Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 6/30/2008 s L1MBIRD Andrew From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: L1MBIRD Andrew . Monday, June 30, 2008 5:05 PM TAYLOR Paula L DONOVAN James RE: Legals Paula: I think for the benefit of our City Council, and for those that will read the recorded documents in the future, that the full tex1 version should be appended to the reports. I will "expand" the legal descriptions for the staff report versions and call you if there are shorthand notations that I can't figure out. Thanks ' Andy From: TAYLOR Paula L [mailto:PTAYLOR@lcog.org] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:4S PM To: UMBIRD Andrew; DONOVAN James; JONES Brenda Cc: BANKS Megan H . Subject: Legals Here are the legals for the three annexations. <<File: Galcem 19l.doc>> (with 30 ft of S57th St r/w) <<File: 57th St Prop LLC 19l.doc>> (with lOft'ofS57th St r/w) <<File: Franklin Blvd 19l.doc>> You will notice that the legals are in a sort of short-hand language that is appreciated by those who will be reading the legals. You need not feel compelled to make complete sentences by spelling out all of the words - we like them short and simple. Paula Taylor, Principal Planner lane Council of Governments Phone, 541-682-4425 Fa" 54,-682-2635 1 .' iJ~;(" i'oct:lIVed' 6/31;zoo,f Planner: AL ., Page I of3 ~ L1MBIRD Andrew From: L1MBIRD Andrew Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 5;03 PM To: 'Bill Van Vactor'. Cc: DONOVAN James; TAYLOR Paula L; BA~KS Megan H; JONES Brenda Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Bill: Yes, Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection District and Glenwood Water District were notified of all three annexations. Andy r~~=,""_..___.__.._ -~~~---- _.. ..~~__ ___.__~~,~~_______ ...._'W_WH.. ~M..._ , From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:25 PM To: LlMBIRD Andrew Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Jim and Andy, Paula and I just got off the phone. The withdrawal authority is in ORS 222.524 in combination with ORS 222.120 so we are ok on that issue although we should add a recital to that effect. (keep in mind it only works for certain districts)' . . Paula and I agree an additional section under the ordaining section spelling out the annexations/withdrawals needs to be added. As to the effective date being Nov 5,2008 I must have missed that. Is that correct for all three ordinances? I assume that is that date because, after the 2nd reading and 30 day effective date requirement in the charter, we end up within 90 days of general and therefore the effective date is the day after the election. However for tax purposes it is not effective until July 1,2009. Did Glenwood water and Wilakenzie Fire get a notice of the withdrawal> Bill This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information belonging to Leahy, Van Vactor & Cox, LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 'any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this email information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. >>> "LlMBIRD Andrew" <alimbird@ci.springfield.or.us> 6/30/2008 3:01 PM >>> \ Bill: I am fine with adding another Section to the concluding statements in the Ordinances describing the anne,xation of the territories to the LCMWSD and Willamalane and withdrawing the territories from the Willakenzie Rurai Fire District. What concerns me is I have always assumed - perhaps erroneously - that the City's existing IGA between Springfield Fire & Life Safety and rural fire districts provides for incremental withdrawal of territory from rural districts upon annexation, Is this something we missed? In preparing the 6/30/2008 Date Received: . Planner: AL (,/Jokot / / Page 2 of3 I: applications with LCOG staff (formerly of the Boundary Commission) there wasn't any discussion about the rural fire districts because the City is the provider of Fire & Life Safety services inside the City limits. Additionally, it is my understanding Springfield Fire & Life Safety is contracted by the rural fire districts to provide emergency response services to properties that are outside the City limits but inside the City's UGB. I'd like to resolve this issue, hopefully without sending 'our applicants to the County for payment of additional fees and enduring an.unknown timeline for withdrawal from another service district. They have patiently awaited the execution of IGAs between the City, LCMWSD and Willamalane (completed last month) so this would come as an unwelcome surprise and delay. Paula, any comment from the APs? Andy From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:31 PM To: 11MBIRD Andrew; JONES Brenda; jdonvan@ci.springfield.or.us Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR Paula L Subject: Annexations effective date Andy and Jim, I learned late last week that Lane County is requesting Springfield to join with them and Freeze the LCMWSD boundaries to wherever they are on August 1, 2008. I am not sure why they picked that date or whether we can even get this to the Council before they take their August recess. They are suggesting that we not process any LCMWSD boundary changes that would become effective alter that date. In the mean time I have your annexation ordinances. You both used the same effective date with a reference to SDC 5.7-155. Section A of that provision cites three statutes, ORS 222.040 that provides that the date cannot . be within 90 days of a general election and if it is it rolls to the day alter the election. Then it says for purposes of ORS 308.225 (property tax purposes) the date is the date the abstract is filed with the Secretary of State. ORS 222.180 provides the effective date is the date the abstract is filed with the Sec. of State. It then adds you can specify an effective date up to 10 years in the future. Finally ORS 222.465 provides the date of withdrawal for domestic water districts is, if alter March 31, July 1 of the next calendar year. (if before April 1, then it can be effective July 1 of the same calendar year) . So, with all of this being said. What was you intent or, planned effective date? What date makes the most sense? Now specific questions; Andy, Should we also have the council ordain that it is also annexing LCMWSD arid Willamalane and withdrawing Willakenzie RFD? Do we need one more section doing that? On the later, Willakenzie Rural Fire District, we have agreements with LCMWSD and Wi llama lane to take this action, do we have such an agreement with Willakenzie RFPD or a plan provision that calls for automatic withdrawal as the city grows? Otherwise I think this action on ci district boundary has to be processed by Lane County. Or do you just want to be silent on Willakenzie and direct the land owner to the County? Jim Date Received: {, 1)/0 ;{;t>DO Planner: AL ! . 6/30/2008 , Page 3 of3 Likewise a section in the'ordaining part of the ordinance annexing LCMWSD and Willamlane (unless it is already within the district which it might be for Willamalane) and withdrawing form Glenwood water district? On the later, Glenwood water, we have agreements with LCMWSD and Willamalane to take this action, do we have such an agreement with Glenwood Water or a plan provision that calls for automatic withdrawal as the city grows? Otherwise I think this action on a district boundary has to be processed by Lane County. Or do you just want to be silent on Glenwood water and direct the land owner (ODOTI) to the County? 0 should the City carry that to the Cou nty. I hope I have not totally confused you. Bill This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information belonging to Leahy, Van Vactor & Cox, LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this email information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 6/30/2008 Date Received' Planner: AL to/la/:ZOM' I I L1MBIRD Andrew From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: TAYLOR Paula L[PTAYLOR@lcog.org] Monday, ~une 30, 20084;45 PM , ' L1MBIRD Andrew; DONOVAN:James; JONES Brenda BANKS Megan H . Legals Galcern Igl.doc; 57th St Prop Lic IgLdoc; Franklin Blvd Igl.doc " I Attachments: Here are the legals for the three annexations. f!!l.....~.~ E2J Galcern Igl.doc (28 KB) (with 30 ft of S57th St r/w) ~ 57th 51 Prop .c Igl.doc (24 K, ' . (with 10 ft of S57th St r/w) ~ Franklin Blvd Igl.doc (28 KB) You will notice that the legals are in a sort of short-hand language that is appreciated by those who will be reading the legals. You need not feel compelled to make complete sentences by spelling out all of the words - we like them short and simple. . Paula Taylor, Principal Planner Lane Council of Governments Phone: 542-682-4425 Fax: 542-682-2635 'I: 1 . Date Received' 6!3tJ 4do Planner: AL '- I /- Note: Legal Description (TL 4600 andS 57th Street) Beg at a pt in the cent of Co. Rd No. 452 (aka South 57th Street), sd POB being on the W Ii DLC No. 61 TI8S R02W WM 1,580.00 ft N of the SW cor thereof; th due E 20.00 ft to an iron pipe on the edge ofthe Co Rd r/w;th due E 374.40 ft to an iron pipe; th N35035'W 298.00 ft to an iron pipe; th due W 206.90 ft to an iron pipe on the edge of Co Rd r/w; th due W 20.00 ft to the c/li of CoRd No. 452; th due S alg the c/li of sd Co Rd and the W Ii ofDLC No. 61 235.00 ft to the POB, in Lane County, Oregon. ~~~n~~~~~ed: ~/3J1S~~ Page I of3 , L1MBIRD Andrew From: TAYLOR Paula L [PTAYLOR@lcog.org] Sent: Monday, June 30, 20084;34 PM To: L1MBIRD Andrew; VANVACTOR Bill (HL); JONES Brenda; DONOVAN James Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); BANKS Megan H Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Everyone. Bill and I talked earlier this afternoon and covered the issues he raised in his e-mail. The discussion by the county regarding the LCMWSD should not impact these annexations - th'ey should be annexed to MWSD and Wi llama lane as outlined in the staff report and IGA. The withdrawals associated with each annexation are governed solely . by ORS 222 (not the current IGAs that deal with service provision like the Willakenzie/Springfield IGA). Bill will recommend ordaining language so that the associated withdrawals and annexations are.addressed clearly and with applicable legal references. He may have other'suggested changes due to the fact that he is an attorney after all. The withdrawal from a water district authorized by ORS 222 and can be done concurrently with the city annexation. ORS 222.465 sets the effective date of the withdrawal. The ordinance language regarding the water district withdrawal can also reference this statute or it can specify the effective date. If we are heading in the direction of more providing more specific dates regarding the ordinance, we can also include the specific date for the water district withdrawal effective date. ORS 222.465 does not apply to fire district withdrawals. pt From: UMBIRD Andrew [mailto:alimbird@ci.springfield.or.us] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:01 PM To: VANVACTOR Bill (HL); JONES Brenda; DONOVAN James Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR Paula L; BANKS Megan H Subject: RE: Annexations effective date ' Bill; I am fine with adding another Section to the concluding statements in the ordinances describing the annexation of the territories to the LCMWSD and Willamalane ~nd withdrawing the territories from the Willakenzie Rural Fire District. What concerns me is I have always assumed - perhaps erroneously - that the City's existing IGA between Springfield Fire & Life Safety and rural fire districts provides for incremental withdrawal of territory from rural districts upon annexation, Is this something we missed? In preparing the applications with LCOG staff (formerly of the Boundary Commission) there wasn't any discussion about the rural fire districts because the City is'the provider of Fire & Life Safety services inside the City limits. Additionally, it is my understanding Springfield Fire & Life Safety is contracted by the rural fire districts to provide emergency response services to properties. that are outside the City limits but insidif' the City's UGB. 6/30/2008 Dab) i"iaceived' o/f0-00,f Planner: AL Page 2 of3 I'd like to resolve this issue; hopefully without sendingrour applicants ,to the County for payment of additional fees and enduring an unknown timeline for withdrawal from another service district. They have patiently awaited the execution of IGAs between the City, LCMWSD and Willamalane (completed last month) so this would come as . an unwelcome surprise and delay. Paula, any comment from the APs? Andy From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:31 PM To: UMBIRD Andrew; JONES Brenda; jdonvan@ci.springfield.or.us Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR Paula L Subject: Annexations effective date Andy and Jim, I learned late last week that Lane County is requesting Springfield to join with them and Freeze the.LCMWSD boundaries to wherever they are on August 1, 2008. I am not sure why they picked that date or whether we can even get this to the Council before they take their August recess. They are suggesting that we not process any LCMWSD boundary changes that would become effective after that date. In the mean time I have your annexation ordinances. You 'both used the same effective date with a reference to SDC 5.7-155. Section A of that provision cites three statutes, ORS 222.040 that provides that the date cannot be within 90 days of a genera( election and if it is it rolls to the day after the election. Then it says for purposes of ORS 308.225 (property tax purposes) the date is the date the abstract is filed with the Secretary of State. ORS 222.180 provides the effective date is the date the abstract is filed with the Sec. of State. It then adds you can specify an effective date up to 10 years in the future. Finally ORS 222.465 provides the date of withdrawal for domestic water districts is, if after March 31, July 1 of the next calendar year. (if before April 1, then it can be effective July 1 of the same calendar year) So, with all of this being said. What was you intent or, planned effective date? What date makes the most sense? Now specific questions; Andy, Should we also have the coundl ordain'that it is also annexing lCMWSD and Willamalane and withdrawing Willakeniie RFD? Do we need one more section'doing that? On the later, Willakenzie Rural Fire District, we have agreements with LCMWSD and Willamalane to take this action, do we have such an agreement with Willakenzie RFPD or a plan provision that calls for automatic withdrawal as the city grows? Otherwise I think this action on a district boundary, has to be processed by Lane County. Or do you just want to be silent on Willakenzie and direct the land owner to the County? Jim Likewise a section in the ordaining part of the ordinance annexing LCMWSD and Willamlane (unless it is already within the district which it might be for Willamalane) and withdrawing form Glenwood water district? On the fater, Glenwood water, we have agreements with LCMWSD and Willamalane to take this action, do we have such an agreement with Glenwood Water or a plan provision that calls for automatic withdrawal as the city grows? otherwise I think this action on a district boundary has to be processed by Lane County. Or do you just want to 6/30/2008 Date Heceived: {, 13r;kJO I Planner: AL / Page 3 of3 be silent on Glenwood water and direct the land owner (ODOT?) to the County? 0 should the City carry that to the County. I hope I have not totally confused you. Bill This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information belonging to Leahy, Van Vactor & Cox, LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this email information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 6/30/2008 Date Received: t/3f,)<N?f Planner: AL ~ Page I of2 L1MBIRD Andrew From: L1MBIRD Andrew Sent: Monday, June 30,20083:01 PM To: 'Bill Van Vactor'; JONES Brenda; DONOVAN James Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR Paula L; BANKS Megan H Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Bill: f am fine with adding another Section to the concluding statements in the ordinances describing the annexation of the territories to the LCMWSD and Willamalane and withdrawing the territories from the Willakenzie Rural Fire District What concerns me is I have always assumed - perhaps erroneously - that the City's existing IGA between Springfield Fire & Life Safety and rural fire districts provides for incremental withdrawal of territory from rural districts upon annexation. Is this something we missed? In preparing the applications with LCOG staff (formerly of the Boundary Commission) there wasn't any discussion about the rural fire districts because the City is the provider of Fire & Life Safety services inside the City limits. Additionally, it is my understanding Springfield Fire & Life Safety is contracted by the rural fire districts to provide emergency response services to properties that are outside the City limits but inside the City's UGB. I'd like to resolve this issue, hopefully without sending our applicants to the County for payment of additional fees and enduring an unknown timeline for withdrawal from another service district They have patiently awaited the execution of IGAsbetween the City,'LCMWSD and Willamalane (completed last month) so this would come as an unwelcome surprise and delay. Paula, any comment from the APs? Andy From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:31 PM To: LIMBIRD Andrew; JONES Brenda; jdonvan@cLspringfield.or.us . Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR Paula L Subject: Annexations effective date ' Andy and Jim, I learned'late last week that Lane County is requesting Springfield to join with them.andHeeze the LCMWSD boundaries to wherever they are on August 1, 2008. I am not sure why they picked that date or whether we can even get this to the Council before they take their August recess. They are suggesting that we not process any LCMWSD boundary changes that would become effective after that date. In the mean time I have your annexation ordinances. You both used the same effective date with a reference to SDC 5.7-155. Section A of that provision cites three statutes, ORS 222.040 that provides that the date cannot be within 90 days of a general election and if it is it rolls to the day after the election. Then it says for purposes , of ORS 308.225 (property tax purposes) the date is ttie date the abstract is filed with the Secretary of State. ORS 222.180 provides the effective date is the date the abstract is filed with the Sec. of State. It then adds you can specify an effective date up to 10 years in the future. FinallY ORS 222.465 provides the date of withdrawal for domestic water districts is, if after March 31, July 1 of the next calendar year. (if before April 1, then it can be effective July 1 of the same 'calendar year) 6/30/2008 Date Received:~hrtlo f , Planner: AL . . Page 2 of2 So, with aU of this being said. What was.you intent or planned effective date? What date makes the most sense? Now specific questions; ) Andy, Should we also have the council ordain that it is also annexing LCMWSD and Willamalane and withdrawing Willakenzie RFD? Do we need one more section doing that? On the later, Willakenzie Rural Fire District, we have agreements with LCMW5D and Willamalane to take this action, do we have such an agreement with Willakenzie RFPD or a plan provision that Calls for automatic withdrawal as the city grows? Otherwise I think this action on a district boundary has to be processed by Lane County. Or do you just want to be silent on Willakenzie and direct the landowner to the County? Jim Likewise a section in the ordaining part of the ordinance annexing LCMWSD and Willamlane (unless it is already within the district which it might be for Willamalane) and withdrawing form Glenwood water district? On the later, Glenwood water, we have agreements with LCMWSD and Willamalane to take this action, do we have such an agreement with Glenwood Water or a plan provision that calls for automatic withdrawal as the city grows? Otherwise I think this action .on a district boundary has to be processed by Lane County. Or do you just want to be silent on Glenwood water and direct the land owner (ODOT?) to the County? 0 should the City carry that to ~~~ . I hope I have not totally confused you. Bill This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information belonging to Leahy, Van Vactor & Cox, LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this email information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. , 6/30/2008 Datq Received:o/1()h<>C'/ Planner: AL / - Page I of2 .; L1MBIRD Andrew From: DONOVAN James Sent: Monday, June 30,20083:01 PM To: L1MBIRD Andrew; JONES Brenda; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR Paula L; BW@haroldleahy.com Cc: MOTT Gregory Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Thanks for the review Bill, lets see..... REQUEST: This is the first I'Ve heard of the County's request to freeze the LCMWSD boundary. J would like more information on that issue before I respond but my initial reaction is that boat has sailed on these three applications if its just a request. Please respond so Paula and I can advise Moll, Bill, Jeff and/or Gino on the request. EFFECTIVE DATE: I had put "on or about November 5, 2008" (the day after the election prohibition) as the date that we would send the approvals off to the secretary of state. ORDINANCE- WATER: I need PT's help and history on this one. I think we were still anticipating one more round of withdrawals manually and anticipating working on an agreement after we goUhe process up and running. . PT???? Respectfully, JD From: UMBIRD Andrew Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:44 PM To: DONOVAN James Subject: FW: Annexations effective date This might not have reached you due to the email address typo.. From: Bill Van Vactor. [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:31 PM ., To: UMBIRD Andrew; JONES Brenda; jdonvan@ci.springfield.or.us Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR Paula L . Subject: Annexations effective date Andy and Jim, I learned late last week that Lane County is requesting Springfield to join with them and Freeze the LCMWSD 6/30/2008 Qate Received: ~/J~/B()(J,r Planner: AL Page 2 of2 boundaries to wherever they are on August 1, 2008. I 'am not sure why they picked that date or whether we can even get this to the Council before they take their August recess. They are suggesting that we not process any LCMWSD boundarY changes that would become effective after that date. In the mean time I have your annexation ordinances. You both used the same effective date with a reference to SDC 5.7-155. Section A of that provision cites three statutes, ORS 222.040 that provides that the date cannot be V>{ithin 90 days of a general election and if it is it rolls to the day after the election. Then it says for purposes of ORS 308.225 (property tax purposes) the date is the date the abstract is filed with the Secretary of State. . ORS 222.180 provides the effective date is the date the abstract is filed with the Sec. of State. It then adds you can specify an effective date up to 10 years in the future. Finally ORS 222.465 provides the date of withdrawal for domestic water districts is, if after March 31, July 1 of the next calendar year. (if before April 1, then it can be effective July 1 of the same calendar year) So, with all of this being said. What was you intent or planned effective date? What date makes the most sense? Now specific questions; Andy, Should we also have the council ordain ttiat it is also annexing LCMWSD and Willamalane arid withdrawing Willakenzie RFD? Do we need one more section doing that? On the later, Willakenzie Rural Fire District, we have agreements with LCMWSD and Willamalane to take this action~ do we have such an agreement with Willakenzie RFPD or a plan provision that calls for automatic withdrawal as,the city grows? Otherwise I think this action on a district boundary has to be processed by Lime County. Or do you just want to be silent on Willakenzie and direct the land owner to the County? Jim Likewise a section in the ordaining part of the ordinance annexing LCMWSD and Willamlane (unless it is already within the district which it might be for Willamalane) and withdrawing form Glenwoodwater district? On the later, Glenwood water, we have agreements with LCMWSD and Willamalane to take this action, do we have such an agreement with Glenwood Water or a plan provision that calls for automatic withdrawal as the city grows? Otherwise I think this action on a district boundary has to be processed by Lane County. Or do you just want to be silent on Glenwood water and direct the land owner (ODOD) to the County? 0 should the City carry that to the County. I hope I have not totally confused you. Bill This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information belonging to Leahy, Van Vactor & Cox, LLP which is confidential and/or legally priilileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking. of any action in reliance on the contents of this email information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 6/30/2008 Date Received' 00/';>00 f Planner: AL / , ., " Page I of2 L1MBIRD Andrew From: Sill Van Vactor [SW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Monday, June 30,20082:31 PM To: L1MSIRD Andrew; JONES Brenda; jdonvan@ci.springfield.orus Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR Paula L Subject: Annexations effective date Andy and Jim, I learned late last week that Lane County is requesting Springfield to join with them and Freeze the LCMWSD boundaries to wherever they are on August 1, 2008. ;I am not sure why they picked that date or whether we can even get this to the Council before'they take their August recess. They are suggesting that we not process any LCMWSD, boundary changes that would become effective after that date. In the mean time I have your annexation ordinances. You both used the same effective date with a reference to SDC 5.7-155. Section A of that provision cites three statutes, ORS 222.040 that provides that the date cannot be within 90 days of a general election and if it is it rolls to the day after ttie election. Then it says for purposes of ORS 308.225 (property tax purposes) the date is the date the abstract is filed with the Secretary of State. ORS 222.180 provides the effective date is the date the abstract is filed with.the See. of State. It then adds you can specify an effective date up to 10 years in the future. . , Finally ORS 222.465 provides the date of withdrawal for domestic water districts is, if after March 31, July 1 of the next calendar year. (if before April 1, then it can be effective July 1 of the same calendar year) So, with all of this being said. What was you intent or. planned effective date? What date makes the most sense? Now specific questions; Andy, Should we also have the council ordain that it is also annexing LCMWSD and Willamalane and withdrawing Willakenzie RFD? Do we need one more section doing that? On the later, Willakenzie Rural Fire District, we have agreements with LCMWSD and Willamalane to take this action, do we have such an agreement with Willakenzie RFPD or a plan provision that calls for automatic withdrawal as the city grows? Otherwise I think this 'action on a district boundary has to be processed by Lane County.Or.do you just want to be silent on Willakenzie and direct the land owner to the County? Jim Likewise a section in the ordaining part of ttie ordinance annexing LCMWSD and Willamlane (unless it is already within tHe district which it might be for Willamalane) and withdrawing form Glenwood water district? On the later, Glenwood water, we have agreements with LCMWSD and Willamalane to take this action, do we have such an agreement with Glenwood Water or a plan provision that calls for automatic withdrawal as the city grows? Otherwise I think this action on a district boundary has to be processed by Lane County. Or do you just want to be silent on Glenwood water and direct the land owner (ODOTI) to the County? 0 should the City carry that to the Cou nty. I hope I have not totally confused you.. Bill 6/30/2008 , Date Received: 6j3tJhot!f _ Planner: AL f , Page lof3 c L1MBIRD Andrew From: TAYLOR Paula L [PTAYLOR@lcog.org] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 1 :33 PM To: JONES Brenda; L1MBIRD Andrew Subject: FW: Annexations on July 7 FYI. From: DONOVAN James [mailto:jdonovan@cLspringfield.or.us] Sent: Monday,June 30, 2008 1: 18 PM To: TAYLOR Paula L . Subject: RE: Annexations on July 7 Thanks PPT, JD From: TAYLOR Paula L [mailto:PTAYLOR@lcog.org] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008"10:28 AM To: DONOVAN James Cc: BANKS Megan H Subject: RE: Annexati'ons on )uly 7 My legal answer (even though I'm not an attorney) is that the Orqinance should be mailed after it is officially effective (which will eliminate errors in premature processing by filing agencies) and because the city doesn't have legal authority until the annexation is effective. Having said that, the city could accept development applications as long they they did not become effective until after the effective date of the annexation. The city could also begin to provide some services, however, city rules/laws would not yet apply. The election delay impacts all annexations ~ even public right-of-way. Yet another impact of the SB417 change. pt From: DONOVAN James [mailto:jdonovan@cLspringfield.or.us] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 12:57 PM To: TAYLOR Paula L Subject: RE: Annexations onJuly 7 Can we do that? What if it's a public right of way? JD ' From: TAYLOR Paula L [mailto:PTAYLOR@lcog.org] 6/30/2008 Date Received' h/30/.2OCJf', ,. Planner: AL I " I . .. Page 2 of3 Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 12:08 PM To: DONOVAN James; UMBIRDAndrew; LEAHY Joe (HL) , Cc: BANKS Megan H; JONES Brenda Subject: RE: Annexations on July 7 Short answer - Once the Ordinance is effective, it will be mailed as required by SDC 5.7 and ORS 222. I believe that Brenda is planni'ng to be in charge of the Ordinance mailings and other notices required by ORS 222 (e.g., public utilities, etc.). And, of course, we (The Princesses) are here to help. I also think that these annexations will be delayed by the November election and technically won't be effective until November 5. What I don't know right now is will the city want to send the Ordinance after #3 below or wait until November. Also, will the city accept development applications for these annexation (or start providing service) prior to the November effective date?' . From: DONOVAN James [mailto:jdonovan@ci.springfield.or.us] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:37 AM ' To: TAYLOR,Pa'ula L; LlMBIRD Andrew; LEAHY Joe (HL) Subject: FW: Annexations on July 7 Princesses, Please review and give a short answer to #4 so I can get back to Amy Sowa in CMO: I. Yes they have been noticed as public hearings. 2. Ordinance, first reading, hearing and action requested, second reading moved to consent calendar and signing at the nex1 meeting. 3. As an ordinance, 30 days from second reading ,(consent calendar) and signing. 4. Follow up steps on notices, etc. PT??? From: SOWA Amy Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:29 AM To: DONOVAN James Cc: JONES Brenda Subject: Annexations on July 7 Jim, Some questions came up during Agenda Review yesterday about the Annexations scheduled on July 7 (an all future annexations). I should probably know the answers to some of these, but just want to be sure. I. Will they all be noticed as public hearings? 2. Is the annexation approval by resolution or ordinance? So would council take action that night? 3. Is.there a waiting period from the time Council approves the annexation until it is in affect? 4. What are the nex1 steps following Council approval? . Thanks, Amy Amy Sowa 6/30/2008 Date Recei~ed: ~/3i0tf)J' Planner: AL L1MBIRD Andrew From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: . TAYLOR Paula L [PTAYLOR@lcog.org] Monday, June 30, 2008 11 :56 AM L1MBIRD Andrew JONES Brenda; BANKS Megan H Staff Report Hi Andy, If you haven't sent them to Megan already, could be get copies of the final Staff Reports on Galceran and 57th St Prop LLC? Thanks. pt Paula Taylor, Principal Planner Liine Council of Governments Phone: 541-682-4425 Fax: 541-682-2635 1 Date Received: t/lo/;;-ootf' Planner: AL 7 ~I u