HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 05 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 11/5/2012
Meeting Type:Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa/CMO
Staff Phone No: 726-3700
Estimated Time: Consent Calendar
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL MINUTES
ACTION
REQUESTED:
By motion, approval of the attached minutes.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes:
a) July 30, 2012 – TEAM Springfield Mid-Year Social/Meeting
b) October 8, 2012 – Work Session
c) October 15, 2012 – Work Session
d) October 15, 2012 – Regular Meeting
e) October 22, 2012 – Work Session
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
None.
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS’ MEETING AND SOCIAL
Willamalane’s Lively Park / Shelter “A”
6100 Thurston Road
Springfield, Oregon
July 30, 2012
MINUTES
The Joint Elected Officials’ Meeting and Social was held on July 30, 2012, at Willamalane’s Lively
Park, Shelter A, 6100 Thurston Road, Springfield. Present were the Springfield Mayor and City
Councilors, Board Members from Springfield Public Schools, Springfield Utility Board and
Willamalane Park and Recreation District, as well as spouses and staff. Others: Claire
Carpenter-Seguin, NEDCO. Minutes taken by Judy Berra.
6:00 p.m. Welcome
SUB’s General Manager, Jeff Nelson, welcomed everyone and invited them to
enjoy the buffet. He noted that there would be a brief meeting at 6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m. Meeting
Update on Status of Economic Development Initiatives
City Manager Gino Grimaldi gave a brief update on the status of economic
development initiatives that the CAOs have been working on. He then introduced
Claire Carpenter-Seguin, NEDCO’s Executive Director, who explained about
NEDCO, the Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation that is certified
by the U.S. Department of Treasury, and some information about their programs
for local businesses and other areas where they assist the community of
Springfield.
Plans for Outreach to the Latino Community
Springfield School Superintendent Nancy Golden spoke briefly about TEAM
Springfield’s plans to conduct an outreach to Springfield’s Latino Community by
inviting some of its members to attend a listening group meeting in September.
She invited Mayor Lundberg and the Board Chairs of Springfield Public Schools,
A Partnership Between the City of Springfield, Springfield Public Schools, Willamalane, and Springfield Utility Board
TEAM Springfield Joint Elected Officials’ Meeting and Social -- Minutes
July 30, 2012
Page 2
A Partnership Between the City of Springfield, Springfield Public Schools, Willamalane, and Springfield Utility Board
Springfield Utility Board and Willamalane to attend and be part of the listening
group.
7:00 p.m. Meeting Adjourned
7 - 8:00 p.m. Social Time
Schedule Information:
CANCELLED: August 15, 2012, 3:00-4:30 p.m., CAOs Only
September 19, 2012, 3:00-4:30 p.m., CAOs Only – Host: School District
Contact: Karen Lewis (karen.lewis@springfield.k12.or.us)
October 17, 2012, 3:00-4:30 p.m., CEOs and CAOs – Host: Willamalane
Contact: Rita Grimes (ritag@willamalane.org)
November 21, 2012, 3:00-4:30 p.m., CAOs Only – Host: SUB
Contact: Judy Berra (judyb@subutil.com)
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 8, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore (6:00pm),
Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were Finance Director Bob Duey, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City
Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Proposed Updates to Municipal Code 2.700 through 2.718.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. The State of Oregon Legislature
passed HB3316 which required the City to update our Municipal Code surrounding how we selected
certain consultants for engineering, surveying and architectural professional services. The City was
also exploring an opportunity for cost savings and process improvement by updating the dollar
threshold for the formal solicitation process and including the use of electronic means for solicitations
and contract execution.
Mr. Duey said Procurement Office Jayne McMahan and City Attorney Joe Leahy had been working
on this and in addition to making the required changes, looked through the rest of the Code regarding
purchasing that should be addressed.
Ms. McMahan said there were three changes being proposed regarding the purchasing code. The first
was the legislative change and the other two were process improvement and cost saving measures.
The 2011 legislative session passed HB 3316 which required the City to use a qualifications based
selection process for the selection of engineers, architects, land surveyors, etc. The new statute
required that the City could no longer use price as selection criteria for any contract over $100,000 for
these types of services. In the Request for Proposal (RFP), the City could use other criteria such as
previous experience in “like projects”, specialized experience, proposed approach and methodology to
meet the project requirements, staff experience, firm ownership and employment practices, project
management techniques, firm availability to the locale, and firm familiarity with project locale. Only
after the City selected the supplier could they talk about price and negotiate. After the negotiations, if
the City was not able to negotiate a price that the City deemed fair and reasonable, they could go to the
next qualified supplier and negotiate with them. The impact to the City was that some of the smaller
firms could perhaps be more competitively priced. The City had not yet had a need to hire any of the
consultants under the new statute, but there would soon be a need. This could turn into a positive for
some of the local engineering suppliers if the formal solicitation process was also changed.
Ms. McMahan said the other two changes were staff initiated for process improvement. The first of
these changes was increasing the threshold on the intermediate purchases. Under the City’s current
process, the Municipal Code followed three primary limits of authority: 1) Small Informal – from $0
to $5000; 2) Intermediate Bids – $5,000 to $34,999.99; and 3) Formal Sealed - $35,000 and above.
She explained the process of each. All bids over $35,000 must be awarded by formal action of the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 8, 2012
Page 2
Council. State statute did allow for intermediate procurements to go up to 150,000. Currently
Springfield Municipal Code had the City operating on the lower end of the continuum at $35,000,
requiring bids of $35,000 or more to require Council approval.
Ms. McMahan said the City was looking at process improvement and standardization across the
organization, including leveling some of our policies and practices with Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission (MWMC) as well. MWMC had adopted model rules whereby the City of
Springfield and Eugene staff conducted business with a formal threshold for sealed bids with approval
of their Commission on any procurement over $150,000. Springfield staff was working on the Fire
Merger and standardizing processes and policies with the City of Eugene. The City of Eugene
Municipal Code required formal bidding for purchases greater than $100,000. Staff also did some
benchmarking with other municipalities similar in size to Springfield. Bend required formal bidding
for purchases over $100,000 and Gresham required formal bidding for purchases over $50,000.
Gresham was looking at increasing their threshold to $100,000. Corvallis required formal bidding for
purchases over $50,000 and Lane County required formal bidding for purchases over $100,000.
During their research on limits set by other cities and agencies, they asked about abuse of anything
between the informal and the formal and didn’t find any evidence of such abuse.
Ms. McMahan noted that the formal solicitation had numerous steps that were time consuming, not
only for staff and the City Attorney, but also the bidding community. In the past year, staff had
received feedback from a few suppliers that our requirements and documentation needs were too time
consuming for their team, given the low dollar value of the potential contract. The timeline from
advertising to contract execution was quite lengthy. If the City were to raise the formal solicitation
threshold from $35,000 to a higher threshold, the City would benefit by potentially not losing local
small companies from competing thus keeping tax dollars in the community. We would also be
addressing the City Council goal of inclusion and potentially broadening our local supplier base and
attracting more Minorities, Women and Emerging Small Businesses (MWESB). Additionally, with
the reduced steps to solicit goods and services, the City would benefit from the cost savings in terms
of staff resources, advertising and printing costs. All departments across the City would benefit from
the cost savings. The City would also benefit from the shorter timelines from solicitation to
acquisition for the needed goods and services.
Ms. McMahan noted that a streamlined process would continue to be a competitive process. The City
would develop standardized bidding templates and guidelines for staff to follow to ensure bonafide
bids were being solicited. Informality did not dispense with the requirements for documentation and
accountability. Further, the process would remain a fair and transparent process as it was today.
These intermediate procurements would continue to be posted on the City’s website, as well as sent to
those in our supplier database thus ensuring the public confidence in the objectivity, transparency and
the procurement of goods and services at the lowest price.
Ms. McMahan said City staff recommended the Small Informal amount remain between $0 and $5000
and an increase in the threshold of intermediate procurements from $35,000 to $100,000. The City
would continue to have accountability by keeping the signing authority for Department Directors go
from $35,000 up to $50,000 and requiring contracts from $50,000 to $100,000 be signed by the City
Manager. This would provide a graduate authority process which would add additional oversight and
accountability. The Formal Sealed would be from $100,000 and above with the same process as was
currently in place for Formal Sealed solicitations, including award by formal action of the Council.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 8, 2012
Page 3
Ms. McMahan said the final area was regarding electronic contracting. Currently the City had a small
paragraph in the Municipal Code that allowed for electronic publications. It allowed bids and requests,
but didn’t address the solicitation submittal and electronic signatures. In the current business
environment, it was almost a necessity to transact business electronically. If the City were to adopt a
code that gave staff the ability to use electronic solicitation and submission, we would be addressing
the needs to expedite contract execution, clip wrap or click through acceptance on electronic
applications that required an individual to click “ok” to accept terms and conditions, and appropriate
retention of electronically stored documents based on State requirements. The state statue allowed the
City the ability to have a code that legally recognized electronic contracts. Further, the use of
electronic process fed nicely into the Governor’s Green Executive Order requiring State agencies to
develop policies and practice to make Oregon a more sustainable state, as well as the Oregon
Sustainability Act. This would also result in a cost savings, staff time as staff would no longer have to
prepare documents to mail, UPS or Fed Ex, savings on paper and printing, and mailing costs. Lastly,
the environment would benefit by reduced greenhouse gases from moving the documents physically in
trucks or planes. This electronic process would be used at the discretion of staff and not in all
instances.
Ms. McMahan said staff was requesting Council to direct City staff to prepare for public hearings for
revisions to the Municipal Code to 1) address the enacted HB3316; 2) to revise the Municipal Code by
raising the threshold of formal solicitations from $35,000 to $100,000: and, 3) update the Municipal
Code to include electronic solicitation, submittal and contracting process.
Councilor Pishioneri suggested that the lower limit on the Small Informal bids should be higher, and
perhaps match the limit on procurement cards. Staff should be able to get $150 of supplies without
getting two other bids as it could end up costing more in the long run. The County practice was that if
it was under $1500 there was no need for competitive bidding, and between $1500 and $5000 they
needed competitive bid pricing. He asked if HB3316 recommended going to $100,000.
Mr. Leahy said the figure of $35,000 and $100,000 was unrelated to HB3316.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if HB3316 affected the bidding process currently in place.
Mr. Leahy said it played a role in the employment of the architects, engineers, etc., but not in the
purchase of goods and services.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was not comfortable going with $100,000. Eugene and Lane County were
larger agencies and had larger budgets. He felt that $50,000 was reasonable. He asked how it would be
handled if a bid came in just under the threshold, and then the contractor came back needing more
funds.
Ms. McMahan said regardless of the amount of the bid, the contract would have a not-to-exceed
amount. Change orders generally came into play when staff changed the scope of the work. Staff
worked very hard and did a good job of defining the requirements so change orders only came in when
the scope of work changed slightly.
Mr. Leahy said that was correct and was why Finance and other staff were so vigilant. Also, if it was
over $50,000 BOLI kicked in so anything close to the high $40,000’s was watched carefully by Ms.
McMahan. It was part of a system staff dealt with daily.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 8, 2012
Page 4
Councilor Pishioneri said he was comfortable with a $50,000 threshold.
Ms. McMahan noted that if the threshold was increased it would become formal and would come to
Council for approval.
Mr. Duey said the number of solicitations between $35,000 and $50,000 was very few so staff would
not gain any of the benefits considered with that smaller increase. There would be about 15-20 a year
if the threshold was raised to $100,000.
Councilor Wylie asked about the threshold for formal contracts and the threshold for Department
Directors as noted on page 3 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. She asked for clarification.
Ms. McMahan said currently, the City Manager and Department Directors could sign contracts
between $5000 and $35,000. Staff was proposing the threshold of $35,000 to $100,000, but they
would only increase the Department Directors’ authority from $35,000 to $50,000. The City Manager
would have authority to sign between $50,000 and $100,000 as another layer of accountability.
Councilor Wylie asked who would be reviewing the electronic acceptance terms.
Ms. McMahan generally those were on contracts where the terms and conditions had already been
agreed upon.
Councilor Wylie asked if there were any drawbacks to electronic contracting.
Ms. McMahan said she couldn’t think of any drawbacks on electronic signatures. They would still be
signed contracts with numbered pages.
Mr. Leahy said one drawback could be verification on whether or not something was sent and
received. He provided an example in Portland Courts.
Ms. McMahan said that was correct. To help alleviate that possibility, she requested notification of
receipt when she sent something. In turn, she notified receipt of the information. Occasionally, if a
submittal took up too much memory, it may get rejected. When that occurred, the sender received a
bounce-back message.
Mayor Lundberg asked if this change basically meant they had to use other criteria for making a
decision rather than the lowest bid, and then negotiate a price.
Mr. Leahy said that was in the area of HB3316 for architects, engineers and other professional service
providers. It did not affect purchasing goods. Price could only be used after they verified the other
criteria listed.
Mayor Lundberg said typically they would have seen a price first, but now they would not.
Mr. Leahy said that was correct. Once they chose based on criteria, they would negotiate with the
contractor. Staff would also do preliminary work to determine a fair price. If through negotiations a
fair price couldn’t be agreed upon, they would go to the next bidder.
Mayor Lundberg said that had been her concern.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 8, 2012
Page 5
Mr. Duey said this would require training of staff.
Mr. Leahy said even with the higher threshold proposed for price of contracts, staff would be working
hard with those vested with the authority to make sure they were in conformance with the law and
spend time on training regarding negotiations for all purchases. They were looking at this twofold: the
first in the area of professional people; and the second in training for all contracts.
Councilor Woodrow asked if there was a penalty if the City didn’t come to a negotiated cost with the
first choice.
Ms. McMahan said there was not. They could just go to the next qualified supplier.
Councilor VanGordon said it would be important to be watchful over the first few contracts under this
new statute until everyone understood the new rules. He agreed with Councilor Pishioneri’s suggestion
of having a minimum amount for requiring three bids and felt $1500 was fair. He was fine increasing
the threshold for formal bids to $100,000, but wanted a sense of all of the savings that would be in that
increase.
Ms. McMahan referred to the last attachment in the packet which showed the solicitation steps of a
formal process as they were now and an informal process. All of the steps eliminated by going to a
higher threshold were stricken. It was difficult to tell the number of hours each step took as each
solicitation was unique.
Councilor VanGordon asked if they could provide anecdotally how many hours were spent.
Mr. Duey said some of them could be cut in time by one-half to a full week. It was a substantial
amount of staff time.
Councilor VanGordon asked about the reference in the staff report that moving up the threshold would
encourage others to bid. He asked if that was confirmed with local bidders.
Ms. McMahan said it was not confirmed, but they had received feedback from suppliers that had not
bid due to the time it took to go through all of the paperwork. A truncated process, which staff had
been informally using since February for smaller bids, had received positive response.
Councilor VanGordon said he was fine with $100,000. He would like a check in point to see what
came in and some feedback showing an increase in bids submitted and a reduction in staff time.
Councilor Wylie said it looked like some of the things that had been stricken, such as advertising,
could be costed out. Advertisements were costly. She would like a rough estimate of the cost savings.
Ms. McMahan said she was correct about the amount of time and money the longer process took.
Advertising costs were increasing. Staff could provide some estimates on the cost savings.
Councilor Ralston said by eliminating the steps stricken in this process, the turnaround time would
also be reduced by a couple of weeks. That was another argument in favor. He noted the many steps
that took a lot of time.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 8, 2012
Page 6
Councilor Moore said she was seeing concern about Council being removed from the process. She
asked if Council received copies of bids submitted.
Mr. Duey said through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, Council saw the projects the
City would be working on during the year. Those that were below the threshold were not seen by
Council. That process could be changed.
Mr. Leahy said Council could request information on all bids awarded between $50,000 and $100,000
in their Communication Packet. It could include the name of the contractor, the services and the
amount, but not the contract.
Mr. Duey said that would be easy for staff to do.
Councilor Pishioneri said getting that information would resolve his angst of going to $100,000. If it
would save that much time and money, it was worthwhile.
Mr. Duey said the information provided to the Mayor and Council would not be preapproval, but
would be after the contract was awarded.
Mayor Lundberg said the Communication Packet would be appropriate.
Mr. Leahy said Council would still see intergovernmental agreements (IGA’s) so they knew what
agreements they had with other agencies. This would not affect that policy.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:13 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 15, 2012 at 6:02 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and
Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Proposed Updates to the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. Springfield and Lane County
approved the Glenwood Refinement Plan to provide for a new vision of the Glenwood Riverfront. To
implement this vision, staff developed several new design standards for public infrastructure to
incorporate into Springfield’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. In addition,
staff proposed numerous other updates that addressed current practice and other needs.
Mr. Vogeney noted that Springfield adopted the first version of the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual in 2002, with an update approved in 2006. Both staff and consultants working for
the City were required to follow the same design standards and procedures as the development
community.
Mr. Vogeney said he would be referring to the website where the changes were noted. He showed how
to get to the changes through the City webpage.
On June 19, and again on July 13, staff sent an email invitation to 46 members of the
engineering and development community, including the members of the Joint Work Team,
asking for their comments on the proposed updates. In addition, links were added on other
pages of the City’s website to direct interested members of the public to the page with the
proposed updates. To date, three responses were received from people who received the email
notices and no requests to modify the proposals.
A public hearing and adoption of the proposed updates was currently scheduled for November 5,
2012. If the Council agreed that the proposed updates were ready for adoption, staff would advertise
the public hearing and send an email announcement to the same list of recipients, as well as any
members of the Development Advisory Committee that were not included in the prior two notices.
Mr. Vogeney reviewed the summary of proposed changes. There were a total of 13 chapters in the
manual and changes were being proposed in seven chapters. It was being recommended that Chapter
13 be completely removed. That chapter included design guidance for doing City or consultant design
projects. A separate manual was being prepared to address that in much more detail, so this chapter
could be removed from the Design Manual.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 2
Mr. Vogeney discussed the proposed changes in Chapter 1 – Streets and Sidewalks. The significant
changes in this chapter included:
• Section 1.02 requires compliance with the minimum fire code design standards for vehicle
access when designing roadways.
• Section 1.02.10 prohibits using parabolic crown street cross-sections unless approved by the
City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer.
• Section 1.02.11 requires that all new sidewalks are to be setback sidewalks unless approved by
the City Traffic Engineer and City Engineer.
• Appendix 1A is the biggest addition to Chapter 1. This new Appendix was prepared to
implement the new Glenwood Riverfront Street Cross-Sections Standards presented in
Springfield‟s Glenwood Refinement Plan Update.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to section 1.02.11 regarding sidewalks and setbacks. He felt the wording
was very subjective and should be worded more like the wording regarding wood poles.
Mr. Vogeney said by having setback sidewalks there was a planter strip that could be used for street
trees, light poles, signs, etc. without encroaching on the sidewalk. It also helped with the American
with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance for accessibility for sidewalks paths and how the curb ramps
were designed and installed. The terminology in the manual was left as “unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer” for areas that already had curb cut sidewalks that may
need repair. They would not require setbacks for those cases where a short distance needed repaired,
but if it was a longer stretch and the City had adequate right-of-way, they would change it to have
setbacks.
Councilor Pishioneri said he understood the reasoning, but felt the wording for wooden pole
replacement was more direct. There was a potential for inconsistency of sidewalks in areas where
there were still undeveloped lots mixed with development. He felt the language was subjective and he
would prefer more firm wording.
Mr. Vogeney said he could work with the staff that worked on that section to draft some different
language for the next meeting.
Mr. Vogeney discussed the changes in Chapter 3 - Stormwater Quality. Significant changes and new
standards added to Chapter 3 included:
• Section 3.01 changes the reference to the design standards for stormwater quality facilities
from Portland’s Stormwater Manual to Eugene’s Stormwater Management Manual. He
explained why that was a better fit for Springfield. These would only be the design standards
and not policy. In addition, Section 3.02 Interim Design Standards was deleted in its entirety.
• New Section 3.02.3 includes the updated and expanded Water Quality Pollutants of concern to
be consistent with the most recent stormwater discharge permit (MS4).
• New Section 3.02.7 is changed to clarify that parking lot maintenance activities include
routine cleaning of stormwater catch basins and area drains.
• New Section 3.03 adds requirements for maintaining all private stormwater treatment
facilities. The requirements include the property owner signing an operations and maintenance
agreement. Notice of this agreement will then be recorded with Lane County to notify all
future property owners of the terms of this agreement. The agreement clearly states owners
responsibilities for maintenance to ensure the stormwater treatment facilities will function
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 3
properly. The agreement also establishes access rights for the City to inspect these facilities on
a regular, recurring basis.
• Three new forms added to Chapter 3:
o Information Packet for Stormwater Quality Facility Operations & Maintenance Plan
o Operations and Maintenance Agreement (template)
o Notice of Operations and Maintenance Agreement (template)
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the requirements under Section 3.03 were for past, present or future
development.
Mr. Vogeney said this would be a future requirement. There were many private stormwater facilities
today and staff tried to work with those property owners as they could. Some property owners were
more cooperative than others. If a current facility had an owner that wanted to enter into an agreement,
the City would do that, but if they weren’t willing to, the City would not force them. If a property was
redeveloped, they would be asked to sign the agreement.
Councilor Pishioneri said current development was grandfathered in, but if redevelopment occurred, it
would be required. Yes.
Councilor Moore asked if there was an arrangement with the City to help property owners with that
maintenance.
Mr. Vogeney said the City didn’t provide that level of maintenance on private properties. There were
private contractors that provided that service such as cleaning parking lots and cleaning out swales.
Many commercial sites contracted out for those services as part of their normal operations. The City
had not considered entering into an arrangement to provide that service.
Councilor Moore asked if that was an added expense for the property owners.
Mr. Vogeney said there were property owners that maintained their sites well and others that didn’t.
For those that were not currently maintaining their property, it would be an added expense. For those
that already maintained their sites, it would not be an additional cost and would document their
obligation for that maintenance.
Councilor Moore said flooding could occur if stormwater was blocked or plugged.
Mr. Vogeney said the primary motivation was the City’s stormwater quality requirements and
removing pollutants from parking lots before it entered the public system. On-site flooding would also
be affected.
Mayor Lundberg noted that restaurants with grease traps were required to clean them, and whoever
owned the restaurant had to pay, which was fitting. Council had discussed this issue regarding
retention ponds and who was responsible for maintaining them. The reason we had those in place was
to keep our water quality good and make sure the water reached our rivers correctly. There should be
some type of enforcement mechanism in an agreement to ensure they kept these things clean, just like
the grease traps kept grease out of our system. It made sense to have that requirement to keep
contaminants out of our system and she felt this should be a requirement.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 4
Mr. Vogeney said this would include enforcement. In addition, a notice would be filed with Lane
County Deeds and Records that there was an agreement so when property changed hands, the new
owner would be on notice of the agreement.
Mayor Lundberg asked if fines would be assessed.
Mr. Vogeney said there was an enforcement matrix starting with education and working with property
owners. If compliance was still not met, fines would be charged.
Mr. Vogeney discussed Chapter 4 – Stormwater Capacity. Significant changes and new standards
added to Chapter 4 included:
• Section 4.03 clarifies the purpose of the Stormwater Scoping Sheet in site design and the
criteria for preparing the various types of Stormwater Studies for development proposals.
• Section 4.03.5 includes objective criteria concerning when the City Engineer can require a
downstream analysis of the stormwater system from any development that may be adding flow
to the existing system.
• Section 4.04 adds HDPE pipe as an acceptable material for stormwater systems.
• Section 4.08 clarifies the design criteria for outfall structures.
• New Section 4.17 adds submittal requirements and objective design criteria for managing
stormwater using Low Impact Design Approaches (LIDA) required for development and
redevelopment sites within the Glenwood Riverfront Area of the Glenwood Refinement Plan
and other suitable areas within Springfield or its UGB.
Mr. Vogeney discussed Chapter 5 – Traffic Standards. He noted this section addressed the wood poles
the Mayor had asked about earlier in the meeting. Significant changes and new standards added to
Chapter 5 included:
• Section 5.01 requires compliance with the minimum fire code design standards for vehicle
access when designing roadways.
• Section 5.02.1.B restricts using wood street light poles only to replace damaged poles or when
installing additional lighting in an area that has wood poles used throughout to maintain
consistency. In addition, City pole tags must be installed on all new poles, all new streetlights
must be constructed with wire theft deterrents, and electrical circuit identification is required
on the conduit of street light systems.
• Section 5.04 adds an intersection control standard such that when a project includes
reconstructing or constructing new intersections, all intersection control types shall be
evaluated using the City’s “Intersection Control Checklist”. Control types include no
control, stops, signal, and roundabout. Specific Parking Lot design standards were
removed and a requirement that all parking lot design must comply with the latest edition
of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Transportation and Land Development
reference book and applicable Sections of the Springfield Development Code.
• New Section 5.09 adds the requirement to design on street parking design according to the
AASHTO ‘A Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets’, ITE guidance, the
Springfield Downtown Parking Study, the Institute of Traffic Engineers design guidance,
and any relevant Refinement Plans.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 5
Mayor Lundberg said she had received a letter from someone about arsenic in pressure treated poles
that could affect the ground. Springfield relied heavily on our groundwater. She asked if there were
different preservatives that didn’t contain arsenic that could be used when replacing wood poles.
Civil Engineer Clayton McEachern said modern treatment was mostly copper sulfate based and not
arsenic based. There was still some leakage onto the ground.
Mr. Boyatt said all wood was treated when there was ground contact to keep it from rotting.
Mayor Lundberg asked if they were changing out the wood poles with aluminum poles because the
wood poles could deteriorate.
Mr. Vogeney said aluminum poles lasted much longer and required less maintenance. The wood poles
had to be tested regularly to see which ones were rotting. Because many of the treated poles rotted
from the inside out, they needed to be tested by boring them.
Mr. McEachern said contamination from the poles was usually soil contamination as it was not mobile
and didn’t get into the groundwater.
Mr. Vogeney said in addition regarding the street lights, they were adding requirements for wire theft
deterrent in the standards. Another item that was new to Chapter 5 was an intersection control
checklist. He explained further and said the appendix would list the appropriate types of controls.
Mr. Vogeney discussed Chapter 6 – Landscape Vegetation. This chapter had the biggest rewrite. The
title for Chapter 6 was changed from Street Trees to Landscape Vegetation. Expanding the scope of
this Chapter to include other vegetation resulted in revising most of this Chapter. The more significant
changes and new standards added to Chapter 6 included:
• Section 6.01was expanded to include other vegetation in addition to street trees, as well as
providing a list of objectives for utilizing vegetation and trees.
• Section 6.02 divides the General Design Consideration into new individual sections to
address:
A. Street Trees
B. Medians and Planter Strips
C. Water Quality Facilities
D. Riparian area along rivers – Greenway and local Water Quality Limited Waterways
E. Natural Resource Areas – Local Wetlands
F. Riparian area along urban waterways
• Section 6.02.1 discusses retaining native vegetation if healthy and sound, that Best
Management Practices (BMPs) such as fencing be applied to protect the vegetation, and root
damage.
• Section 6.02.3 removes the former list of approved Street Trees and adds references to new
Appendix 6A – Approved Street Tree List, and to Appendix 6B – Approved Vegetation List.
This new Vegetation List references plants that are more appropriate to the Springfield area
and/or native to the Willamette Valley (Lane County), and listed in the Eugene Stormwater
Management Manual, thereby providing consistency to landscape designers and planners.
• Section 6.02.7 was added to remind property owners of their obligation to maintain vegetation
for vision clearance, sidewalk clearance, and other vegetation management requirements. It
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 6
also points to the Oregon Department of Agriculture list of noxious and invasive plants for
prohibited plants in Springfield, and requirements in the Springfield Development Code
concerning maintaining an approved use.
• Appendix 6A – Approved Street Tree List was added.
• Appendix 6B – Approved Vegetation List was added.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the City identified properties with noxious weeds and then advised home
owners or if it was complaint driven. He asked if the City had any proactive contact.
Mr. Vogeney said they followed the educational approach. If complaints were received, staff did
respond. They also provided educational materials through kiosks and other events that outlined
Springfield’s Top Ten Most Wanted Invasive Plant Species. When staff was out looking at stormwater
quality facilities or doing inspections, they did look for those plant species. On public property, staff
tried to mitigate the situation, and on private property they let the property owner know they had an
invasive species that the City would prefer not to have in the system. Staff had gone through some of
the City-owned ponds and removed vegetation that was not beneficial.
Councilor Pishioneri noted that the waterway that went through town from Weyerhaeuser had a lot of
invasive plants. He asked if that was City property.
Mr. Vogeney said that was the Q Street Channel. The City knew they had blackberries growing
throughout the channel, but didn’t have enough staff resources to deal with it annually. Staff
selectively tried to work different areas. He could ask operations staff for more details.
Mayor Lundberg said that could be an assignment for a work crew. She asked what native species the
City was encouraging people to retain. She referred to redevelopment in Glenwood and her desire to
have appropriate landscaping. She asked how they got information out to private property owners
about appropriate native species and what constituted maintaining.
Mr. Vogeney noted that blackberries were actually not native. He referred to Appendix 6B manual
which had a number of pages of plant species and recommended areas for uses. There were species of
plants that were native and well acclimated and didn’t require as much watering and also benefitted
water quality. He could get more information from the landscaping staff. As part of the design manual,
that would be part of the education. Staff would also meet with horticulturists and nurseries.
Mayor Lundberg said she wanted to make sure it was easy for people who were developing to get
correct information about what they should plant.
Mr. Vogeney said the focus was water quality areas. They were not branching out to single family
home lots.
Councilor Moore asked if the City could supply information on the website about where people could
get additional information on the recommended plants, such as other websites or local nurseries.
Mr. Vogeney said he would talk to landscaping staff about providing photos or websites.
Mr. Vogeney discussed Chapter 8 – Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Design. Significant changes
and new standards added to Chapter 8 included:
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 7
• Section 8.02 clarifies the responsibility of the Engineer of Record for preparing the Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP).
• Section 8.03 was modified to recommend using the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) Erosion and Sediment Control Manual as a resource for preparing an ESCP.
• Section 8.05.2 deletes reference to Appendix 8A for Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
erosion and sediment control. Rather, references to guidance provided by DEQ was added.
• Exhibit 8-1, a copy of Springfield’s NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit (1200-CA) issued
in 2001, was deleted in its entirety.
• Appendix 8A is a copy of the 1200-C and 1200-CN Stormwater Discharge Permits in effect in
Oregon until November 30, 2015.
Mr. Vogeney discussed Chapter 12 – Public Improvement Permit Projects. Although there were no
changes at this time, City staff was working to streamline and clarify the procedures for Public
Improvement Permit (PIP) Projects and anticipated releasing these revisions later in 2012. They hadn’t
had anyone come in for a PIP for about a year and a half, but there were a couple that could be coming
in the next year.
Mr. Vogeney said if Council was comfortable with the Design Manual with the language changes
regarding setback sidewalks, he could bring it back for a public hearing on November 5, 2012. He
would send an email to all that had received the email in June, as well as update the website.
Council felt that was an appropriate process.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 15, 2012 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and
Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Employee Recognition: Linda Pauly, 10 Years of Service.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi said Ms. Pauly had worked with both current and long-range planning
for the City. Ms. Pauly had been involved with such projects as the RiverBend Master Plan, and the
City’s Residential Lands study and Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands study which were part
of the work for expanding the urban growth boundary. She had also been involved in the Development
Plan and Design Standards and Downtown Parking study, as well as the Glenwood Refinement Plan,
the Consolidate Housing Plan, the Community Development Advisory Committee, and the City’s
Historic Preservation Program. Ms. Pauly had made a difference in our community, she brought vision
and understood how to work with the public by facilitating conversations and then listening to their
ideas. He presented Ms. Pauly with a poster signed by her co-workers.
Ms. Pauly said she loved working for the City and appreciated the opportunity to serve Springfield.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Lundberg said there were questions concerning item 5c regarding the rejection of bids for the
Downtown Parking Modifications. She would like to request a short work session to discuss the
parking program.
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. September 17, 2012 – Work Session
b. September 17, 2012 – Regular Meeting
c. September 24, 2012 – Work Session
d. October 1, 2012 – Work Session
e. October 1, 2012 – Regular Meeting
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 2
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Authorize the City Manager to Accept the Access, Education, or Government Grant Award in
the Amount of $62,900 and Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Lane Council of
Governments (LCOG) to Fund and Facilitate Cablecast Installations in the Library Meeting
Room and the Emergency Operations Room.
b. Adopt a Motion Approving the 2012-2013 Management Agreement for the Springfield
Museum and Authorizing and Directing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement on
Behalf of the City
c. Reject Any and All Bids Received Regarding P21058, Downtown Parking Modifications
Project.
d. Authorize Signature of an Amendment to the Current Sustainable City Year (SCY) Agreement
Extending the Partnership by 1 Year and $90,000.
e. Liquor License Application for The Pump Café, Located at 710 Main Street, Springfield, OR
97477
f. Liquor License Application for Olsen’s White Horse Tavern Located at 4360 Main Street,
Springfield, Oregon 97478
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
ITEMS REMOVED
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at
both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not
yield their time to others.
1. Supplemental Budget Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-18 – A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING RESOURCES AND
REQUIREMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING FUNDS: GENERAL, STREET, JAIL OPERATIONS,
SPECIAL REVENUE, TRANSIENT ROOM TAX, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
BUILDING CODE, FIRE LOCAL OPTION LEVY, POLICE LOCAL OPTION LEVY,
BANCROFT REDEMPTION, BOND SINKING, SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL, REGIONAL
WASTEWATER REVENUE BOND CAPITAL PROJECT, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
CAPITAL, DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, STORM DRAINAGE CAPITAL, POLICE
BUILDING BOND CAPITAL PROJECT, REGIONAL WASTEWATER CAPITAL, STREET
CAPITAL, SDC LOCAL STORM IMPROVEMENT, SDC LOCAL STORM
REIMBURSEMENT, SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT SDC, SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENT SDC, SDC REGIONAL WASTEWATER REIMBURSEMENT, SDC
REGIONAL WW IMP, SDC TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT, SDC
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT, LOCAL WW OPERATIONS, REGIONAL WW,
AMBULANCE, STORM DRAINAGE OPERATIONS, BOOTH-KELLY, REGIONAL FIBER
CONSORTIUM, INSURANCE, VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT, AND SDC ADMINISTRATION
FUNDS.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 3
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. At various times during the fiscal
year the Council was requested to make adjustments to the annual budget to reflect needed changes in
planned activities, to recognize new revenues, or to make other required changes. These adjustments
to resources and requirements changed the current budget and were processed through supplemental
budget requests scheduled by the Finance Department on an annual basis.
This was the first of three scheduled FY13 supplemental budget requests to come before Council. The
City Council was asked to approve the attached Supplemental Budget Resolution.
Mr. Duey said that normally the first supplemental budget was the largest as they made adjustments to
the beginning cash for all funds. They adjusted beginning cash in part because there were many
projects that didn’t line up as originally projected and had to be carried over to the next year. Another
reason for a supplemental budget at this time was for re-appropriations of funds that needed to be
moved to another location. He provided the example of funds being moved to accommodate the new
combined department of Development and Public Works. A third reason was for additional revenue
from grants or other sources.
Councilor Wylie asked how the revenue picture looked regarding the cash balances.
Mr. Duey said overall we were up, but the General Fund was about $340,000 lower going into FY13
than projected, mostly from revenues lower than expected. Expenditures were down about $140,000
from estimates, but revenues were down about $430,000, making a net of about $340,000 difference
between what was projected and what were actual funds.
Councilor Wylie asked when we would hear about our property taxes for the coming year.
Mr. Duey said they should hear any day.
Councilor Wylie said she would like to know once they find out.
Mr. Grimaldi noted that there would be a Mid-Year Budget Committee Meeting on December 4 when
those figures would be relayed. A complete budget picture would be provided at that meeting.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012-18. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 4
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Craig and Pamela Enberg, Springfield, Oregon, Regarding the Knife River
Mining Project.
2. Correspondence from Mary Salinas, Springfield, Oregon, Regarding a Grand Jury Investigation in
Lane County.
3. Correspondence from Mary Salinas, Springfield, Oregon, Regarding Homeless Issues.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Woodrow said the Symmonds 800M held on Saturday was a great event. She
thanked Niel Laudati for the organization of the event, and Jayne McMahan for
coordinating the volunteers. She hoped it would be the first of many 800M events in
Springfield.
2. Councilor Moore said she attended the open house at Brattain Elementary, which was now
the Early Childhood Center. That was where the Head Start and Early Education Program
were now being held. There were some people down from the Governor’s office to
congratulate the School District. It was a very nice use of the building and facility.
3. Mayor Lundberg said she also wanted to thank Niel Laudati and Jayne McMahan for a
wonderful event on Saturday (the Symmonds 800M). There were a lot of kids which made
it extra special.
4. Mayor Lundberg acknowledged City Recorder Amy Sowa who was now the 2nd Vice
President of the Oregon Association of Municipal Recorders (OAMR) and in charge of
Special Projects and Fundraising. She would move to 1st Vice President next year. She
appreciated Ms. Sowa’s work and the recognition of being a valuable member of OAMR.
5. Mr. Towery said Niel Laudati had told him that Nick Symmonds would very much like to
see the 800M become an annual event in Springfield.
6. Councilor Pishioneri also spoke regarding the Symmonds 800M. It was great seeing the
little children running. Nick Symmonds was a great ambassador for Springfield and for
Big Brothers/Big Sisters.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 5
b. Other Business.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Ratification of Agreement between the City and American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1148
Human Resources Analyst Peter Fehrs presented the staff report on this item. The bargaining teams
met on September 20th, 2012 in mediation to settle the contract. During that meeting the teams
reached agreement on several outstanding items and agreed on a total contract. Staff was now seeking
approval from the Council; AFSCME ratified the contract through membership voting.
Mr. Fehrs said the contract approved by AFSCME was a three-year contract good through FY2015.
He reviewed some of the highlights of the contract. Staff felt the contract kept those employees
consistent with comparable communities. He also noted some language changes regarding workers
compensation and the sick leave program.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO APPROVE THE AFSCME COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
FOR FY2013 – FY2015. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0
AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
Mary Bridget Smith introduced Neva Bennett, an extern from the University of Oregon Law School.
Prior to going to Law School, Ms. Bennett worked for the US Census Bureau. In the City Attorney’s
office, Ms. Bennett had worked on multiple topics and they were thrilled to have her. She would be
with the City Attorney’s Office until next summer.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:19 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 22, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore and Woodrow.
Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney
Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Ralston was absent (excused).
1. Cell Tower Siting Standards and Review Process.
Senior Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. At its March 26, 2012 work
session, Council discussed various concerns about cell tower placement, design standards, and the
review process for approving them. Council directed staff to prepare amendments to existing policies
in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) to address those concerns.
The memorandum, Attachment 1 of the agenda packet reviewed the concerns expressed by Council at
its March 26th work session and presented responding amendments. The amendments, as presented,
were a re-write of SDC Section 4.3-145—Wireless Telecommunication System (WTS) Facilities.
Staff would present the key elements of the amendments for discussion with the goal of gaining
sufficient direction to move forward with the changes. Staff anticipated initiation of the code
amendment process in December.
Mr. Metzger said he was looking for Council approval for the proposals set forth. If Council approved,
he could bring the Code amendments back to the Council for formal approval.
Mr. Metzger reviewed the concerns of Council during the March work session.
• Current policies allowed WTS facilities to be located in “Preferred Sites” with just a building
permit and minimal staff review. Preferred Sites included the Public Lands and Open Space
(PLO) zoning district. The listing of PLO as a “Preferred Site” allowed the placement of three
monopole towers near single-family residential neighborhoods at Thurston High School and at
Silke Field.
• Existing design standards had allowed towers to be placed in front of buildings, in some cases
just behind the sidewalk adjacent to fronting streets. Monopole towers on Centennial Blvd.
near Mohawk Blvd. and on Olympic Street across from WalMart were examples of such
placements.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 22, 2012
Page 2
• “Stealth” designs were required when towers were located in or near residential zones, but not
always for commercial or industrial districts. Design standards should protect sensitive
commercial areas like Downtown and the Mohawk district from visual impacts.
• At the work session, some expressed a preference for Council to review and approve the
placement of cell towers regardless of the zoning.
Mr. Metzger said following that work session, he worked to try to address those concerns. The
following were key elements of the proposed amendments. If approved:
• The Planning Commission would review all new cell tower facilities with provisions for
Council to elevate any application for their direct review.
The Charter was set up to allow the Planning Commission to review quasi-judicial land use actions. If
a discretionary application was received, it would go to the Planning Commission. If their decision
was appealed, it would go to the Council. If they went to a Council direct review, they would be
bypassing the Planning Commission. Also, when Council acted directly on an issue, the next appeal
course was Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). When the Planning Commission acted on something,
that action of appeal would come to the Council allowing Council to hear those cases that were more
controversial. Council would be notified of all of the applications.
If this process was put into place, Council could provide policy sideboards for the Planning
Commission to use when reviewing these applications. Also, if this change was made, it would
remove the categories for cell towers as all applications would go to the Planning Commission.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the cell tower that was placed on Olympic across from WalMart and
how it had been reviewed.
Mr. Metzger said it was in an industrial district, so was likely a building permit review process.
Councilor Pishioneri said that was a good example of why he wanted to change the process. He agreed
it should go through the Planning Commission first. Sideboards would be very important and he asked
how Council would know if certain applications were of special interest.
Mr. Metzger said his preference would be to notify Council of applications through the weekly
Communication Packet. Once a formal application was received, staff had more details on parameters.
Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted to see the sideboards.
• “Stealth” measures would be required when placing towers in or within 500 feet of any
residential district.
Mr. Metzger used the Olympic Street tower as an example of a cell tower that did not have setbacks.
Another tower on 42nd Street was not nearly as noticeable and had been required to have a setback.
Councilor Woodrow asked about the area needed to place a cell tower.
Mr. Metzger said typically about a 20 or 30 foot square.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 22, 2012
Page 3
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the set back was to the fence edge. Yes.
• Stealth would be required for towers in all commercial districts.
Mr. Metzger said in some cases stealth would also be required for industrial zones if within 500 feet of
residential.
• All new towers would observe a 30 foot minimum setback from fronting streets.
Mr. Metzger referred to the table on page 4 which outlined when stealth would be required. These
provided the sideboards mentioned earlier.
The next recommendation came from a personal experience processing a cell tower application off of
Yolanda Street. The cell tower was being proposed for placement behind the square dance hall. The
site was outside City limits and in the County, but impacted a nearby residential neighborhood. The
company was proposing a stealth tower. Currently in the Code, the applicant was required to provide
technical information that proved they couldn’t put the tower anywhere else except in that residential
district in order to provide service. It was difficult to evaluate that data because of its technical nature
which City staff did not the technical expertise to interpret. Other communities had written provisions
for the following:
• The City could, at its discretion, require cell tower applicants to fund an independent
professional review of the technical elements of the application.
This would provide a way to look for other options or to confirm the technical analysis.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how much that additional review cost the applicant. He was concerned that
could be a very onerous cost that could stop a project for someone. He asked when it would be
reasonable to ask for that type of study and if there would be triggers.
Mr. Metzger said he would like a second opinion for cases where a tower was going to be placed in a
location that would impact a residential neighborhood to determine whether or not the tower could be
placed somewhere else. The technical review would be reviewing the data that was already gathered
and providing a second opinion about locating the tower.
Councilor Moore said with changing technology, there could be cell towers that were abandoned. She
asked if we had provisions for abandoned towers.
Mr. Metzger said our current code had a requirement.
Councilor Moore asked how the City made sure the tower was safe and maintained.
Mr. Metzger said there were engineering standards that would be outside the City’s code that would
address that issue. It was a building structural code. He also noted that in some cases, smaller
equipment could be put in a residential area rather than a full tower.
Councilor Moore said she liked the process of going through the Planning Commission.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 22, 2012
Page 4
Councilor Wylie said review by the Planning Commission was fine and she liked the idea of stealth
measures for industrial also. She would like to see the structures placed in a way that they were not
obvious or unsightly.
Councilor VanGordon said he was comfortable with the Planning Commission review. He shared
Councilor Pishioneri’s concerns and would like to see how the technical review section would be
written out in the Code. It needed to be defined when that would be required.
Mr. Metzger said there were a number of communities that had that type of provision. He would check
with them, but would also run it through the City Attorney.
Mayor Lundberg asked if Mr. Metzger had the direction he needed.
Yes. He said it sounded like the proposed amendments were adequate with the follow-up as noted.
2. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan: Commercial and Industrial Land (Metro Plan Amendment File
No. LRP 2009-00014).
Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. Since adoption of the
Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the Springfield Refinement Plan (SRP) Residential
Land Use and Housing Element in August, 2011, staff had focused efforts on completing the
commercial and industrial lands component of the SRP. Staff would be seeking Council’s input — in
a series of work sessions over the next several months — to review the draft 2030 Economic Element
and Urbanization Element policies, Development Code language, and the proposed locations for UGB
expansion to be included in the adoption ordinance.
Council last reviewed this topic in January 2009 when the Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands
(CIBL) analysis was adopted by resolution as a preliminary step in the planning process. Staff were
developing 2030 Plan commercial and industrial development policies to respond to: 1) the economic
opportunities and land needs identified in the CIBL analysis; 2) testimony and input received during
and since the February-May 2010 public hearings process conducted by the Springfield and Lane
County Planning Commissions; and, 3) a more detailed suitability analysis of lands outside the UGB.
At the next work session, scheduled for November 13, staff would present some concepts for potential
policies related to the economic element and the urbanization element based on a synthesis of the prior
input.
Springfield’s 2030 Plan was being conceived, prepared and adopted as a refinement plan of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan). Springfield would continue to rely
upon existing Metro Plan policies and plan designations, until such a time when Eugene and
Springfield had resolved if or how they wished to restructure the Metro Plan. The 2030 Plan policies
augmented the more general Metro Plan policies and plan designations by providing a higher degree
of specificity and clarity to guide land use decision-making in the Metro area east of Interstate 5.
Ms. Pauly said a Communication Packet was sent out to the Council in July that provided an overview
of the 2030 planning process and how it related to some of the other decisions before Council such as
the Lane County proposal to change the Metro Plan Boundary. Staff would be coming to Council in a
series of work sessions over the next few months, the first of which would be November 13, 2012.
Much of this would not be new to the Council because they had discussed it often during sessions in
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 22, 2012
Page 5
2009. The objectives and strategies were the things Council agreed should be part of the analysis.
Those things would now be put into policies for Council to adopt as their new Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Pauly said the Economic and Urbanization Element were about community development for jobs
and commerce. The CIBL analysis identified the need for 13,000 new job opportunities over the next
20 years. That was more than three times the number of employees at RiverBend and equivalent to the
number of jobs provided by our region’s top four employers. There was also a goal, set with the
regional economic development plan the joint elected officials worked on over the last several years,
to create 20,000 new jobs in the region in the next ten years. The Economic Element was part of
Springfield’s plan to address how, why and where land for commercial and industrial would be located
over the next 20 years. The Urbanization Element was where the areas that would be added to the
UGB would be mapped, showing how those areas would be planned and zoned for future
development. These parts of the plan addressed Statewide planning goals for Goal 9, Economic
Development, and Goal 14, Urbanization.
Ms. Pauly noted that in 2010 the joint Planning Commissions of Lane County and Springfield
conducted public hearings on preliminary plans for proposed UGB expansion concepts. Public
testimony had been received during that time and recommendations made. Staff was confident that the
areas identified for expansion would stand up well under any challenges.
Ms. Pauly said staff had also conducted a detailed parcel level suitability analysis of the UGB study
areas. Through this analysis, they had looked at constraints, floodways, flood plains and other things
that could affect or impede future development and infrastructure. They had also compared high level
cost comparison analysis of the different areas and developed interim zoning concepts. The land
brought in under an expansion had to be planned and zoned at the same time, so existing zoning and
permitted uses were also considered. Staff had completed all of that and were in the policy and code
development phase and would be preparing those concepts for adoption. Staff had looked at every
option for possible sites and had done a very thorough analysis of those areas. Staff would be
providing a recommendation on the UGB expansion during the January 7 work session.
In addition to staff’s work on the UGB expansion, they had also reviewed the categories of
commercial and industrial land needs that were identified in the Economic Opportunities analysis.
Staff would be making a few policy recommendations to the Council. One was a recommendation that
Council consider designating partitional lands for commercial mixed-use retail in some central areas of
the City instead of putting that use out along the fringe. Staff identified the need to zone land for
development of a full service grocery store in mid-Springfield and also the need to expand the
downtown mixed-use area to allow the kind of development envisioned in the 2010 Downtown Urban
Design Plan. Staff had worked on that with the downtown committees.
Ms. Pauly said staff had heard from the Council, public and development community a desire for more
mixing of complimentary land uses. That would be addressed in the 2030 Plan. An example of that
would be creating more opportunities for limited secondary commercial uses within industrial zoned
land and properties. Another example was to look for more opportunities for neighborhood
commercial mixed-use centers to serve new or under-served neighborhoods. Staff was also looking at
a few areas in the City with existing commercial plan designations that hadn’t been developed for
commercial. They were studying those areas and would propose some changes.
Ms. Pauly said in the Urbanization Element, they would be addressing how the lands in the UGB
expansion areas would be planned and zoned and how infrastructure capacity and urban service needs
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 22, 2012
Page 6
would be addressed. The plan would include discussion about the City’s annexation master plan,
development and approval process, and how those processes addressed partnerships needed to extend
infrastructure to those areas. The Plan needed to identify short-term versus long-term sites for
annexation. She noted that since the Jasper Natron trunk sewer had been built, much of that area was
now in the short-range land supply. She provided a brief summary of the process since 2008. The Plan
was important because it stated the kind of economic development the community wanted to achieve,
and articulated land use designation and policies that were needed to get there.
Councilor Moore asked if staff had responded to the letter in the packet from 1000 Friends that stated
an error had been made.
Ms. Pauly said staff felt there was sufficient documentation in the record already to address Ms.
Nelson’s concerns so they had not responded to her letter. Staff wanted to provide Ms. Nelson’s letter,
and any other correspondence, to the Council.
Councilor Moore asked if there was a viable question from Ms. Nelson. She was trying to understand
what the letter was saying and what Ms. Nelson was referring to.
Ms. Pauly said staff would address all comments in the staff report when they moved forward with
adoption. Some of the response may be to reference a memo from a previous packet. ECONorthwest
had responded to the land need issue identified by Ms. Nelson.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if Council would like a broad response before they moved to the next phase of
work on this subject.
Mayor Lundberg said that would be helpful because on face value it appeared there was a discrepancy.
There was a reference to legal action so Council needed to be aware.
Mayor Lundberg said it had been a long road and this had been a lot of work. She noted on the map
the sites staff had defined better. She asked if the map was representative of the new sites.
Ms. Pauly said that was correct. There were different combinations of sites that could be considered.
Staff would be providing a matrix of those areas allowing Council to compare them.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about a situation on Mahogany Lane with a lot of contention regarding
rainwater runoff and flow and a year-round creek. He asked if that area had been studied.
Ms. Pauly said they had identified drainage issues in their comparative analysis for each area.
Mr. Grimaldi said that situation was specific to a drainage system. This was not at that level of detail
when establishing the UGB.
Council thanked Ms. Pauly and staff for all of their work.
3. Council Goal Setting Discussion.
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery presented the staff report on this item. Each year the Council held
an Annual Goal Setting Session to review and update their Council Goals. This year’s Goal Setting
Session was tentatively scheduled for December 10.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 22, 2012
Page 7
Mr. Towery said Goal Setting was taking a different path than the last few years in terms of timing and
structure. The information in the memo in the agenda packet came out of a conversation that Mr.
Grimaldi had with the Mayor and Councilor Woodrow centered around how TEAM Springfield was
working. That meeting was followed up with a series of staff and leadership discussions with Stan
Biles, the facilitator for the last few Council Goal Setting sessions, about the approach this year. Staff
had also contacted Council-elect Bob Brew to let him know about the proposed date. He asked if
Council had any questions or comments about the approach this year.
Councilor Woodrow said she liked this direction. During the last two sessions, they were collaborating
and finding out where they were as a Council. Having something more specific was beneficial to both
the community and the Council.
Mayor Lundberg said the newer councilors had now been on Council long enough to know many of
the issues so it was a good time to take advantage of that expertise. She felt having a good working
goal setting session was good.
Mr. Towery said Stan Biles would contact councilors prior to their one-on-one interviews, to be
scheduled by Ms. Sowa, with a request for what he would like. He did note that Mr. Biles felt this was
an ambitious undertaking and he would encourage Council to be flexible. They may find that the
aggressive time schedule may not allow them to do all the work they would like to accomplish in one
meeting.
4. McKenzie Oxbow.
Development and Public Works Department Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this
item. In 1993, the Weyerhaeuser Company donated a parcel of land immediately north of the Eugene
Springfield Highway and east of 42nd Street, to the City, with the intent that it be preserved as an open
and natural area. In 2001, the City conducted a master planning process for this site, and, on June 18,
2001, directed that the plan be recognized as the management plan for the site, and that City staff
comply with the policies set forth therein when making management decisions concerning the
property. The plan, in summary, concluded that in addition to the existing uses for production of
potable water for City residents and as a utility corridor, many of the functions were educational or
recreational in nature. In furtherance of the plan objectives, a portion of the property was transferred to
the McKenzie River Trust. Conceptually, many of the remaining functions were believed to fall within
the customary activities of the Willamalane Park and Recreation District.
The principal alternative City use for the property was to support stormwater management functions.
City staff had examined the needs in that area in depth and now concluded that those needs could be
met by reserving an appropriate easement with respect to the existing stormwater facilities. As a result,
staff recommended that the entire balance of the property be conveyed to Willamalane, reserving to
the City sufficient rights with respect to existing stormwater facilities and the existing 42nd Street
Multi-use Path.
Mr. Goodwin referred to Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, which summarized the proposed
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Willamalane. City staff, City attorney’s office and
Willamalane had been, and would continue, working on the draft IGA. He reviewed the key elements
of the IGA. The map, Attachment 3 of the agenda packet, showed the area to be transferred to
Willamalane in green outline. The area outlined in orange indicated the area previously transferred to
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 22, 2012
Page 8
McKenzie River Trust. When the State surrendered 42nd Street to the County, they surrendered the
right-of-way. There was a strip about 80 feet wide east of the right-of-way which was not surrendered,
but was transferred as a tax lot. When the County surrendered 42nd Street to the City, they surrendered
the right-of-way but not the tax lot. That was discovered when the 42nd Street path was designed
because it was built on that tax lot. The City would be working with Willamalane to give them
appropriate rights with respect to the part of the tax lot that was above Highway 126 on the map. A
portion south of Highway 126 would remain in City control and the City would work out the details
over whether or not it was better to keep the entire parcel in City control and grant Willamalane an
easement, or do a property line adjustment and transfer part of it to Willamalane. If it was transferred,
an easement would need to be reserved to maintain and operate the bike path. That would be
negotiated with Willamalane.
Mr. Goodwin noted a triangular shaped tax lot on the very eastern end of the subject property. On that
lot, there were a number of Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and Rainbow Water District wells. No
easements were granted to SUB or Rainbow for those wells. The city surveyor had worked with
Willamalane, SUB and Rainbow and come up with an easement that was agreeable to all parties,
which would confirm their rights to those wells when the property was transferred. He referred to a
slough just above Highway 126 on the map, and a little bridge that went across the slough. That was
an existing slough and the City would maintain an easement on behalf of the City to maintain that
slough, have access to it, clean it and reshape it as needed to maintain appropriate flow.
Mr. Goodwin said there were a number of conditions in the Oxbow Master Plan and Willamalane
would agree to fulfill all of those conditions. One of the conditions of the master plan was a long
standing plan to have a bike or multi-use path extending east from the 42nd Street path to Highbanks.
There remained a great deal of uncertainty where that path would be located. It could be very
challenging to get it on the north side of Highway 126, although that was the original intent. One of
the provisions of the IGA would be for Willamalane to work with the City to locate that path when
funds were available to design and build the path. That would preserve the City’s ability to get the
path through.
Mr. Goodwin said staff would bring back the IGA for the transfer. Work in this area was one of the
projects Willamalane had highlighted in their Plan for use of bond funds if the bond was approved.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if Willamalane would still be interested in this property if their bond didn’t
pass.
Mr. Goodwin said Willamalane had been interested in this property for about 5 or 6 years, prior to
contemplating the bond. If the bond was not successful, Willamalane would be prioritizing where to
spend their current resources. There was no connection between moving this at this time and the bond
issue. The City Attorney did ask that staff try to get this transaction completed prior to the bond. He
noted that the City had never officially acknowledged the gift from Weyerhaeuser because we were
still sorting out what to do with the property.
Councilor Pishioneri said part of the agreement for the transfer of the portion to McKenzie River Trust
was that public access would not be impeded as long as people were not damaging the property. He
wanted to make sure that same clause was in the IGA with Willamalane allowing river access without
a fee. The property was given to the City for use by the public and should not have a fee attached. He
was concerned about the bridge.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 22, 2012
Page 9
Mr. Goodwin said it had basically been rebuilt.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the City would be responsible for maintaining the bridge if we retained
the bridge and slough. He was concerned if Willamalane used the bridge for equipment.
Mr. Goodwin said the City would only retain the easement. The bridge maintenance would be the
responsibility of Willamalane.
Councilor Moore said there was mention of an intake for Eugene’s water source. She asked where that
was located in relation to his property.
Councilor Pishioneri said it was at the far eastern end of the triangular piece and was downstream
from Rainbow Water.
Councilor Moore said the materials mentioned use of this property for educational opportunities with
Eugene and Springfield School Districts. Looking at the property, she felt it was a wonderful regional
resource. She asked if Willamalane would be encouraging others in our region to participate in the
development of this property. She understood Eugene would have concerns about what happened in
that area because of their water and she asked if they would be involved.
Mr. Goodwin said he expected that any development of recreational opportunities or other uses
consistent with the Master Plan would require a public process, which would involve the Council as
well as Eugene Water and Electric Board and Lane County as interested and affected property owners.
Mr. Grimaldi said Willamalane Superintendent Bob Keefer often asked others to partner in projects.
Mayor Lundberg said Willamalane would be in the mix for projects such as paths and asking for
funding. Eugene would have to agree to spend a communal pot of money on those types of projects.
Mr. Goodwin said Willamalane already had a number of applications for paths in the Willamette River
area.
Councilor Moore said it was not just the shared funding, but sharing the educational opportunities
regionally for everyone to participate. She felt it was a wonderful resource and she was very
impressed. She felt they should start by acknowledging Weyerhaeuser for the original donation.
Mr. Grimaldi said both parties agreed to wait to do the acknowledgment until something occurred on
the property.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would prefer to include tax lot 2500 in the land given to Willamalane,
making them responsible for the maintenance of the path. It was part of the property and was
recreational property.
Mr. Goodwin said they had held conversations with Willamalane about that possibility.
Mayor Lundberg agreed and said it was a path that was highly used for recreation. She said she was
also interested in wetlands mitigation which was noted on Page 5 of the Executive Summary of the
Master Plan (Attachment 2). She had read somewhere that Springfield didn’t have any wetland
mitigation sites to replace others that might be covered over.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 22, 2012
Page 10
Mr. Goodwin said there were two mitigation sites in the Mill Pond area of the Mill Race. The City had
not extensively created sites for wetland banking in the past.
Mayor Lundberg said if they did development and covered over wetlands, they needed to have another
wetlands to replace that. The Executive Summary referred to “wetland mitigation, enhancement and
banking”. She asked if there was room on the subject site to do wetland banking. The City was looking
at the commercial and industrial urban growth boundary (UGB) growth and assumed that some of that
would require some mitigation in order to develop some of those sites.
Mr. Goodwin said it might be possible to consider using this property to enhance the existing
wetlands. They would need to include that in the IGA.
Mr. Keefer said he would need to know if that was a dually funded or City funded project and how
that would work as an obligation. That could be worked out through the process. Willamalane
envisioned utilizing low-end grant dollars with McKenzie River Trust to do some of that restoration
work, and then utilizing park and perhaps City funds to assist. The IGA would need to include a
statement that the City and Willamalane would work together toward mitigation banking with other
partners. It would need to be a partnership from the wetland banking standpoint.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder