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