Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments Miscellaneous 7/1/2008 " ,. Page 1 of4 L1MBIRD Andrew From: TAYLOR Paula L [PTAYLOR@lcog,org] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2006 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: BiII'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 su~section 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, THE TAXATION "EFFECTIVE DATES" ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE EFFECTIVE ,DA TE OF THE ORDINANCE. ,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? 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 wlien 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 Date r.'teceived: 7 /; /:J<X7 f Planner: AL -n 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. >>> "LIMBIRD Andrew" <alimbird@cLspringfield.or,us> 6/30/20085:02 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 Jim and Andy, Paula and I just got off the phone. The withdrawal authority is in OR5 222.524 in combination with OR5 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, afterthe 2nd reading and 30 day effective date requirement in ttie 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. >>> "LIMBIRD Andrew" <alimbird@cLspringfield,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 7/1/200S UO[(I fidCSived- Planner: AL 7/ /.JtJot , , Page 3 of4 Willakenzie Rural Fire District. What concerns me is Ij 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 propertie,s that are outside the City limits but inside the City's UGB, I'd iike to resolve this iss'ue, 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.coin] 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 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 filedwith'the Secretary of State. ORS 222.180 provides the effective date is the date the abstract is filed with the Sec. of State. 1t 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 havEC 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 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 1__.,1 i:-,><.;8iVeO' ' 7/!:wot Planner: AL Jim Page 4 of 4 Likewise a section in the ordaining part of the ordinance annexing,LCMWSD and Willamla~e (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 (OD017),to the County? 0 should the City carry ~~~~~ ., 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 ReceivecL..1//;Wo f Planner: AL I. Page 1 of4 ,'t.. 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: An'nexations effective daie 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 10-foot wide segment. For the southernmost of the two annexations (Galceran, 855 S, 57th Street, Tax Lot 200) staff are recommending a25- foot wide segment of right-of-way measured from the roadway centerline in addition to a 5400t 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 !,-ndy From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:24 AM To: 11MB1RD 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 Fin. 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. 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 Wi llama lane 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 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 three statutes on effective dates will let us do it. Date Fteceived' 7 /1 /~tlrJ Planner: AL I I 7/1/2008 Page 2 of 4 ~ Bill This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information belongir,g 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 thisemail 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 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> 6/30/20083:01 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 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 incrementai withdrawal of territory from rural districts upon annexation, Is this something we missed? In preparing the Oatt> t'{ei::eived:~btlll' Planner: AL ' 7/1/200S 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 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, LCMWSDand 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: LlMBIRD 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 general election and if it is it rolls to the day after the election. Theil 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 that it is also annexing LCMWSD and Willamalane and withdrawing Willakenzie RFD? Do we need one more section doing that? On the/ater, 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 7/1l200S Date ReceiVed:~/!J<1ol Plan!1er: AL " Page 4 of 4 '':'l 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 WillamaJane) 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 shbulMhe 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 OalE.1 r'<iilceived' -r,//:ft;Of Plan.ner: AL {:l Page 1 of3 ,.r~ '" 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. ,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 N6v 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 re;'isions, we will send you red lined 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 willsee 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. ' >>> "LlMBIRD 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: LlMBIRD Andrew Subject: RE: Annexations effective date 7/1/2008 Oo.t...1 /~0Geived: Planner: AL 7/ /;;<)0/ I 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 S, 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> 6/30/20083:01 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 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 LCOGstaff (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, ' 7/1/2008 " d: -;/1/;)001 Dat~ Receive .~ 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 :"ould 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 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 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 Fir~ 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 withGlenwood 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 a!1 copies of the original message. 7/1/2008 Date Received' Planner: AL 7jt /;JOIJ! :'..' " L1MBIRD Andrew From: TAYLOR Paula L [PTAYLOR@lcog,org] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:07 AM To: L1MBIRD Andrew: VANVACTOR. BiII'(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, Page 1 on Can someone remind me why an emergencyclausecan',t be used for these annexations? Wouldn't that make all of the a~nexations "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 conc~rns? Brenda - Can you confirm that the second reading date is confirmed as July 21 - two weeks after the public hearing? Thanks everyone! pt From: LIMBIRD Andrew [mailto:alimbird@ci.springfield.or.us] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 5:03 PM ' ' To: VANVACTOR 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 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 Jim and Andy, 7/1/2008 Date Received: i/:Wi? P - Planner: AL Page 2 00 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 gO 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 informationbelongirig 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.u~> 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 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: LIMBIRD Andrew; JONES Brenda; jdonvan@ci.springfield.or.us Cc: MOTT Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR Paula L Subject: Annexations effective date , Andy and Jim, 7/1/2008 , Date Received:. Planner: AL 7//J<70f , , Page 3 00 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 'ncitsure 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 ordit)ances. You both used the same effective date with a reference to SDC 5.7-155. Section A of that provision cites three statutes, ORS222.040 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. r , , , 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 witl1drawal 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 Lime County. Or do you just want to'besilent 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 (ODOD) to the County? 0 should the City carry that to ~~~ I' 'I hope I have not totally confused you, " Bill This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) a'nd contains information belonging to Leahy, Van V'lctor & 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' ~//;Pt? t Planner: AL '. " Page 1 of3 ., , L1MBIRD Andrew i, Fr~m: L1MBIRD Andrew Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 5:03 PM To; 'Bill Van Vactor' Cc; DONOVAN James; TAYLOR Paula L; BANKS 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 ""._~----=:;:;;,===..~.~-~..-~- "" From: Bill Van Vactor [mailto:BW@haroldleahy.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:25 PM ' To: LIMBIRD Andrew Subject: RE: Annexations effective date Jim and Andy, Paula and I just got off the phone'. The withdrawal authority is in OR5 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 effecti\(e until July 1,2009. Did Glenwood water and Wilakenzie Fire get a notice bf the withdrawal> Bill I 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> 6/30/20083:01 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 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 6/3012008 Date ttaceived: 1/Jo;oot Planner: AL Page 2 of3 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: t:'\onday, June 30, 2008 2:31 PM To: LIMBIRD Andrew; JONES Brenda; jdonvan@cLspringfield.or.us Cc: MaTI Gregory; LEAHY Joe (HL); TAYLOR pauJa 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 hi;lVe your annexation ordinances. You both used the same effective date with a reference to SDC s.7-iss. Section A of that provision cites three statutesi ORS 222.040 that provides that the date cannot be within gO days of a general election and if itis 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 w~s 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 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 a district boundary has to be processed by Lane County. Or do you just want to be silent on Willakenzie and cfirect the land owner to the County? Jim Date Received: GJo 0.-0;' . Planner: AL r 6/30/200S 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 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. " DatEI f{aCeived:~~O! Planner: AL 6/30/2008 Page 1 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 t 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 - they should be annexed to M WSD and Willamalane 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: 11MBIRD Andrew [mailto:alimbird@ci.springfield.or.us] , Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:01 PM To: VANVACfOR 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 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 C}ty 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, 6/30/2008 Date Received: 6ho/.20oJ" Planner: AL 17 Page 2 of3 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: LIMBIRD 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 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 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 grov-.:s? 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 fonn Glenwood water district? On the later, Glenwood water, we have agreements with LCtylWSD 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 Received: Planner: AL t/lo/.?oo? / /- - 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 Datel i~eceived: ?/~/d?0<7d Planner: AL j Page 1 of2 ~~! . L1MBIRD Andrew From: L1MBIRD Andrew Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:01 PM To: 'Bill Van Vactor'; JONES Brenda; DONOVAN James Cc: MaTT 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 arid Willamalime 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 properti~s 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 I, 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 gO 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) 6/30/200S Date Received: 61]0 ~otf./ Planner: AL / F Page 2 of2 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 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 a district boundary has to be processed by Lane County. Or do you just want to be silent on Willake.nzie 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 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 h'ave 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: 6/30/;v()?' Planner: AL 'I . / - {~ Page 1 of2 .) Ii , L1MBIRD Andrew From: DONOVAN James Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:01 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 firsj.J've heard of the County's request to freeze the LCMWSD boundary, I wouid 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 Molt, Bill, Jeff and/or Gino on ,the request. EFFECTIVE DATE: I had put "on or abo.ut 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 got the 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 Thismight 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@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 and Freeze the LCMWSD 6/30/2008 Date Received: Planner: AL fa /3<l /;MfJ! / / 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 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, 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 the ordinance annexing LCMWSD and Willamlane (unless it is already within the district which it might be for Willamalane) and withdrawing fonm 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 !l 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 (OD017) 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 infonmation 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. DmE' (-{sceived: 6 ;]0 1)P6 f Planner: AL -::.;; 6/30/2008 Page 1 of2 , L1MBIRD Andrew From: Bill Van Vactor [BW@haroldleahy,com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 20,08 2:31 PM To: L1MBIRD 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 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. ORS222.180 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 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 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 Will am lane (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 Glemivood water and direct the land owner (ODOTI) to the County? 0 should the City carry thatto the County.. I hope I have not totally confused you. Bill Date Received' 6hol/ ).Dot' Planner: AL I - 6/30/2008