Monmouth council approves one-time UGB land swap to add 75 net acres, remove 90

Monmouth — The Monmouth City Council on April 7 approved a one-time urban growth boundary land exchange authorized by House Bill 2647, voting 4–2 to remove 90 acres from the city’s UGB and add about 75 net acres in two locations to expand the city’s supply of land suitable for housing. Councilor Lopez moved the measure and Councilor McKiel seconded it.

Suzanne Duffner, Monmouth’s community and economic development director, told the council the swap would remove a 90-acre parcel that is bisected by the South Fork Ash Creek and replace it with roughly 75 acres that staff judges to be more developable and better connected to existing city utilities. “This is a follow-up report to the public hearing. There are two pieces: the UGB land exchange authorized by House Bill 2647 and a legislative amendment to apply comprehensive plan map designations to the properties we propose to bring into the UGB,” Duffner said during her presentation.

The council’s decision implements a narrowly written state authorization enacted to help cities with constrained residential land supplies. Duffner said state law (the House bill and the earlier Senate Bill 1537) provides a targeted path for a land swap when a city can demonstrate a shortage of serviceable lots and meet criteria including contiguity, adequate facilities or planned facilities, compatibility with surrounding land use, and that the swap would result in a net reduction of UGB acreage. Staff said the proposal would shrink Monmouth’s UGB by about 15 acres overall (removing 90 acres, adding 75) while directing new residential designations to parcels better suited to development.

The staff report and presentation noted the city has fewer than a dozen immediately serviceable lots and has fallen short of the roughly 60 new dwellings per year the city’s housing forecasts indicate are needed. Duffner and the city’s public works director explained that the parcels proposed to come into the UGB are closer to water and sewer lines and would be less expensive for developers to serve than the 90-acre parcel being removed, which would likely require additional sewer pumping infrastructure.

Public commenters addressed both sides of the trade-off. Priscilla Cannon urged that a council member who submitted testimony to the legislature recuse himself, arguing that earlier advocacy showed bias; Councilor Oers replied that he had submitted written testimony but had not attended at the legislature in person. John McCarthy and others criticized the pace and content of outreach to neighbors and stressed protection of farmland. “I would therefore request that this councilman … recuse himself,” Cannon said during public comment. The council and staff discussed those allegations on the record; the council’s final vote did not include any recusal.

Legal counsel and outside counsel said the contiguity question had been discussed with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and was not a barrier to the proposal. Staff said DLCD and Polk County review and approval remain required after the city’s decision. Greg Gold, an attorney in the room, told the council he raised the contiguity issue with DLCD and that the agency viewed contiguity as a non-issue in the circumstances described by staff.

After extended deliberations about public engagement, farmland preservation, infrastructure costs and housing need, Councilor Lopez moved to approve the two decisions — the HB 2647 UGB land exchange and the legislative amendment (25-02) applying comprehensive plan map designations to the incoming parcels — and direct staff to prepare an ordinance to formally adopt them. The council recorder called roll; the motion passed 4–2 with votes recorded in favor by Councelor Ourst, Councelor McKil, Councelor Kerry and Councelor Lopez, and no votes from Councelor Belts and Councelor Rididgeway.

The council’s action directs staff to draft an ordinance implementing the swap and to coordinate required findings and next steps with Polk County and DLCD. Duffner told the council that any future development on the newly added parcels will still require detailed environmental, wetland and traffic studies, and that developers would be responsible for infrastructure costs and mitigation.

City Manager Michelle Anderson later reported federal advocacy progress: Representative Selenus had included a $5 million capital allocation for a regional water treatment plant on her project list for the next session.

The council action begins a multi-step implementation process: staff will prepare the ordinance and coordinate with Polk County and DLCD for their review and approvals. The decision is authorized by HB 2647 and uses the limited pathway provided by SB 1537, but will not itself exempt the city from future development permitting, environmental review or required mitigation.

What happens next: staff will draft the implementing ordinance and coordinate required county and state reviews. Any developer proposals for parcels that enter the UGB must still complete site-specific environmental, wetland, stormwater and traffic analyses and secure applicable permits before construction.

(Reporting note: Names and roles in this account follow what persons stated on the record during the April 7 meeting.)