM
City of;,Springfield
From:
November 5, 2007
,
Springfield Planning Commission. ~MMISSION
Gregory Mott, Planning Division Manage BRIEFING ,
. t . MEMORANDUM
Annexation Transition Code Amendments
Date:
To:
Subject:
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. The attached amendments are intended to f~lfill this'
obligation and will, if adopted by Council on December 3, 2007, become effective on
January 1, 2008. . .
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 eff~ctive June
30,2008. This legislation also amends most of ORS199 (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-mohth period to
process/complete all pending annexation applications and any others submitted between
now and December 31st J:or 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 Conimission business in theflrst'half of next year. This will allow
these applications to be processed using the same laW in effect at the time of their,
submittal. Annexatio'ns 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 Springfieid both in terms"of
procedure and cost. Until enactment of SB 417, the City's role in the annexatioh 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 BoundaryCommiss!on public hearings. FOllowing a
Boundary Commission approval, Boundary Commission staff would provide alft1\l$lltt:l Received
. necessary notifications, including Lane County Assessment and Taxation; Lanli"Ct'lIl'rty
Clerk; LCOG GIS; affected schools, utilities and other service providers; Secretary ,*matr5 200.'
. . tJl
Planner: BJ
-~-
. I
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 annexations therefore such an annexation is not
permitted by the proposed Code amendments1.
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 recognizes extra-territorial extension for purposes
of health hazard remediation or sirnply for service extension in the absence of a health
hazard. The former can be contingent upon annexation; the latter can occur through a
contract and consent to eventual annexation. The proposed Code amendments include
both circumstances but the non-health hazard circumstance is a local option; the Council
does not have to allow this service provision circumstance. The Metro Plan states that the
extension of any new urban service to unincorporated terntory can only occur through
annexation, contractual annexation, and annexation to an existing district, or creation of a
new district. (Chapter II-C, page 6).2 The draft ordinance is consistent with the.se Metro
Plan policies.
ORS 199 allowed for an expedited procedure which is essentially an approval of an
annexation within 25 days of submittal and without a public hearing. The expeclited
procedure is not included in the provisions of ORS 222 but t!1is-?h':"~,;e does n0t nreclud.,e. . tJor' J .
the Citv from nIlllliQinll such a process;\the draft ordinance recommends public' hearings for~ I.. t<<.".l
'all annexation applications but does include an exception to the hearing process for J/ ~ ~.
residences on an undividable lot where sanitary sewer is already available to the property. @.( "h(Y1
This provision canbe included or not at the Council's preference. \ l.u^ _O{~lt'"
Under Boundary Commission law, annexations were approved by the Bounda~ J- ",,1
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 ih 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. The draft
. ordinance does not speak to the 120 day timeline for processing but it does preserve
annexaJion a~ement~as a condition of approval.
The draft amendments to the Code were released for public review on November 13th,
seven days before the public hearing on the 20th The Planning Commission will be asked
to conduct a public hearing on the proposed Code amendments; consider public testimony \
as it applies to thes~endments; ~sider the "local option" provisions (those not
required by O~S 222) nd forward a recommendation to Council tor their cClTlsioeration .
during their public ring on December 3rd As was noted in footnote 2, consistency.with
the Metro Plan is relevant to those growth management policies.that do not include
10"..\
~
I oj <<4~oV'
1 Policy #12, Chapter Il-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 legisl~tion makes it imperative that the SDC amendment is i~ effect ormllllU:k Received
possible to amend the appropriate sections of the Metro Plan on such short notice and in any c~~~~ree
eJected bodies must adopt amendments to this section of the Metro Plan. . NOV U 5 200,]:1
Planner: BJ
..-:,"
provisions of ORS 199. Where references to the Boundary Commission or annexation
methods exclusive to the Boundary Commission or ORS 199 exist in the Metro Plan, these
Code amendments have no effect in as much as the Oregon Legislature has invalidated
those provisions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct a public hearing on .these proposed Code amendments, ~onsider public testimony
and findings, and forward a recommendation(s) to the City Council.
I
Attachments: 1. Staff Report and Findings in Support of Proposed Code Amendments
2. Planning Commission Final Recommendation
3. Proposed Code Amendments
Date Received
NUV u 5 200ff
Planner: BJ