LA GRANDE — The La Grande City Council voted against the city’s latest annexation phase.

The 4-2 decision against the plan came Wednesday, Jan. 8, during the packed La Grande City Council meeting as tensions were high.

City councilors held a second public hearing to discuss the possible annexation of 17 properties from the urban growth boundary into city limits. Property owners showed up en masse to speak against being brought into city limits and ultimately the council voted down the third — and final — phase of annexation.

“I don’t feel comfortable with this particular annexation,” Councilor David Glabe said.

Annexing properties from the urban growth boundary moved up the city’s priority list due to the long-range planning projects around future housing, commercial and industrial land needs, and demand for city sewer and water services, Community Development Director Mike Boquist said. Following a work session in October 2023, the council directed staff to create a three-phase annexation plan.

Phase one of the annexation plan was completed in January 2024 when councilors unanimously voted to annex 25 properties. These properties were contiguous to La Grande city limits, already received water or sewer services from the city and the property owners had signed a consent-to-annex agreement with La Grande.

Phase two wrapped up in August 2024 and annexed 50 islands on the north side of La Grande. While many of the properties received water or sewer services from the city, they did not have signed consent-to-annex agreements. A handful of property owners spoke in opposition to this phase of annexation, but ultimately the council voted to bring the properties into city limits.

Oregon law provides cities with a simplified mechanism to annex islands into city limits without requiring a signed consent-to-annex agreement or sending the matter to voters.

This third phase of annexation focused on islands on the south side of La Grande. These properties are not connected to city water or sewer services. Two land owners on Bonneville Lane were in a different situation from the rest of the land owners as their properties do not have direct frontage onto a city street and therefore do not have direct access to city water and sewer.

Boquist pointed out that water and sewer services are not the only benefit from annexation. Properties within the urban growth boundary can take advantage of city zoning and are provided land use opportunities not available within the county.

“And 11 of these properties have done that,” Boquist said. “So, the configuration that you see today, at least with 11 of those, is a result of the development opportunities that either the current or a prior property owner took advantage of.”

Many of the people the annexation would have affected spoke about the hardship the increase to their property taxes would bring — especially as many of them are on fixed incomes. They also felt they should not be penalized because of the choices of other property owners around them, which caused their properties to become islands.

Glabe recognized there are a number of perspectives the council needed to consider when deciding whether or not to move forward with the annexation. On one side there is the perspective of La Grande residents who pay the taxes that support the benefits these property owners can enjoy, such as road maintenance and access to city amenities.

On the other hand, he said, there are the property owners within the urban growth boundary who will feel the effects the most, and they came out to share why this will be a hardship.

“Personally I feel like this needs to be kicked down the road,” Glabe said. “You can’t forever allow these islands to stay within the city and discharge firearms — those are things that are inappropriate to do when you’re surrounded by city boundaries — but I don’t think I’m there.”

Councilors Mary Ann Miesner and Molly King shared similar sentiments. Miesner said she would never vote to force annexation.

Councilor Nicole Howard reminded her fellow councilors that Boquist put together these annexation phases at the council’s request.

“As we’ve moved along it’s become harder. This is the hardest decision we’ve had,” she said. “Nobody who has been before us for annexation has really desperately wanted it.”

Howard added there are some privileges these property owners are afforded since they are still within the county that she does not feel are appropriate given the geography.