Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 7/1/2008 Page I ofl L1MBIRD Andrew From: L1MBIRD Andrew Sent: ' Tuesday, July 01, 20084:38 PM To: 'Bill Van Vactor' Cc: 'Lorelei Kyllonen'; TAYLOR Paula L; DONOVAN James; JONES Brenda Subject: Edited Ordinances Attachments: galceran annexation ordinance-revised. doc; mccown annexation ordinance-revised.doc As we discussed, I have made the edits to the attached Ordinances for your review, formatting, and Final Stamp of Approval. Thanks Andy , Date Received:ij4:k>O~' Planner: AL . , / 7/1/2008, L1MBIRD Andrew , From: Sent: To: Cc; Subject: DONOVAN James Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:58 AM , TAYLOR Paula L; L1MBIRD Andrew; JONES Brenda BANKS Megan H; BW@haroldleahy.com; TOWERY Jeffrey; SOWA Amy MEETING TO FINISH THE AIS REVISIONS FOR CMO! FYI Everyone: We will be using PT's property descriptions, with a map to show the property. PT, Do we need a map exhibit with the matching dimensions or can we use one of our stock maps from the AIS with your description? ' .' (In reference to your previous question, the map exhibits on AIS are requested by City Council as standard information) And, after adding to the tangled web, it strikes me, WHOAH!!! Given the ordinance language, the emergency clause discussion and the number of email strings circulating I am cOmpelled to call an express meeting of the minds to resolve all these issues at the table and have this wrapped up f~r review and printing by tomorrow. Andy and I are meeting with BW at 1 :30 at his office to close some loops. We would love to have PT/MB join us if possible! Conference call??? -I have no doubts we can slay this dragon, but not by email strings;-) Thanks to all for their work and patience, JD From: TAYLOR Paula L [mailto:PTAYLOR@lcog.org] Sent: Monday, June 30, 200BA: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 10 Hof S57th 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: 54,-682-4425 1 Date r~eceived; 7/; /:;u;rtJ f, Planner: AL I / , Page I of4 -,.,. L1MBIRD Andrew . From: TAYLOR Paula L[PTAYLOR@lcog.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:45 AM To: VANVACTOR Bill (HL); L1MBIRD Andrew Cc: Lorelei Kyllonen; DONOVAN James; BANKS Megan H; JONES Brenda Subject: RE: Annexations effective date . From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:24 AM, . To: LIMBIRD Andrew Cc: Lorelei Kyllonen; TAYLOR Paula L Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Andy and Jim I just got Paula's email after editing the ordinances and preparing this memo. To keep from getting too confused, I will incorporate Paula's suggestions on the next round of edits. Both your resolutions refer to a subsection F in SDC chapter 5, I cannot find that, am I missing something? HERE'S THE CITATION: SDC 5.1-140 Subsection F Is the effective date of Nov, 5, 2008 what was planned? Will the city start providing services at that time. i.e. for the bridge annexation, will the city police will start enforcing no panhandling on that date? UNTIL WORKING ON THE STAFF REPORT AND CALCULATING THE EFFECTIVE DATE, THE NOVEMBER DELAY BECAME APPARENT. What effective date do you want for Willamalane and the city to start services? Again is Nov 5 the right date? With regard to Willakenzie, tax wise it is not effective'until July 1, 2009. Is that when the city takes over fire protection or did you expect Nov. 5, 2008? .. QUESTION: IF THE ORDINANCE IS NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL NOVEMBER 5,DOES THE CITY HAVE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES UNTIL THEN? THE ANNEXA TIONS/WITHDRA W ALS WILL NOT BE REFLECTED ON THE TAX ROLLS . UNTIL NEXT TAXING CYCLE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FILED WITH THE DOR BY MARCH 31, 2008. THETAXATION "EFFECTIVE DATES" ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE. Also, the second resolution refers to a modified territory, but it see~ed like only the fist one had a change. Again .did I miss something? TWO OF THE ANNEXATIONS ARE BEING MODIFIED - GALCERAN AND 57TH ST PROP LLC - TO ADD R/W. BOTH ORDINANCES SHOULD REFLECT MODIFICATION LANGUAGE. FRANKLIN BLVD WILL HOPEFULLY BE APPROVED, AS SUBMITTED.. So in a few minutes when Lorelei finishes the draft revisions, we will send you redlined versions of each resolution with some effective dates typed in but it is possible that they could be changed. Please look at the 7/1/2008 D?t€l Received: I It / ,Mot' . Planner: AL ' / Page 2 of 4 changes and make sure it was everyone is expecting and or suggest a change and we will see if one of those three statutes on effective dates will let us do it. ' 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. >>> "UMBIRD Andrew" <alimbird@ci.springfield.or.us> 6/30/2008 5:02 PM >>> Bill: Yes, Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection District and Glenwood Water District were notified of all three annexations. Andy From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:25 PM To: UMBIRD Andrew Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Jim and Andy, . Paula and I just got off the phone. The withdrawal authority is in OR5222.524 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 tothe 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 a~y action in reliance on the contents of this email information is strictly prohibited. If you have received thiser'nail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email' and destroy all copies of the original message.. . >>> "UMBIRD Andrew" <alimbird@ci.springfield.or.us> 6/30/20083:01 PM >>> 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 and withdrawing the territories from the 7/1 h008 Date Received' ~j; /;;.dJ,f Planner: AL / . Page 3 of4 "," 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 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 hefore 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 S.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 jf it is it rolls to the day after the election. Then it says for purposes of ORS 308.22S (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? 7/1/2008 Date r~eceived: ~/ /:;.oof Planner: AL ,:~ Jim Page 4 of 4 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 (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 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. 7/1/2008 Date ReCejVed:~/ 8-o0f _ Planner: AL ' , " , Page I of4 ! L1MBIRD Andrew', From: L1MBIRD Andrew Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:42 AM To: 'Bill Van Vactor' Cc: TAYLOR Paula L; DONOVAN James; BANKS Megan H Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Bill: To the best of my knowledge, November 5 will be the effective date of the annexations on South 57th Street. If an emergency clause is recommended for the Glenwood Bridge annexation, then I suggest it is used for all three annexations. . Staff are recommending that both property annexations on South 57th Street incorporate a portion of South 57th Street right-of-way - for the northernmost (725 S. 57th Street, Tax Lot 4600) it is a 1 O"foot wide segment. For the southernmost of the two annexations (Galceran, 855 S, 57th Street, Tax Lot 200) staff are recommending a 25- foot wide segment of right-of-way measured from the roadway centerline in addition.to a 5-foot wide segment that is included in the legal description. For this reason, both ordinances should contain references to a modified annexation territory. I hope this clarifies things on my,,end. Thanks Andy From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:24 AM To: UMBIRD Andrew Cc: Lorelei Kyllonen; TAYLOR Paula L Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Andy and Jim I just got Paula's email after editing the ordinances and preparing this memo. To keep from getting too confused, I will incorporate Paula's suggestions on the next round of edits. Both your resolutions refer to a subsection F in 5DC chapter 5, I cannot find that, am I missing something? Is the effective date of Nov, 5, 2008 what was planned? Will the city start providing services at that time. i.e. for the bridge annexation, will the city police will start enforcing no panhandling on that date? . . What effective date do you want for Willamalane and the city to start services? Again is Nov 5 the right date? With regard to Willakenzie, tax wise it is not effective until July 1, 2009. Is that when the city takes over fire protection or did you expect Nov. 5, 2008? Also, the second resolution refers to a modified territory, but it seemed like only the fist one had a change. Again did I miss sOrT]ething? So in a few minutes when Lorelei finishes the draft revisions, we will send you redlined versions of each resolution with some effective dates typed in buUt is possible that they could be changed. Please look at the changes and make sure it was everyone is expecting and or suggest a change and we will see if one of those three statutes on effective dates will let us do it. 7/1/2008 Date f'~eceived' 7/'f'OOd" Planner: AL Page 2 of 4 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. >>> "UMBIRD Andrew" <alimbird@cLspringfield.or.us> 6/30/2008 5:02 PM >>> Bill: Yes, Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection District and Glenwood Water District were notified of all three annexations. Andy From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:25 PM To: UMBIRD 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 eff~ct. (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. >>> "UMBIRD 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 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 7/1 /2008 Dat~ Received:-':;/; / ~t',./ Planner: AL . . Page 3 of4 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 rurai 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: UMBIRD Andrew; JONES Brenda; jdonvan@cLspringfield.or.us Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR PaulaL 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, 2008.1 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 riot 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 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 7/1/2008 Date Received' Planner: AL 7;; /;}-eIO cf I I Page 4 of 4 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 Wi llama lane tei 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? OthelWise 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 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. , 7/1/2008 Date Received: Planner: AL 7!/J1;iJ! L1MBIRD Andrew From: Sent: To: Subject: Lorelei Kyllonen [LLK@haroldleahy.com] Tuesday, July01,200810:33AM L1MBIRD Andrew; DONOVAN James; PTaylor@lane.cog.or.us Ordinances Attachments: AIS City Council FrankBlvd7-7-08.doc; mCCQwn annexation'ordinance.doc; galceran annexation ordinance. doc . IJ~. ''''''''=, ,<..,"', ~ ~ ~ 'Us City Council mccown galceran FrankBlvd7-7-...cation ordinancexation ordinam Attached and sending per Bill Van Vactor's request. Lorelei ******************************************************************************.************ ******************** This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient'(s) and contains information belonging to Leahy, Van Vactor and Cox, LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended re'cipient, you 'are hereby notified that' any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail.information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error 1 please inunediately 'notify the, sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 1 Date Heceived: 7/1;;-00" Planner: AL Page I of3 I. L1MBIRD Andrew From: Bill Van Vactor [BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:24 AM To: L1MBIRD Andrew Cc: Lorelei Kyllonen; TAYLOR Paula L Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Andy and Jim I just got Paula's email after editing the ordinances and preparing this memo. To keep from getting too confused, I will incorporate Paula's suggestions on the next round of edits. Both your resolutions refer to a subsection F in SDC chapter 5, I cannot find that, am I missing something? Is the effective date of Nov, 5, 2008 what was planned? Will the city start providing services at that time. f.e. for the bridge annexation, will the city police will start enforcing no panhandling on that date? What effective date do you want for Willamalane andthe city to start services? Again is Nov 5 the right date? With regard to Willakenzie, tax wise it is not effective until July 1, 2009. Is that when the city takes over fire protection or did you expect Nov. 5, 2008? Also, the second resolution refers to a modified territory, but it seemed like only the fist one had a change. Again did I miss something? So in a few minutes when Lorelei finishes the draft revisions, we will send you redlined versions of each resolution with some effective dates typed in but it is possible that they could be changed. Please look at the changes and make sure it was everyone is expecting and or suggest a change and we will see if one of those . th ree statutes on effective dates will let us do it. ' 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. >>> "LIMBIRD Andrew" <alimbird@Ci.springfield.or.us> 6/30/2008 5:02 PM >>> Bill:. Yes, Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection District and Glenwood Water District were notified of all three annexations. Andy From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:25.PM . To: LIMBIRD Andrew Subject: RE: Annexations effective date 7/1/2008 Date Heceived' ihooJ' Planner: AL /. Page 2 of3 , 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. >>> "UMBIRD 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 annexation ofthe 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 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.spfingfield.or.us . Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR Paula L ' Subject: Annexations effective date Andy and Jim, 7/1/2008 l-; ......:....1 ~: :~;...'....-t;;ived' Planner: AL i!~Of Page 3 of3 , . 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 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,)uly 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 o~ 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 LCMWSDand 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 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 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. 7/1/2008 Date Received: 7 It/I /;n;I7!f Planner: AL I / Here are new sections for, the ordinanc,e regarding the concurrent annexations and withdrawals. SECTION~. The Common Council ofthe City of Springfield does hereby approve the annexation of territory to the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District and the Willamalane Park and Recreation District consistent with SDC 5.7-140(B) and City policy v:rOmE:Itliisjisfief~t€fiCe':tofthe0IGt..;1[~l!li.tEre'a;ibetteifwayit00t'efefefice,it:;>,1, said territory being described as follows: ' Township 18 South, Range 02 West, Section 04, Map 14, Tax Lot 200 (also identified as 855 S 57th Street, Springfield) and 30 feet of South 57th Street, as generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit A of this Ordinance. SECTION:,.. The Common Council ofthe City of Springfield does hereby approve the withdrawal of territory from the Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection District consistent with SDC 5.7-140(8), ORS 222.120, and 222.524, said territory being described as follows: Township 18 South, Range 02 West, Section 04, Map 14, Tax Lot 200 (also identified as 855 South 57th Street, Springfield) and 30 feet of South 57th Street, as generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit A of this Ordinance. Here is new language for Section 3 describing the various dates for calculating the effective date for the three annexations. Some or all of it could be added to the ordinance so that it is clear how the various dates collide. SECTION 3. A second reading of the Ordinance occurred on July 21, 2008. Consistent with SDC Chapter 5 Subsection F, the Ordinance was effective 30 days' after the second reading; in this case August 20, 2008. Consistent with SDC 5.7-l55(A) and ORS 222.040, the effective date was delayed until November 5, 2008-the day after the November general election. Ua[(1 i.'<eceived: Y j.?C7t?.f Planner: AL Page I 00 " L1MBIRD Andrew From: TAYLOR Paula L [PTAYLOR@lcog.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:07 AM , To: L1MBIRD Andrew; VANVACTOR Bill (HL) , Cc: DONOVAN James; BANKS Megan H; JONES Brenda Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Importance: High Attachments: new sections for ordinances 7-1-08.doc For. your review, attached is some draft language addressing the concurrent annexations/withdrawals and the Ordinance effective dates. Can someone remind me why an emergency clause can't be used for these annexations? Wouldn't that make all of the annexations"effective" after the second reading; The taxation issue that Bill references below will apply to these annexations no matter what. . , . . If the council doesn't feel comfortable with using an emergency clause on all three, what about the Franklin Boulevard one - since it's about public safety concerns? Brenda - Can you confirm that the second reading date is confirmed as July 21 - two weeks after the public hearing? Thanks everyone! pt From: UMBIRD Andrew [mailto:alimbird@ci.springfield.or.us] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 5:03 PM To: VANVAcrOR Bill (HL) . Cc: DONOVAN James; TAYLOR Paula L; BANKS Megan H; JONES Brenda . Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Bill: Yes, Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection District ana .Glenwood Water District were notified of all three. annexations. ' Andy From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Monday, June 30,2008 3:25 PM To: UMBIRD Andrew Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Jim and Andy, ,..,.. .e';' -r f / ~f)t l..-"';~...I ,...~\,.;t;:;IV u.; /. Planner: AL 7/1/2008 Page 2 of3 Paula and I just got o.ff the phone. The withdrawal authority' is in ORS.222.S24 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: lam 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 & LifeSafety 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 Wjllamalane (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, 20082:31 PM ' To: LlMBIRD Andrew; JONES Brenda; jdonvan@ci.springfield.or.us Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR Paula L Subject: Annex.ations effective date Andy and Jim, 7/1/2008 uaw/ i.(0G0iveu:-:;i;/.Job' I Planner: AL Page 3 of3 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 thre~ 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 the date the abstract is filed with the Secretary of State. . OR5 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 Co~nty. 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 later, Glenwood water, we have a'greements with LCMW5D and Wi llama lane 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 Glenw90d water and direct the land owner (ODOn) 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, 7/1/2008 Date Received; r/,}-&o p Planner: AL Here are new sections for the, ordinance regarding the concurrent annexations and withdrawals. SECTION _' The Common Council of the City of Springfield does hereby approve the annexation ofterritory to the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District and the Willamalane Park and Recreation District consistent with SDC 5.7-140(B) and City policy fNOX,E:{t!l7S!lsrreferencefto,tllelI@:A:i?isttlleretatbe~r!?~iJ.ytto reference'it?J, said territory being described as follows: Township 18 South, Range 02 West, Sectiqn 04, Map 14, Tax Lot 200 (also identified as 855 S 57th Street, Springfield) and 30 feet of South 57th Street, as generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit A of this Ordinance. ( SECTION _' The Common Council of the City of Springfield does hereby approve the withdrawal of territory from the Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection District consistent with SDC 5.7-l40(B), ORS 222.120, and 222.524, said territory being described as follows: Township 18 South, Range 02 West, Section 04, Map 14, Tax Lot 200 (also identified as 855 South 57th Street, Springfield) and 30 f"et of South 57th Street, as generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit A of this Ordinance. . , Here is new language for Section 3 describing the various dates for calculating the effective date for the three annexations. Some or all of it could be added to the ordinance so that it is clear how the various dates 'collide. . SECTION 3. A.second reading of the Ordinance occurred on July 21, 2008. Consistent with SDC Chapter 5 Subsection F, the Ordinance was effective 30 days after the second reading; in this case August 20, 2008. Consistent withSDC 5.7-155(A) and ORS 222.040, the effective date was delayed until November 5, 2008-the. day after the November general election. " I Jukl[(0COived:4/,;1e>oJ> .PI~!1ner: Al I .