Champaign City Council passed an ordinance Tuesday approving an annexation agreement between the city of Champaign and

The Atkins Group.

The nearly 600-acre piece of land has been zoned to allow for residences, medical services, offices, retail and park land.

The annexation was originally slotted to allow for the construction of an ethanol plant. The Atkins Group challenged that decision in September, saying an ethanol plant would put the city’s water supply at risk due to its close proximity to the Mahomet Aquifer.

The City Council later conceded to the recommendation of the Atkins Group and cut the ethanol plant out of the plan.

Bill Glithero, a Champaign resident, said he was a little disturbed by the concession of the city council, saying that the city has been too “chummy” with outside recommendations.

“Our city staff is becoming a little too agreeable with city businesses,” Glithero said. “I’d like to see (the council) take a harder line with them.”

Champaign Councilman At-large Tom Bruno said signing agreements like this are important for Champaign, as they encourage growth and investment in the city.

“Such a significant annexation agreement provides so much positive economical benefit for our city,” Bruno said.

He added that annexation agreements must be signed, as the city no longer has room to grow.

“Without growth there is no new investment in new homes and business,” he said.

Bruno said the annexed land is zoned for desirable facilities, such as residences and medical services.

“If there’s going to be growth, better this than a steel plant,” he said. “If someone comes along next week with an annexation agreement, I’ll be chummy with them too.”

Gina Jackson, district 1 councilwoman, said she would appreciate if the city added more space for parks in the new annexation. Currently, Champaign provides 2.4 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. Surrounding communities provide as much as 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents.

The Council also voted to reconsider a Jan. 9 decision to begin construction on a park to control Boneyard Creek overflow. The Council had backed the $20.3 million project with a 6-2 vote to combine underground and above-ground detention of creek flooding.

The original decision was made after a heated debate between council members.

The motion to re-poll came when Bruno noted that he had changed his position. Originally voting in favor of the project, he said it was a waste of money and a cheaper plan could control water overflow just as effectively.

Councilwoman At-large Deborah Frank Feinen and Mayor Gerald Schweighart followed Bruno’s lead and said they would possibly reconsider their votes should a subsequent study session be held.

Councilmembers Jackson and Marci Dodds, district 4, said that the decision to re-poll could set dangerous precedents for the future.

“Are we going to re-poll every decision we make from here on out?” questioned Dodds.

The Council voted 7-2 to take another poll on the issue in a future study session, tentatively scheduled for Jan. 23.