Oregon Communities

For a Voice In Annexations

Promoting and Protecting Citizen Involvement in Land Use Issues



  Home
  About OCVA
Mission & history
Officers & board
Member cities
  Issues and initiatives
Voting on annexations
ORS 195 annexations
SDC reform
Controlling growth
SLAPP suits
  Newsletters
  Alerts
  Join OCVA!
  OCVA in the news
  Resources
Links
Documents
Articles
Legislative scorecards
  Member services
Change address
Alert list
  Contact us
 

2005-09-07 Alert

Update

GOVERNOR SIGNS SB 887B

As expected, Governor Kulongoski has signed SB 887B. As far as we know, he did not use his line item veto authority to delete Section 3 which conflicts with the language of HB 2484. Section 3 removes city voters from ORS-195 annexation elections. We lobbied hard to get a veto of at least this section because it makes absolutely no sense. Of even greater concern to our member communities is the apparent means this gives our communities to circumvent their voter annexation laws. But the League wanted it because, by their reasoning, city voters always vote in favor of ORS-195 annexations (true so far) and so election costs can be reduced by allowing only those in the target area vote. We strongly opposed this section because we think city voters should always have a voice in annexation decisions - just not the ONLY voice.

ORS-195 is rarely used. Furthermore, the League rep advised me that their attorneys have assured them that cities with voter annexation charter amendments will still have to abide by those provisions. Earlier, they said we were only "raising a cloud of dust" over our expressed concern that Section 3 could invalidate our voter annexation amendments if VA cities chose to start annexing via ORS 195. During the next 2 years (until January 2008 when most provisions of SB 887B sunset) we will see if these assurances hold water. PLEASE LET US KNOW IMMEDIATELY IF YOUR CITY USES THIS EXCUSE TO CIRCUMVENT ITS VA CHARTER AMENDMENT.

You're all familiar with the other provisions of the bill, but here is a recap:

A) Nike and 3 other big businesses get long-term immunity from forced annexations. Nobody else gets this protection. Yet another example of money and influence trumping common sense and fairness.

B) Beaverton can't forcibly annex anyone for 2 years. But Beaverton officials earlier this year - perhaps resigned to the probability that their overly-aggressive annexation policy was going to get reined in - announced that they aren't planning to do any more forced annexing during the next couple years, but they have major annexations planned after that. So this provision really helps nobody long term.

C) The annexation task force and work group are formed to make recommendations to the 2007 Legislature on annexation reform. We'll see who is invited to participate other than the League and the development lobbies. It will become very clear by the membership selection how serious the Legislature is about this group's assignment and about its chances of coming up with any meaningful and workable ideas. We have been OK with the idea of a diverse work group to look at annexation issues since the concept first arose during the HB 2484 debates - provided that there is balanced and adequate representation.

So we get one provision that makes no sense, one that is grossly unfair, one that is virtually meaningless and one that could possibly produce a beneficial result. As to the question of which law (SB 887 or HB 2484) will apply to ORS-195 annexation votes - since the 2 bills directly conflict with each other - Legislative Counsel explained to us that 887 would prevail until sunset, then 2484 prevails thereafter. Either way, the goal of stopping forced annexation via ORS-195 is realized.

IN OTHER NEWS:

Citizens in MT. ANGEL have been successful in placing a voter annexation measure on their Sept. ballot. They got their signatures in less than a week. OCVA has been providing advice and assistance.

GRANTS PASS is planning to annex a large chunk of territory via what city officials say is the "triple majority" method (if OK with 50% of the landowners who own 50% of the land area which accounts for 50% of the assessed value, then no vote of anyone else necessary). We have been advised by one public entity that this method (see ORS 222.170) was declared unconstitutional, but have been unable to confirm. Citizens who would be forcibly annexed under the proposal understandably want to be able to vote on it. OCVA is working with our GP chapter reps and others to try to make that happen.

We have also been assisting citizens' groups in SCIO, OAKRIDGE and LINCOLN CITY on annexation matters. It never seems to let up. We'll try to get a session wrap-up newsletter out shortly.

Jerry Ritter
Secretary, OCVA

Return to the Alerts archive

This page last modified on 2005-11-16 08:29.



 
Google