On Thursday the 4th of June our Tri City Citizens Alliance Board Members met with County Commissioner Susan Morgan, and Planning Director Keith Cubic to discuss the issue of annexation. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Susan for facilitating the meeting, and just as importantly, thank her and Keith Cubic, both for the professional presentation of the laws governing the issues surrounding annexation, and the support they are giving in their capacity as public officials in meeting the needs of concerned citizens.

Keith provided to the board an outstanding packet of information, including a fifty page informational booklet of material, that we as citizens, just couldn't have come up with on our own. I believe that the research that he's done on our behalf will prove invaluable to our efforts. Your hard work is appreciated Keith.

The meeting itself lasted for well over an hour, and a number of issues were discussed, with a free flow of questions and answers exchanged between all those attending. Two issues in particular that were discussed at length, should be noted:

 First, the informational booklet that Keith researched and put together for us contained an agreement from 1991, that the Myrtle Creek City Council is clearly obligated to honor. It spells out that Tri City would not be surrounded by Myrtle Creek. Listed here is the pertinent excerpt from the 1991 document that spells out Myrtle Creek's obligations.

Document: Memorandum to STAFF REPORT for the Board of Commissioners September 25, 1991 hearing to consider Amendments to the Myrtle Creek Comprehensive Plan.

“Annexation

The residents of Tri City are also concerned about the possibility of being annexed by Myrtle Creek. At the Town Hall Meeting held on April 23, 1991, County staff explained the annexation process. Most of those attending the meeting left with the understanding that annexation is primarily a matter of property owner choice. Although some annexations can occur without property owner consent (for “health hazards” and “encirclement”), those types of situations would be rare in the Tri City area due to the presence of a public sewer system and the physical relationship of Tri City relative to Myrtle Creek (i.e. Tri City won’t be surrounded by Myrtle Creek).”

Due to the recent vote by the Myrtle Creek City Council seeking the interest level from Tri City commercial land owners, and the near complete encirclement of the Klimback Street area, and property adjacent to the airport on the river side of North Old Pacific Hwy., I feel that the terms of the 1991 agreement are being violated. The board should bring this matter to the attention of Myrtle Creek’s City Council, so that it can be addressed. Perhaps they have simple forgotten about their past commitments to the people of Tri City, and would welcome an opportunity to set things right again.

Secondly, the board was informed during the meeting held by Susan Morgan and Keith Cubic that a local ballot measure would certainly be an option. By getting a ballot measure on the November elections we could seek to be removed from the Urban Growth Boundary, stop any further annexations, and even roll back the last annexation of highway 99 out to the old red barn.

There are of course a number of hoops that we'll have to jump through in order to get the measure on the ballot, but it's defiantly achievable. It was pointed out to us, the measure itself would form the basis of an 'advisory' measure, guiding local public policy. Though not binding in itself, the measure could prove crucial in enabling our elected leaders to better serve the interests of the people.

Finally, I wonder if now isn't the time that our board should sit down with Myrtle Creek’s City Council and begin negotiating the language of a ballot measure so that we can get it prepared for the November elections? Susan has demonstrated a remarkable feat in getting the board up to snuff regarding the laws of annexation, perhaps with a little willingness on each of our parts, she might be able to get the council and board together in the same room. Who knows, maybe some of these issues could be ironed out, and in doing so save us all a lot of work. I think we are all aware that a local ballot measure seeking relief from annexation would be a foregone conclusion, but if our County Commissioners can help us work this out between us and Myrtle Creek, then maybe it isn’t necessary to go through all that.

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that our County Commissioners facilitate a meeting between our board and Myrtle Creek’s City Council.

Mark Garcia