Sample Only

City of Springfield, OR
Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Coordinated Planning and Urban Services

PARTIES:

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between WlLLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT, a special district of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as DISTRICT and THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as CITY.

RECITALS:

A. WHEREAS, ORS 190.003 et. seq. provides for intergovernmental cooperation in the interest of furthering economy and efficiency in local government;

B. WHEREAS, ORS 190.003 for purposes of such intergovernmental cooperation defines a unit of local government as including a city, district, or other public corporation, commission, authority, entity organized and existing under statute or city charter;

C. WHEREAS, ORS 190.003 et. seq. requires that units of local government that provide an urban service within an urban growth boundary shall enter into urban service agreements that specify the units of government that will deliver the service, set forth the functional role of each service provider, determine the future service area, and assign responsibilities for planning and coordination of services (SB 122, as introduced);

D. WHEREAS, ORS 197.175 requires cities to prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance statewide planning goals;

E. WHEREAS, ORS 197.185 (3) requires special districts operating within urban growth boundaries to enter into cooperative agreements with the appropriate city to coordinate their plans and programs with the acknowledged comprehensive plan covering the area within which the district lies (SB 122, as introduced);

F. WHEREAS, the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan, requires that the timing and location of urban development in the metropolitan area shall be based upon the current or imminent availability of a "minimum level of key urban services"; and the minimum level of key urban services includes parks and recreation programs;

G. WHEREAS, the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan requires that Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall involve affected local governments and other urban service providers in development of future, applicable Metro Area General Plan revisions,including amendments and updates;

H. WHEREAS, the Eugene - Springfield Metro Area General Plan requires special agencies and districts operating in the metropolitan area, Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County to provide one another the opportunity to review and comment on proposed public facilities, plans, programs, and public improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of responsibility;

I. WHEREAS, CITY is responsible for implementing the acknowledged Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan within the City of Springfield and adjacent urbanizing area; and

J. WHEREAS, the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan designates the CITY as the provider of urban services within its boundaries. However, the CITY does not provide park and recreation services to citizens within its boundaries,

K. WHEREAS, DISTRICT is responsible for providing park and recreational facilities and services in the City of Springfield and adjacent urbanizing area, including planning and coordinating the provision of these services with other urban services and planning, constructing and maintaining service facilities.

L. WHEREAS, the CITY and the DISTRICT are jointly and individually responsible for planning and for providing open space within the Springfield UGB.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:

AGREEMENTS CONCERNING EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION:

1. The DISTRICT and CITY will exchange planning related information:

   a. The CITY will provide available information concerning economic growth, building activity, and population trends and projections; location and characteristics of natural resources and hazards; planned transportation improvements; opportunities for joint development of sites; and availability of public services.

   b. The DISTRICT will provide information to the CITY concerning recreation needs, level of use, service capacity, new site acquisitions, transportation facility needs, availability of facilities for community use, and planned construction or closure of facilities.

2. The DISTRICT and CITY will consult with each other and consider the information provided by each other when planning for sites, facilities and services. In particular, the information will be taken into account when evaluating potential sites and whenplanning for the construction of new facilities, additions to existing facilities, and closure of facilities.

   AGREEMENTS CONCERNING PLANNING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

3. The DISTRICT and the CITY will strive to achieve a partnership in planning for the parks, recreation and open space needs of the City of Springfield and adjacent urbanizing area.

4. The DISTRICT is responsible for preparing, maintaining and updating a parks, recreation and open space plan for the area within its boundaries, including the City of Springfield and adjacent urbanizing area.

5. The CITY has the responsibility and authority to adopt the plan as a refinement or functional plan which adds greater detail and specific policies on park and recreation facilities and services to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan.

6. The DISTRICT has the responsibility to participate and CITY will provide opportunities for the DISTRICT to participate in the adoption and update of the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan and the amendment, update and periodic review of the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan and development and updates of refinement plans for the City of Springfield.

7. The CITY has the responsibility to participate and DISTRICT will provide opportunities tor the CITY to participate in the development and update of the parks, recreation and open space plan.

8. The CITY is responsible for the planning and maintenance of on street and off-street bikeways for the purpose of meeting transportation needs of the Springfield urban area. The DISTRICT is responsible for the planning and maintenance of off-street bikeways that meet recreation needs of the Springfield urban area. Both the CITY and DISTRICT will cooperate in the planning of a comprehensive bikeway system for the City of Springfield and adjacent urbanizing area.

9. The CITY will support the DISTRICT becoming an ax-officio member of the Metropolitan Planning Committee to better represent the mutual planning interests of the DISTRICT and CITY within the UGB.

   AGREEMENTS CONCERNING LAND USE ORDINANCES AND ACTIONS:

10. The CITY will give the DISTRICT the opportunity to actively participate in decisions on development proposals and implementing ordinances and programs relative to areas which are located in the Urban Growth Boundary and the boundaries of the DISTRICT prior to any city action. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "activelyparticipate" shall include the following:

    a. Where there is disagreement between CITY and DISTRICT staff regarding proposed functional or refinement plans concerning parks, recreation and open space in the City of Springfield and the urbanizing area, minority reports may be requested to be included in adoption presentations to the City Council, Planning Commission, and the DISTRICT Board of Directors.

    b. During the periodic review or update of the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan, the DISTRICT shall take the lead in the review and update for functional or refinement plans for parks, recreation, and open space authored by the DISTRICT. In this regard, the DISTRICT will assist the CITY in the latter's responsibilities under Statewide Planning Goals #5 and #8 by providing staff to the CITY, not to exceed one (1) full time equivalent (FTE).

    c. The DISTRICT shall be encouraged to be an active participant in the Development Review Committee. In this regard, the DISTRICT staff representative to the Committee shall acquire more in-depth knowledge of the Springfield Development Code, the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan and state statutes governing the local land use planning process and shall consistently attend Committee meetings.

    d. The DISTRICT shall be encouraged to develop code amendments to clarify and implement their objectives where they find the Springfield Development Code inadequate to fully implement adopted DISTRICT goals, objectives and policies.

    e. The CITY's Planning Division staff will work with DISTRICT staff in a collaborative manner, within the context of the state-mandated land use planning framework to achieve the best solutions to the community's parks, recreation and open space needs. Planning Division staff will assist the DISTRICT in scheduling, facilitating and participating in work sessions to inform or educate the Springfield Planning Commission regarding DISTRICT issues.

    f. The DISTRICT shall have the opportunity to actively participate in decisions on development proposals and implementing ordinances and programs which may include but not be limited to

    (1). amendments to land use ordinances;
    (2). subdivisions and major partitions;
    (3). planned unit developments at the diagrammatic and preliminary stages;
    (4). zone changes that might lead to the residential development of five or more single-family detached dwelling units or ten or more multi-family dwelling units;
    (5). public improvement projects that are not a direct consequence of items a-e; and
    (6). annexations of two or more acres of land.

11. The DISTRICT will give the CITY the opportunity to actively participate in decisions on DISTRICT programs and actions that affect land use prior to action by the DISTRICT's Board of Directors and prior to formal application for city approval, which may include but not be limited to:

    a. new facility construction;
    b. expansion or reduction of capacity of existing facilities;
    c. facility closures;
    d. leasing of district facilities;
    e. changes in use of facilities to other than park and recreation purposes;
    f. changes in district boundaries; and
    g. joint use agreements with other districts or organizations.

12. The DISTRICT and CITY shall ensure mutual notice necessary to reasonably implement Sections 10 and 11 of the AGREEMENTS portion of this Agreement.

13. The DISTRICT and CITY will act expeditiously in response to notice so as to not to unnecessarily delay action by the other. The CITY may proceed with land use actions in the absence of DISTRICT response to notice to satisfy mandated time frames for making local land use decisions.

14. The CITY and DISTRICT will include in any staff report the expressed concerns of the other on issues identified in Sections 10 and 11 so that the decision-making bodies are aware of these concerns.

15. The CITY and DISTRICT will each designate staff members to receive notices and to serve as liaison to each other and provide prompt response to review requests.

16. The CITY will make the DISTRICT a member of the Development Review Committee, including participation in all decisions affecting parks, recreation facilities, pathways, bikeways and open space.

    AGREEMENTS CONCERNING URBAN SERVICES:

17. The CITY is designated as the appropriate general services provider to citizens residing within its boundaries in the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan. The CITY recognizes the DISTRICT as service provider for parks, recreation and public open space for the residents of the City of Springfield and its urbanizing area.

18. The CITY and DISTRICT may enter into intergovernmental agreements to share responsibility for providing certain park and recreational services, including planning, constructing, maintaining service facilities.

19. Consistent with the Growth Management policies of Section Il-B of the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan, the CITY and DISTRICT will coordinate activities in the development and implementation of annexation proposals and annexation plans, including development of annexation plans authorized by state law.

20. The CITY and DISTRICT will work together to identify and implement additional ways to finance preservation of open space, acquisition of needed sites, and construction and maintenance of facilities.

21. In accordance with the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan, upon annexation of areas to the CITY, the DISTRICT shall assume responsibility to provide park and recreation services to the annexed area.

22. This agreement serves as a prerequisite for the preparation and adoption of an annexation plan as authorized by HB 2217 (as introduced and amended).

    AGREEMENTS CONCERNING REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT

23. The parties will meet to negotiate resolution of problems or conflicts concerning interpretation or implementation of the terms of this agreement. If parties agree, a neutral third party may be used to help facilitate the negotiations.

24. This Agreement may be amended by written application from one party to the other, and written concurrence by the responding party. Amendments shall be ratified by each governing body or delegated signatory, and made part of this agreement.

25. The parties shall jointly review this Agreement at least every three (3) years from the date of signing thereof, to evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to propose any necessary amendments. The results of the evaluation and any proposed amendments will be reviewed with each governing body.

26. This Agreement commences immediately and will automatically renew every year unless terminated by one party giving the other party sixty (60) days written notice of intent to terminate. Not less than thirty (30) days in advance of termination date, the parties will meet to discuss the reasons for termination.

DATED this day of ___________, 1993.

City of Springfield Willamalane Park and Recreation District

Springfield/Willamalane Coordination Agreement
A History of Negotiation and Development

Participants

The task force on the City of Springfield - Willamalane Park & Recreation District Coordination Agreement project met ten times between October 30, 1992 and June 28, 1993. Normal participants included Susan Daluddung, Director of Springfield's Development Services Division; Gino Grimaldi. Assistant Springfield City Manager, David Reed and Bob Duey, Willamalane Park and Recreation District; Steve Barrett and George Fisher, Springfield School District 19; and Gary Darnielle and Peter Watt, Lane Council of Governments

Negotiation History

This review will focus most closely on the agreement between the City and the Park District. There was a parallel but less contentious negotiation between City and School District Also, seeds for agreement between School District and Park District were planted and communications are proceeding in this area.

Initial meetings concentrated upon reviewing the objectives of the task group and trying to identify the legal and policy framework for coordination between the two agencies. These firstmeetings also focused upon ground rules for the on-going discussions and the process for communication of the project to the participant's respective Board and Council.

In an attempt to help formulate the objectives of the task group, group members agreed to identify existing coordination agreements that they shared and attempted to list coordination topics and issues. By the December 11, 1992 meeting of the task force, a preliminary list of coordination issues and topics had been drafted. This List was refined and integrated into a discussion of common goals and interests of the participating organizations.

By the January meeting, L-COG had provided sample agreement language on planning coordination. This document was reviewed in the context of the language of legislation on coordination agreements and the identification of planning activities of common interest

As the meetings progressed into the Spring, items on the list of coordination issues and topics were identified for possible inclusion into the draft coordination agreement . As the coordination agreements took shape, they were exposed to internal review by the respective participant's staff and legal counsel.

Issues and Issue Resolution

During last month, it became apparent that the District and the City were farther apart on some fundamental issues than thought. Most of the emphasis was on the clarification of roles and responsibilities and making language more specific so there was less room for interpretation. Much of this discussion focused upon differentiating between ultimate land use authority and land use responsibility.

Some of the major issues were as follows:

1. Both parties wished for a clear statement of planning responsibilities. For instance, the City was interested in having the document clearly state that the ultimate responsibility of land use decision making rested with the City. Recitals "F' through "J" expound upon the preeminence of the Metro Plan and make it clear that the City is responsible for implementing that Plan. The

   City Attorney was also concerned about language that could be interpreted to force the City to adopt the District's Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Agreements "5" and "6" were recrafted to make it clear that the City is ultimately authority for adopting the PROS Plan as a refinement to the Metro Plan but is not necessarily responsible for adopting the Plan in the form adopted by the District

   On the other side of this issue, the District was concerned that the Metro Plan policy (Growth Management Policy #17, pg. II-B-6) that recognizes the ultimate dissolution of special districts within the urban growth boundary did not apply to the District. With this concern inmind District staff requested that language in the Agreement reflect the unique situation where the District was the acknowledged provider of an urban service. Recitals "J" through "L" acknowledged this situation.

   The District was also concerned about areas of overlapping authority, as with the provision of open space. Thus, Recital "L" points out the joint and individual responsibility of the two organizations in this area. Responsibility for the planning and maintenance of bikeways was also an issue, and Agreement "8" delineates how this responsibility is divided.

2. A second major issue involved the level of detail with which the Coordination Agreement would provide in regard to assuring that "coordination" did occur. The District staff had indicated that in areas of joint responsibility, they wished greater status than that of an "interested party." The touchstone of this debate was the discussion of how definitive the Coordination Agreement's language should be in ensuring that the District would be able to "actively participate" in decisions on development proposals and implementing ordinances. The District felt that the mere notice of a list of land use decision opportunities was not sufficient.

   The resulting changes to the Draft Coordination Agreement resulted in (1) the City agreeing that its planning staff would work with District staff in a "collaborative manner" (Agreement 10.e); (2) a listing of decisions in which the District could actively participate (Agreement 10.f); the designation of liaison staff (Agreement 15); and the formal placement of the District on the City's Development Review Committee (Agreement 16).

3. The District also felt that they were appropriate advocates of park recreation and open space planning in the Metro area, not just at the local (Springfield) level but also at the metropolitan level. Accordingly, the City supported the District's appointment as an ax-officio member of the Metropolitan Policy Committee in Agreement"9" of the Coordination Agreement. Recognizing that participation in the periodic review and update of the Metro Plan was essential to "coordinative planning," the District has pledged up to one FTE of staff assistance to the City for review and update of functional or refinement plans dealing with parks, recreation and open space (Agreement 10.b.)

4. District was concerned about participation in annexation study and ability of City to force District to annex territory through its (former) annexation. The draft Coordination Agreement was amended to add provisions that indicated that it would serve as a "prerequisite" for the preparation and adoption of a annexation plan (Agreement 22) and that the City and the District would coordinate in the development of the annexation plan (Agreement 19).

5. Finally, the City was concerned that the District's "active participation" in land use planning decisions be both consistent and knowledgeable. In that regard, the Coordination Agreement makes it clear that District staff who participate on the Development Review Committee shall acquire a knowledge of the regulations applied by that Committee, shall consistently attend the Committee meetings (Agreement 10.c.), and shall develop theirown code amendments to implement the District's "goals, objectives and policies" (Agreement 10.c).

   Because of summer vacation schedules and adjournment of governing bodies during the month of August, the adoption process of the Coordination Agreement has been targeted to begin in September. It is expected that final adoption should occur by the end of October.