Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 12/17/2007 . +~ Page 1 of 1 r ~ "" ,. JONES Brenda From: MOTT Gregory Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 4:30 PM To: JONES Brenda Subject: FW: ANNEXATION AMENDMENT DRAFT (2) ditto From: Ritter, Jerry [mailto:jerry.ritter@weyerhaeuser.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:44 AM To: 'MOTT Gregory Subject: RE: ANNEXATION AMENDMENT DRAFT (2) Thanks Greg. From what I heard last night I didn't see any red flags. My comment regarding ORS 222 not being the only game in town referred specifically to. ORS-195, which Springfield was looking at using back in 1994 right after that statute was codified. You'll recall that raised a bit of an uproar. We changed the objectionable portions of that law via HB 2484 in 2005 and so would no longer be opposed to it being included as an option. Portland Metro cities are limited by statute (ORS 368) to using 222 to annex new territory and have been trying - unsuccessfully so far - to get that limitation thrown out. Again; we (north UGB) appreciate the fact that Springfield has not pursued the aggressive annexation policy recommended in the Metro Plan. It's made for 12 years of peace. As I was reading the staff report I noticed the presupposed conclusions right away, and you mentioned these in your presentation. While I understand the purpose, I'd like to suggest that presupposed conclusions not be included in future staff reports. The BC staff routinely did that and the commission always reached the presupposed conclusions. That's one reason why they've been booted. Again, I sympathize with you over the extra work this has caused, but the blame is squarely on the BC and its staff. Thanks again for all the communications. Jerry From: MOTT Gregory [mailto:gmott@ci.springfield.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:08 PM To: Ritter, Jerry Subject: ANNEXATION AMENDMENT DRAFT (2) Jerry, I've been working feverishly to compensate 'for the for the errors and omissions we've made trying to get this document to press (and hearing) in time to be effe~ive by 1/1/08. Anyway, I started reviewing this yesterday, and asked Paula to do likewise, and between us we came up with the changes that appear in bold italics. I consider most of these to be clarifications of requirements, definitions and. catch-all changes, but of course that is my opinion and in this day and age a statement like that usually is sufficient ammo to incite a flurry of oppositional or at least different opinions. Anyway, I will identify each of these changes during my presentation and give a brief explanation of their purpose. The remainder of my presentation will be to relate the contents of this proposal to ORS and blame it all on SB 417. Good luck. gmott . Date Received DEe 1 7 \{iciji' Planner: BJ 12/18/2007