HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/1/2013
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) March 11, 2013 – Work Session
b) March 18, 2013 – Work Session
c) March 18, 2013 – Regular Meeting
d) March 25, 2013 – Work Session
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 11, 2013 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew.
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.
Councilors Wylie was absent (excused).
1. Joint Meeting with the Springfield Arts Commission.
Arts Commission Member Niles Schartz introduced Kristen Cure, Librarian and staff liaison to the
Arts Commission. Each of the members of the Arts Commission introduced themselves and their areas
of interest in the arts: Roka Walsh, Bob Winkelman, Gary LeClair and Riley Smith.
Ms. Walsh said the Springfield Arts Commission promoted the arts and culture of Springfield. They
provided opportunities for artistic creations, such as exhibits, performances and events that created
cooperation among local organizations to make art accessible. The Commission sought to educate the
community about the role the arts played in enhancing the quality of life. The Commission consisted
of a nine member board and had a budget of $9000, as well as part-time staff support. The Arts
Commission was established by the City Council in 1986 and was charged with creating Art Alley and
encouraging Art in the community.
Mr. Schartz spoke regarding Art Alley and noted that most of it was gone. The City Council had
originally conceived the idea of Art Alley and created the Arts Commission to facilitate their idea of
cleaning up the city and creating a better environment downtown. The murals of Art Alley were an
important part of Springfield’s identity. Some were nearly 25 years old and in need of repair. He noted
the mural on the Emerald Art Center and roof work that was done in a way not to affect or damage the
mural. There were several other buildings with murals that needed repair. The Arts Commission
would be able to assist in repair of some of the murals, but not all. When the Art Alley was complete,
the Arts Commission had a Walk of Art brochure with the murals, but some of those not longer
existed. In 2011, the Commission created a new brochure, doing nearly all of the work in-house. At
that time, the Commission decided they would like to come up with a new logo. The new logo that
was developed was displayed for the Council and audience. The new brochures were distributed to the
Mayor and Council.
Mr. Winkelman said one of the Commission’s biggest focuses was to help facilitate arts throughout
the community by helping other groups develop art. Heritage Arts grants were available for groups
that applied. Those funds could range from $100 to a maximum of $500, with the only criteria being
that the funds for the project must be used to help produce something that would be of benefit and
accessible to the everyone in Springfield. They had funded concerts, dance recitals, art work in schools
and other public art. They were very proud to be able to facilitate those projects. Sometimes they
received more requests than funds available, which had totaled about $3500 the last few years, so had
to turn down some applicants that may not meet the criteria or provide enough information. Another
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 11, 2013
Page 2
part of the Heritage Grants umbrella was for groups that had very timely requests for funds. The
Commission looked at those applications and determined if funds could be allocated. Those
historically had been requests from the Library for special events. Over the last year, the Commission
had begun a more structured process for those funds and was trying to finalize a more precise
mechanism for those applications.
Mr. LeClair spoke regarding the Youth Arts Program. Over the last couple of years, the Arts
Commission had involved elementary schools in an art project that was displayed in the schools, then
at City Hall. Hundreds of students participated and enjoyed the program. In 2013, Ms. Cure would be
attending the Springfield Public Schools Arts Council as a representative. The Commission would be
doing more with high school students from A3 and another new project in May with Two Rivers/Dos
Rios Elementary connecting community artists with the school during the 2nd Friday Art Walk. They
also had a Teen Book Cover Contest and a Teen Short Story Contest which had proved very popular.
One of their biggest productions was the Puppet Festival, run for the last 20 years by Celeste Rose. It
was held in the Lobby and also at the Wildish Theater. This event had been sold out the last couple of
times and they had two shows scheduled this year on March 23, at 1:00pm and 3:00pm. This was a
very popular event with the kids.
Mr. Schartz said the Puppet Festival included five different arts in one medium: sculpture (paper
mache), painting, fabric art (clothing for puppets), music (singing) and performing.
Mr. Schartz said Arts Commission member Scott Wylie was the lead on the City Hall Gallery. The
Commission held several different shows at the gallery with one of their favorites being the Youth Art
Show. The kids loved seeing their art on the wall. This year they had changed it from the elementary
school students to the high school students at A3. Another was the Community Art Show held in the
summer. Local artists were invited from all over and their art was displayed. It was always a surprise
and interesting to see what people brought. The Mayor’s Art Show was held each fall at the Emerald
Art Center. Three people were chosen to receive gift certificates in the amount $100. Those three were
invited to show their work in the City Hall Gallery in December. They were considering having the
Mayor’s Selection Show in the City Hall Gallery next year. The Community Alliance of Lane County
(CALC) project had their exhibit up last week which included pictures of Neighbors without
Addresses. CALC was a recipient of the Heritage Arts Grants which allowed for the framing and for
Springfield to have the first showing of the exhibit.
Mr. Schartz said TEAM Springfield had worked very hard to bring social and cultural change to
downtown. The Art Walk was an important ingredient in that effort. The Store Front Project was led
by NEDCO, with Paula Goodbar as the primary people supporting this project. He asked if the Mayor
could recognize Ms. Goodbar for those efforts. NEDCO had a number of changes, but Ms. Goodbar
had been consistent and continued with the work. In 2011 the Farmer’s Market opened up in front of
City Hall which allowed the Art Gallery to open up as people came into the building. Turnout was
sometimes good if the artist invited a lot of guests, but otherwise people couldn’t always tell City Hall
was open. Sales had been good at the Art Gallery during the Art Walks. Although NEDCO was
changing the director of the Art Walk, several Arts Commission members had been meeting with the
Main Street organization with an offer to help. They were able to provide $960 to pay for the Art Walk
signs which stores could put up in front of their businesses. The funds also helped with the printing of
the posters.
Mr. Smith spoke regarding some of the challenges for the future. The Arts Commission would
continue with its arts projects and programs, and facilitate the creation of art opportunities in
Springfield. The Commission would continue to increase the variety of programs that could be funded
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 11, 2013
Page 3
through the Heritage Grants, and was working on creating a separate grant cycle for community
groups to apply for smaller one-time funding. They strived to achieve goals using the arts to shape
downtown Springfield and celebrate art in the community. The Commission was eager to continue its
collaboration projects, such as the Springfield Puppet Festival, recruiting a variety of artists to the City
Hall Gallery, participating in the 2nd Friday Art Walk and supporting the creation of youth art projects
in the community. Springfield was a leading art contributor and would continue in that direction,
especially downtown with the A3 School. He wanted to provide a place where those students could
stay and be encouraged to become art graphic designers and build a portfolio.
Mr. Schartz said the Commission was looking for proper locations for future murals. One of the ideas
was to put something on the bare walls on the outside of City Hall above 6th and A Streets. Rather than
have the artist paint the walls, they considered having the artist paint panels that would be installed.
There were a lot of places around City Hall that could use art.
Councilor Ralston asked if they had problems with vandalism on murals.
Mr. Schartz said they had not. People seemed to respect the art.
Councilor Woodrow commended the Commission on the collaboration with CALC and their artwork.
She hoped to see more partnerships with them in the future.
Mr. Schartz said they had received a number of lengthy comments from that display. It touched a lot
of people.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the A3 artwork would replace the elementary schools artwork in the
Youth Art Program.
No, they would continue with elementary art as well. Discussion was held regarding the strong
showing with the elementary program. Having their art displayed in public meant a lot to the kids.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the Arts Commission had considered joining the Lane County Arts
Council.
Mr. Niles said they actually belonged to that council.
Councilor Brew commended the Arts Commission on their work and said he loved the City Hall
Gallery. He encouraged them to try to get more art photography. He remembered Bob the Dog, the
mural on the building that was torn down.
Councilor Moore thanked them and said she appreciated the Art Gallery and the Friday Night Art
Walk. She asked if they had funds for public art besides murals.
Mr. Schartz said they had a special mural fund and a mural maintenance fund.
Councilor Moore said some things such as the wooden bench and display had been added to City Hall,
which was nice. She would like to see more public art displayed in City Hall.
Mr. Schartz said the Tessa sculptures, metal welded sculptures, were donated to the Arts Commission
years ago and were currently stored in Maintenance. The Commission was looking for a place for
them so would put them up for silent auction in the Gallery in November.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 11, 2013
Page 4
Discussion was held regarding safety concerns due to the sharp edges on the sculptures. Precautions
would be taken before they were set out in the lobby.
Councilor Brew said it would be a fun idea to purchase the winner of the Mayor’s Art Show and hang
it in City Hall.
Councilor VanGordon thanked the Arts Commission and said it was great seeing people wanting to
make a positive impact on the community. It really did impact all of Springfield and brought people
downtown. The Commission took a small budget and impacted many, promoting cultural life which
touched all of downtown and helped with economic development.
Mr. Schartz said the Commission put every bit of their $9000 budget to work. They tried to track the
cost benefit of each project.
Mayor Lundberg said she would get a letter to Ms. Goodbar and see if there was a way the City could
help make City Hall look more open during the 2nd Friday Art Walk.
Councilor Woodrow said there could be someone in the community that would want to come forward
to put up a banner or other signage.
Mayor Lundberg said there were things the City could do to help. She felt it was worthy to look at
murals inside and outside City Hall. Spaces were now being used in the lobby area as more of a
gathering space. She appreciated everything the Arts Commission has done over the years. She did
note the sharp edges of the Tessa sculptures and the need to display them safely. She appreciated that
the Commission was looking at the grant cycle because it had been very confusing. The Arts
Commission was part of the City so we needed to look closely at how those processes were being
done. She would like Councilor Woodrow to be in on discussions about those grant applications as the
Council liaison to the Arts Commission. Currently the applications were a bit open-ended. Mayor
Lundberg served on the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) who gave out
millions in funds and they had a very strict process which gave people clarity about deadlines and
notifications. She wanted to encourage the Arts Commission to take that on as a priority and get back
to Councilor Woodrow and Mayor Lundberg so they could take a look and provide feedback.
Councilor Woodrow said there would be a transition for those that were accustomed to a casual
approach going to a more structured process. She felt they could spread the grant cycle into three four-
month cycles per year, with certain criteria required. Anyone in the community could apply as long as
it fit in the parameters. They needed to make sure the community was aware.
Mr. Schartz discussed the amount available for the Heritage Arts Grant and used for the Art Walk.
Councilor Woodrow suggested taking funds given in the informal process and divide it into three
cycles. She also suggested they have a referral source to provide to people they couldn’t fund.
Mr. Schartz said they would love to give out more funds.
Mayor Lundberg said she understood they had a set amount. They could separate the funds and give
people parameters. Having clear criteria made it easier to explain why they did or didn’t receive
funding, and allowed people to plan according to deadlines. It opened it up to more people that might
want to access the funds.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 11, 2013
Page 5
Mr. Schartz said one of the thoughts was to run the Heritage Arts Grant in the Fall, then offer another
set of Heritage Arts Grants in the Spring after they knew how much was made by the Puppet Festival.
Councilor Woodrow said she would prefer it was more standardized even if it was at an amount less
than expected. It provided more structure.
The Arts Commission did not meet in the summer so they were not approached during that time.
Mayor Lundberg said she and Councilor Woodrow would be happy to sit down with the Commission
in a smaller setting.
Councilor Moore asked if they received monetary donations.
It was noted that they were not allowed as they were a City commission.
Mayor Lundberg said she appreciated the Commission members for taking the time to meet with the
Council.
2. Initiation of Amendments to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan to Implement the ORS 197.304.
Planner Mark Metzger and City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith presented the staff report on this item.
ORS 197.304 (HB 3337) established separate Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) for Eugene and
Springfield and was the impetus for the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and the Envision Eugene
planning initiatives. As these planning efforts were readied for adoption, amendments to Chapter IV
were needed to clarify which governing bodies would participate in decision making given the
establishment of separate UGBs. The amendments to Chapter IV were intended to support a
framework for needed planning collaboration among the jurisdictions while respecting the autonomy
of each.
The most significant changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan were summarized below.
• Three types of Metro Plan amendments were established by the amendments: Type I which
required the participation of all three jurisdictions; Type II which required the participation of
the home city and Lane County; and Type III amendments which may be enacted by the home
city alone. The current policy defined only two types of amendments: Types I and II.
• The proposed amendments more carefully defined “regional impact.” Metro Plan
amendments having a “significant impact” on the water, storm drainage, wastewater, or
transportation facilities of the non-home city were defined as having a regional impact. The
current policy language used the term “demonstrable impact” which was a lower standard to
meet. Actions requiring amendment of a regional transportation system plan, or a regional
public facilities plan were assumed to have a regional impact. Amendments with regional
impact entitled the non-home city to intervene in a Type II decision.
When governing bodies did not reach consensus on a Metro Plan amendment, the current policy
would send the matter to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). The proposed amendments
would send unresolved decisions to the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and one or both
of the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield, depending on how many governing bodies were
participating in the decision.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 11, 2013
Page 6
Mr. Metzger said they hoped to bring this to Council on March 18 for approval to initiate the process.
Attachment 2 of the agenda packet was the work program and timing for this process. It was in the
interest of all three jurisdictions to move this forward. It appeared the leadership from the other
jurisdictions was generally in favor of moving this forward.
Councilor Brew asked about the process to align the Metro Plan Boundary to Springfield’s urban
growth boundary (UGB) which involved similar issues. He asked if that was a parallel process.
Ms. Smith said that was a parallel process. The first step was establishing the separate UGB and this
was the second step. The third step was expanding the UGB.
Mr. Metzger said currently, if the change to the Metro Plan Boundary crossed over the river, it would
take participation from all three jurisdictions even if it only affected Springfield. With the proposed
amendments, only Springfield and the County would participate.
Mr. Grimaldi said Councilor Brew may be referring to the ongoing discussions between Springfield
Utility Board (SUB), Lane County and the City of Springfield regarding the Metro Plan Boundary.
The key issue for that topic was the protection of the well fields. Staff had a reasonable solution
agreed to by all three agencies that would be presented to the Council on March 18.
Mayor Lundberg said the key was whether or not Council agreed with the three types. Part of the work
would be to make the language very clear so there was no room for misinterpretation. The change
would also mean that Springfield would no longer participate on issues affecting only Eugene.
Mr. Metzger said staff and the attorneys would be working very hard on that language.
Ms. Smith said planners and lawyers had worked on this together and had very good collaboration.
There could be some slight changes during the public process as more input was received, but it was a
good product and should address the issue.
Councilor Ralston said the Type I amendment change was the only one that required all three bodies.
He asked what was meant by non site specific amendments.
Ms. Smith said it included fundamental policies in the Metro Plan that if changed would impact all
three jurisdictions. Those were included in Section 2 of the Metro Plan. There were very few things
that would require all three jurisdictions to participate.
Mr. Metzger said next week this item would be brought to Council with a motion to initiate the
process. Later in the process, after Planning Commission review, the Council would have more work
sessions, a public hearing and adoption.
Council was fine with moving forward.
3. Work Session to Review Springfield Development Advisory Committee Work Priorities and
Authorization of Next Steps by City Council.
Planning Supervisor Jim Donovan and Civil Engineer Matt Stouder presented the staff report on this
item. Mr. Donovan said staff was available to assist the Development Advisory Committee (DAC)
Chair and Vice Chair with their presentation. He introduced DAC Chair Renee Clough and Vice
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 11, 2013
Page 7
Chair Ed McMahan. He noted that the DAC was on schedule and on point, and had accomplished
three major steps with meetings dedicated to each step. Staff had provided background on the different
topics, and then the DAC created their own matrix of priorities and final ranking. Staff was here to
answer questions about the public process and resources to move forward. They were on track to be
back to Council prior to summer break with information of where they were and to schedule
adjustments as necessary. They had spent a lot of time, but did have consensus on the committee. He
noted that Councilor VanGordon was the Council liaison and Commissioner James was the Planning
Commission liaison.
Ms. Clough said a matrix was created of the different items the DAC wanted to look at, with rankings
of each. In putting the matrix together, columns were included that the DAC felt the Planning
Commission and City Council would be interested to see. Most of that information was not held as a
priority other than public demand along with the committee members’ personal feelings. She referred
to the matrix and topics. Site Review Applicability was the DAC’s highest priority and although they
did not want to eliminate it entirely, they did want to explore it further for each situation. Project
Advocacy and Communication was the second priority. It was difficult to describe, but basically was
looking to have one contact person for a project even though numerous staff needed to be involved.
There were times when there seemed to be competing priorities among different departments, so they
wanted to look at how that could be dealt with internally and not involve the applicant. System
Development Charge (SDC) Context was the third priority. The DAC was aware there was some task
force work looking at methodology and the rates, but the DAC was interested in looking at the context
of the SDCs and how they were used. Fees were the fourth priority and were similar in that they
wanted to look at how fees could be used more efficiently through technology or other opportunities.
Planning Application Fees was the fifth priority with the same focus as #4 Fees. Incentivizing Use of
Brownfields was the sixth priority. There were a number of areas in the city the DAC felt could be
redeveloped, but for one reason or another developers were not interested. The DAC would like to
look at ways to improve those brownfield areas.
Mr. McMahon spoke regarding Project Advocacy and Communication and said it meant for the City
to say ‘yes’ until they couldn’t, to be open for business, to champion a project as far as possible and to
get all of the departments together. He gave staff credit for implementing some of the good ideas from
the DAC which didn’t require Planning Commission or City Council approval. He noted that the
information presented was also presented to the Planning Commission on January 15, 2013. He
acknowledged two other DAC members in the audience; Mike Koivula and Phillip Farrington who
were in the audience.
Councilor Woodrow asked if it was possible to have one staff member act as the lead for advocacy and
communication. Objectivity was needed both in communicating the process and acting as an advocate.
She asked if it would be possible to have that be one person.
Ms. Clough said that was their vision.
Councilor Woodrow said she liked the idea of looking at site plan review further and setting up
parameters of using it in only certain situations instead of across the board.
Mayor Lundberg said the City recently combined Public Works and Development Services so they
were still in the learning process. She asked if it was typical that the developer sent just one person to
work with the City. It would make sense to create a team where there was one staff person working
with one contact person from the developer side.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 11, 2013
Page 8
Ms. Clough said most developers did just have one person working with the City.
Mayor Lundberg said she would like to see if we could just have one staff person as the contact.
Councilor VanGordon said that message had been carried.
Councilor Ralston asked about who would be incentivizing the brownfields.
Ms. Clough said the DAC was looking at how the City could incentivize through the Code or other
ways, not just monetarily.
Councilor Ralston said he liked thinking outside the box and one of his priorities was to get those
areas redeveloped.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the City had an assessment of the brownfield sites in Springfield. If they
knew what was out there, they could have variations of incentives that were site specific.
Mr. Donovan said if this item rose to the top of the priority list, that work would be done. There were
different levels of brownfield inventory, different levels of contamination on those various sites, and
areas of blight. Staff was open to looking at process and assistance. They all had the same common
goal.
Councilor VanGordon said when looking at the matrix, most of the discussion had happened on the
first three items. His vision was if Council agreed on the first three tasks, the DAC could work on
those. The top three were where most of the thought had been put and he would like to see where
those could go. There were good questions and creative solutions to solve the issues from the
committee. They were trying to balance the needs to be open for business with the needs of the City so
the end product from the DAC would be something that would make the City more effective and help
make it easier for projects to get started. He was excited about the work done so far and felt the first
three items were a good place to start.
Councilor Ralston asked if the old WareMart building was considered a brownfield.
Mr. Donovan said it was a fairly large site and may have required some cleanup. He believed it had
gone through the necessary steps and was now ready for redevelopment.
Councilor Moore asked about the SDC equity issue. She thought that was being addressed by the City
already and the issue of people paying their fair share.
Ms. Clough said there were multiple definitions of fair share. Some members of the DAC felt they
should not have to pay SDCs in an area that was already fully developed to pay for an area that was to
be built out. The group was aware that some of the ideas would not work. The intent was to come up
with a list of what they thought were viable ideas and pass it along to the SDC group to explore
further.
Ms. Stouder said the DAC was aware of the current reduction of SDCs the City had in place and were
appreciative of that program. They wanted to talk about other issues and provide input to the SDC
CAC. Some of the things they were looking at had already been discussed.
Mayor Lundberg said staff was looking at which topics Council wanted as the DAC’s focus.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 11, 2013
Page 9
Discussion was held regarding which three were considered the top three. It was noted that the top
three were: 1) Site Review Applicability; 2) Project Advocacy and Communication; and 3) SDC
Context.
Councilor VanGordon said those three would be his preference, but they could also have the DAC
brainstorm more about the brownfield item.
Mayor Lundberg said she would like to bump the brownfields topic.
Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said there was a regional grant through the
Lane Livability Consortium that would identify over the next year or year and a half between 60-80
brownfield sites in the region. That could be a good place to start when looking to assess brownfield
development.
Mr. McMahan said he would like to work on fees as well. There could be some efficiency measures
used in other cities that could be used in Springfield.
Councilor Ralston said all of the topics were very important.
Mr. Stouder said they had a fairly aggressive timeline. Staff hoped to be able to manage the process
and bring an update to the Council in July regarding resources and times for each of the projects.
Mayor Lundberg said she very much appreciated the DAC’s participation.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 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, MARCH 18, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 18, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Brew. 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. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Urbanization Element: Comparing Potential
Employment Opportunity Sites to Address 20-Year Commercial and Industrial Land Needs
(Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP 2009-00014).
Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. Adding suitable large-site
industrial land to the City’s land base was one important component in growing and diversifying
Springfield’s economy to increase city and regional prosperity. Expanding Springfield’s UGB would
increase the region’s supply of employment land and would require development of public
infrastructure (i.e., transportation, wastewater and stormwater facilities) to support land development
activity and the infrastructure required to serve specific sites. The cost to plan and build infrastructure
to serve new sites added to Springfield’s UGB would be substantial. Without availability of adequate
public infrastructure and services, the industries Springfield aspired to attract would have little
incentive to locate here as noted in Attachment 4 of the agenda packet.
In order to justify bringing new employment land into the UGB, Statewide Planning Goal 14 required
the City to compare the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion
areas with respect to the provision of public facilities and services. As one necessary step towards
completing this requirement, Springfield engineering and transportation staff prepared rough
“planning level” cost of infrastructure estimates to compare the cost and difficulty of extending the
three City services to each study area (Attachment 2 of the agenda packet). These estimates were in
2009 dollars and likely to be exceeded at the actual time of development. The cost estimates to extend
services to each area were high so it was likely that most types of development in any new area would
require a mix of public and private investment to build the necessary infrastructure. A key policy
issue for Springfield would be how to reach a balanced mix of public and private investment to
provide infrastructure to one or more new opportunity sites, and which sites were most likely to
present opportunities to create the highest value of development and return on investment.
Ms. Pauly said it was important for Springfield to have its own Comprehensive Plan and to have
policies in place to establish the community’s visions, values and aspirations, and a clear roadmap for
how they would be translated into community investment strategies, partnerships and development
action. In this time of resource scarcity, the City and our region would need all the tools available to
successfully attract public and private capital investment to our community. The federal and state
funding entities, philanthropic organizations, private capital investment and private development
interests were scrutinizing all of the competing proposals they received to determine if the city or
region had a good Comprehensive Plan adopted that addressed the 21st Century needs and
opportunities, and that the project requested implemented their adopted plan, the project was aligned
with federal, state or philanthropic organizations’ mission and priorities and there was public support
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 2
available to support the private investment. The Springfield 2030 Plan was building a foundation for a
long-term community investment strategy, one that would support local objectives and one that would
strengthen the whole region. The work Council was doing now could have profound impact here and
beyond.
During the January work session, Council discussed the economic element goals, policies and
implementation strategies designed to direct and encourage growth to occur within Springfield’s
existing employment, commercial and mixed-use districts and corridors and in new opportunity sites
that would be added to the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB). This could be thought of as a
two-pronged growth strategy for Springfield: the first focused on growing our employment and
commerce capacity within the structure of the existing community framework; and the second
supported adding one or more new growth areas to the City’s UGB to supply employment opportunity
sites that would give industries, especially private industries that required sites larger than 20 acres, a
potential launching pad in Springfield. Creating these opportunities would support diversification and
growth of the economy.
Ms. Pauly said during the February work session, staff provided the Council with maps of the five
UGB study areas with suitable sites that met the criteria governing UGB expansion. They were now in
the process of comparing the sites. The agenda packet included estimated costs and difficulty with
extending public infrastructure specifically public transportation, wastewater and stormwater systems
to the five areas. Tonight they wanted to look at how to match Springfield’s aspiration with the
realities of our land base and the City’s capacity to provide urban services. She referred to Attachment
2, page 1 of the agenda packet which was the summary of costs of service. She also noted Attachment
3, page 2 of the agenda packet which showed how the five study areas matched up with the prime
industrial land characteristics that were identified by the State’s Industrial Land Certification Program.
If Springfield wanted to have shovel ready sites available and participate in the certification program,
these were the characteristics that would be needed by the various industries.
Mayor Lundberg asked that Attachment 3 could be made larger next time it was presented.
Ms. Pauly said they would provide a larger chart at the next work session. She noted that this
presentation was to inform the Council. A decision would be made much later following a public
hearing process where other sites might be considered.
Mr. Grimaldi said everything was relative in terms of cost. There would be areas that looked more
attractive in terms of the cost of infrastructure and other services. There were also other factors that
were required by law that Council would need to consider.
Mayor Lundberg said it was hard to figure out what they wanted when looking at the comparison of
costs. She referred to the study from ECONorthwest about the jobs of the future and industry. She was
trying to match up industries with sites. She would like to see that match up on some type of
document.
Mr. Grimaldi said that was a good point. The Council would be looking at a lot of variables that would
need to come together.
Community Development Manager John Tamulonis said the information before Council only included
the cost and number of acres. Staff could look at what they could expect for job generation in the
different areas and give Council an idea of types of businesses that might come in so they could have a
sense of what they were investing in. That could also include the value of the land and the buildings
on the land. If there were larger sites in the Gateway area and they continued to have campus
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 3
industrial in those areas, staff could show what had happened in the past, the cost per square foot and
what type of investment would be needed.
Councilor Moore said it would be helpful to know the cost per acre of developable land and the
infrastructure needed. She wanted to know about the number of property owners involved in each
study area. That could factor into this as well.
Councilor Brew asked Mr. Tamulonis if the information he would be providing would include the cost
of land per acre in each area and the cost to get it to a developable standard.
Mr. Tamulonis said not the latter, but he could provide the cost of land per acre. They could look at
the current value of the properties and the number of jobs it could create. He discussed the different
types of development and how the values would differ. It would provide a snapshot of how the land
could be developed over a period of time.
Councilor Brew said there were so many matrixes it was difficult to determine the overall cost and
benefit. He referred to Attachment 2, page 1 of the agenda packet showing the difficulty for different
infrastructure (transportation, stormwater, etc). The areas that had rated easier on Attachment 2 were
listed as not viable on the bottom row of page 2, Attachment 3. He asked how the two interrelated.
Ms. Pauly said Attachment 3 was showing which sites were shovel ready with adequate infrastructure.
This chart showed the competitiveness of these properties for industry.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said another way to look at it was that the first chart showed
what it took to get a green box in the second chart.
Councilor Brew said some would be easier to change from red to green.
Mayor Lundberg said anything staff could do to match up the industries that would most likely fit in
each area would be beneficial. Expanding the UGB wisely in a direction to attract industry, and have
community support, was one of the biggest decisions they would be making. She felt they didn’t yet
have all of the information they needed. They wanted to see what could be complimentary and what
they could attract.
Councilor Brew said it might help to see a staff recommendation and the reasons regarding each site.
Councilor VanGordon referred to Attachment 3, page 1 of the agenda packet, the Oregon Industrial
Site Certification. He asked if we had an idea how the study sites stacked up to other areas that were
developing in the State.
Ms. Pauly said some communities had shovel ready sites, but not the right size. There was a shortage
of sites over 20 acres statewide.
Councilor VanGordon said information about how they compared to other communities sites would be
useful. He asked about Attachment 2, page 1 regarding transportation difficulty at the Seavey Loop
site. He asked if the costs would go down if the County developed Goshen.
Mr. Boyatt said it was difficult to say because he was not sure what the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) and Lane County had in mind regarding the interchange improvement. When
estimating the costs, staff looked at the I-5 and 30th Avenue intersection, the proximity of the railroad
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 4
lines and the fact there was only one way in and out of the Seavey Loop area. The costs were oriented
around that interchange to access employment.
Mr. Grimaldi said the time it took to make any major interchange improvement was between 15-20
years.
Mayor Lundberg pointed out they had to compete at the State level for funding for those types of
projects.
Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said as Ms. Pauly had mentioned in the past,
the City didn’t anticipate that any one or two sites would meet the needs. Council would likely be
looking at land in each area to make up the required amount. When thinking about how to expand,
they would want to consider policy questions about all five sites and focus on the vision for each. Staff
could provide some assistance to break it down for analysis.
Mr. Boyatt said they could also look at the sites in terms of time: short, medium or long-term.
Councilor VanGordon asked Mr. Goodwin to expand on his comments further. He asked if there was
a point at each site where the bigger costs kicked in, considering they looked at portions of each site.
Mr. Goodwin said that was an important consideration. He used the north Springfield Highway as an
example where the cost levels were lower compared to the other sites. That might be a place to
concentrate first as it would be the easiest to get shovel ready, even though it had significant drainage
constraints. The Council could craft a vision of expecting that site to develop in the next 5 years,
another site in 10 years, another site in 15 years, etc. It was a good way to stage both the cost exposure
and the orderly development.
Councilor Moore referred to Attachment 4, page 1 of the agenda packet. She asked what could be
done in the flood plain. She asked if they needed to take the full acreage of a site even if it was not
suitable, and if acreage that was not suitable would be counted towards our total.
Ms. Pauly said the City needed 640 acres of suitable land. Sites had land that was suitable and also
land with constraints that went up to the river. During the public process in 2010, they received input
from the Planning Commission and the public to take the whole area up to the river on those sites
rather than leaving a strip of land between the UGB and the river. The land with constraints did not
count towards the 640 acres.
Councilor Moore asked about the constraints in the floodplain,
Ms. Pauly said the City had a floodplain overlay district that would be applied which included
additional rules and increased cost. In the materials from the State, floodplain was considered to be an
expensive constraint for development. Industries didn’t want to see a floodplain when looking for a
site.
Councilor Brew asked if an interchange improvement would be done to access the Seavey Loop area
whether they developed 20 acres or 152 acres. He wondered if the infrastructure and costs were
scalable.
Mr. Goodwin said it depended on the site, but in that particular case the improvement would need to
be done no matter the size of the development. The amount of development that could occur with the
current transportation configuration was relatively small and may not be scalable. In some areas it
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 5
could be scalable. Gateway already had a constrained transportation system so they may not be able to
do much development in that area without additional changes.
2. Amendment of the Metro Plan Boundary East of Interstate 5 Making that Boundary Coterminus
with the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. Planning File #TYP411-00003.
Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. Lane County was proposing to
move the Metro Plan Boundary east of I-5 so that it would be coterminous with Springfield’s Urban
Growth Boundary. This action involved approximately 8,128 acres all of which would be integrated
into the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan as a direct result of this proposal.
The elected officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County conducted a joint public hearing on this
proposal at Harris Hall on March 13, 2012. Subsequent to that hearing, the Springfield City Council
conducted a work session on September 24, 2012 for the purpose of discussing public testimony on
this matter and to review alternatives to the County’s proposal developed in response to that
testimony.
The preparation and refinement of these alternatives occurred as a result of numerous meetings
involving staff from Springfield, Lane County and Springfield Utility Board, as well as the timely and
thoughtful participation of several Lane County and Springfield elected officials. Although this
proposal had undergone an unusually lengthy period of discussion and problem solving, the most
viable strategy to emerge from this effort is a three-party, Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA,
Attachment 4 of the agenda packet). The draft IGA included various actions and time lines that
captured many of the issues and divergent outcomes originally perceived as insolvable and placed
them, and their solutions, into a context and format that was uniformly supported by each of the
participants.
The Lane County Board considered the position staff had come to as shown in the IGA (Attachment 4
of the agenda packet) and agreed in principle to the key features of the IGA. The key elements of the
IGA included the following:
• Relocation of the Metro Plan boundary along its entirety, east of I-5, from the current location
to Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary line;
• Recognition that SUBs wellhead protection areas outside the City’s UGB are eligible for
recognition and inclusion on adopted Goal 5 inventories [by Lane County];
• Preservation of the City’s joint governance [with Lane County] over any PAPA in sensitive
time of travel zones within the present Plan boundary;
• The City, in coordination with SUB will promptly submit a PAPA application to recognize
sensitive time of travel zones and wellhead protection areas outside the City’s UGB as sites
eligible to be included as Goal 5 ground water resource inventories.
• In addition to official designation of the Goal 5 inventories, the City may submit a drinking
water protection plan to provide additional protection of these Goal 5 inventories;
• City will participate as a joint decision-maker for any amendments to SUBs groundwater
resources or to any amendments to a plan that protects these resources.
In addition to the role of this IGA in the jurisdictional transfer of land from the Metro Plan to the Lane
Rural Comprehensive Plan, the findings in Attachment 3 of the agenda packet addressed the
requirements, standards and criteria that must be satisfied in order for the Council to proceed with a
motion of approval for this proposed Metro Plan amendment.
Mr. Mott noted that several Lane County staff were in the audience. Lane County wanted the cities of
Eugene and Springfield to adopt the ordinance before they adopted the ordinance. He pointed out that
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 6
the map in the packet (Attachment 3, page 6) included a whited out area through the center of the map.
A corrected map had been prepared and distributed to the Mayor and Council. He discussed the map
showing the UGB and the Metro Plan Boundary and how it would change if the proposed ordinance
was adopted.
Councilor Ralston asked if the change left the City in control of the area outside the UGB.
Mr. Mott said the City’s control would be similar to what we had today. Currently if there was a
proposed plan amendment in that area, the City would have a say. With the change, the City would
only be involved if it was in a sensitive time of travel zone.
Councilor Moore asked if the long range plan was for Springfield to change our UGB to take in those
wellhead areas.
Mr. Mott said that would be up to the Council. Staff had asked the people at the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (LCDC) and land use attorneys if land could be included in the
expansion of a UGB that was not going to be used for other purposes. It was very unusual, although
not out of the question. The primary reason to expand the UGB was to have land for urban uses,
industrial or housing, etc. If those areas were brought into our UGB for the sole purpose of having the
drinking water resources within our UGB, it could be tougher to defend that action. That position
could be tempered, if not through a rule change or statute change, through a different review. Plenty of
cities had brought in open spaces for their UGB and preserved it for open spaces. In reading the rule, it
could provide a reasonable argument, but some may disagree.
Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said in addition some of the areas being
considered for expansion for the UGB did include areas with wellfields. They had talked about adding
parks and open space land in the South Mil Race area, which was almost all in a time of travel zone.
Mr. Mott said this action didn’t affect those other activities. That land and its attributes existed
whether it was in the Plan Boundary or the Comprehensive Plan. The legal structure for land use in
that area was pretty close and the law didn’t change. If we didn’t have an urban reserve, the status of
the land expanded for industrial purposes went through the same test. It either qualified or it didn’t.
Councilor Brew said currently in order to make any changes to the land between the UGB and the
Metro Plan Boundary, all three jurisdictions (City of Springfield, City of Eugene and Lane County)
had to be involved. By making the boundaries coterminus, only the City of Springfield and Lane
County would need to be involved on the Springfield side. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Mott said that was correct. Once each city had adopted their own UGB, any subsequent
amendments to each UGB was between the affected city and the County, with the exception of
changes that crossed I-5. Once those amendments were adopted, there would no longer be a space
between the UGB and the Metro Plan.
Councilor Moore said the 1000 Friends of Oregon were opposed when this proposal was first
presented. She asked if they had a basis for an appeal if this went forward.
Mr. Mott said they had entered testimony in the record so had the right to appeal.
Mayor Lundberg said this was on the agenda during the Regular Meeting for approval. There had been
numerous meeting and this had gone through quite a process. One of the groups she wanted to be
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 7
supportive of this was Springfield Utility Board (SUB) because of the wellhead protection. SUB did
support this with the IGA and provided enough protections for the City to stay in the loop.
Mr. Mott said from staff’s perspective, the elements of the ordinance had not been changed since the
original request, but the provisions of the IGA were now there. If there were aspects with the IGA they
were uncomfortable with, Council could consider that tonight.
Councilor Moore said part of the question had to do with a gravel development and land owned by
Knife River which was outside Springfield’s UGB, but inside the Metro Plan Boundary. There were a
lot of concerns about that issue and the affect it could have on the water. She asked how well protected
our water was through this IGA.
Mr. Mott said that site was on a one-year time of travel zone. The IGA was preserved through at least
the minimum period of time it took for the City and SUB to bring forward an inventory and a plan for
the Lane County Board of Commissioner’s adoption. Until then, the exact status that existed today
with the Metro Plan would exist for that land and that was covered in the IGA on page 3. It would
require the property owner to amend the Comp Plan and the site would need to be inventoried with the
State before it could go forward.
Mr. Goodwin said there were those that were concerned that this could improve the protection because
currently that water source was not in any State inventory. The sand and gravel people could seek an
amendment to have their resource designated as a Goal 5 resource before the inventory recognized the
water resource.
Mr. Mott said SUB was also updating their drinking water plan which would be brought to the
Council. Staff would work with them to incorporate the applicability of the Drinking Water Protection
Plan within this area as a parallel track to their update.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 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, MARCH 18, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 18, 2013 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Brew. 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
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
a. Approval of February 2013, Disbursements for Approval.
2. Minutes
a. February 25, 2013 – Work Session
b. March 4, 2013 – Work Session
c. March 4, 2013 – Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH CHECK #990618 OF THE
FEBRUARY 2013 DISBURSEMENTS REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
ITEMS REMOVED
1. a. Check #990618 of the February 2013 Disbursements.
Councilor VanGordon recused himself from this item. He had a conflict of interest as this check was
to his employer, United Parcel Service.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 2
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE CHECK #990618 OF THE FEBRUARY 2013
DISBURSEMENTS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1
ABSTENTION – VANGORDON).
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. 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Program, A Community Reinvestment Plan.
Supervising Civil Engineer Jeff Paschall presented the staff report on this item. The Draft City of
Springfield 2014 – 2018 CIP was reviewed at the Planning Commission’s February 5, 2013 meeting.
The Commission recommended Council approval of the plan at their February 20, 2013 meeting. The
City Council reviewed the draft CIP in work session on March 4, 2013 and provided direction to bring
the CIP as drafted to the March 18, 2013 Council regular session for public hearing and approval.
As a reference, the Council Briefing Memorandum from the March 4, 2013 work session was included
as Attachment 1 of the agenda packet.
After hearing public comments, Council was requested to adopt the 2014 – 2018 Capital Improvement
Program by motion.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT THE 2014-2018 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, A
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT PLAN. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6
FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield – Annex a Vacant 15 Acre Parcel Located at
South 60th Street and Quartz Avenue on the South Edge of Jasper Meadows.
ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN
TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND WILLAMALANE PARK AND
RECREATION DISTRICT (FIRST READING).
Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. A request for annexation to the City of
Springfield had been received from the Springfield School District, owner of property on the south
edge of Quartz Avenue at South 60th Street. The 15-acre property requested for annexation abutted the
east edge of Bob Straub Parkway and was inside the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The
Springfield School District was requesting annexation to the City to facilitate construction of a
neighborhood park, extension of urban utilities to the property, and future development of a school
building on the site.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 3
The City Council was authorized by ORS Chapter 222 and SDC Article 5.7-100 to act on annexation
requests. In accordance with SDC 5.7-155 and ORS 222.040, 222.180 and 222.465, if approved the
annexation would become effective 30 days after signature by the Mayor or upon acknowledgement
by the State – whichever date was later.
The subject property was contiguous with the City limits along the north edge, which was represented
by the Quartz Avenue alignment. According to the most recent Lane County Assessment and
Taxation records (Tax Year 2012) the subject property had an assessed value of $1,000,725. The site
was adjacent to an established neighborhood with a full suite of available urban services. As a public
agency and Team Springfield partner, the Springfield School District was aware of future
requirements for extension of public infrastructure to and across the property, so an Annexation
Agreement was not required for this request. Construction costs for extension of utility connections to
the subject property were the responsibility of the property owner.
The property requested for annexation was currently zoned Light-Medium Industrial (LMI) with an
Urbanizable Fringe Overlay (UF-10). The applicant had submitted a concurrent zoning map
amendment application to change the property zoning from LMI to Public Land and Open Space
(PLO) to accommodate planned park and school development. Upon annexation, the rezoning request
would be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a future public hearing.
As outlined in the staff report (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet), the annexation area could be
served with the minimum level of key urban facilities and services as required in the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. The attached staff report also confirmed the annexation
request met the criteria established in Section 5.7-100 of the Springfield Development Code.
Staff recommended the City Council approve the annexation of territory, as depicted on Exhibit A to
the annexation request, to the City of Springfield and Willamalane Park and Recreation District.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
1. Bob Keefer, Superintendent of Willamalane Parks and Recreation District, Springfield, OR. –
Mr. Keefer spoke in favor of the annexation. He thanked the Springfield School District for
inviting Willamalane in true TEAM Springfield fashion to be involved with the development
of this site. Willamalane’s Comprehensive Plan showed a need for a neighborhood park in this
area. The School District received federal funding for the initial development and asked
Willamalane if they might be interested in partnering with them to get something started. This
neighborhood had a lot of young families and a lot of traffic along the Bob Straub Parkway
which limited their access to cross over to the other Jasper Meadows Park on the west side, so
this made a lot of sense. Willamalane was willing to utilize some of their bond dollars to help
support the park development part of this, with school funds being used to pay for much of the
infrastructure and purchasing the site. It was a win-win for the community. They didn’t know
how long until the new school would be built, but when it was built they would be working
with the School District as they did with partnerships at Guy Lee Elementary, Page
Elementary and Maple Elementary. He encouraged the Council to support this annexation
when it was brought back for a vote.
Councilor Ralston asked if the school would be on the Bob Straub side with parking in the
back.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 4
Mr. Keefer said the school would be on the southeast portion of the parcel, closer to the Haul
Road, and the park would be towards the middle and the north side closest to the
neighborhood development.
Councilor Woodrow said some neighbors had been concerned about an increase in traffic. She
wanted to make sure measures had been taken to address those concerns.
Mr. Keefer said as a neighborhood park, it would not be programmed for anything other than
the Summer Playground Program, which was specifically for the neighborhood. They would
not build a facility that would hold other events bringing people from around the area. The
initial development would be small in nature and specifically design to serve that
neighborhood.
Councilor Woodrow asked if there would be an extra entrance and exit at the south side as the
school was developed. Yes.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the school and the park would serve people on both the east and
west side of the Bob Straub Parkway.
Mr. Keefer said he was not sure about the schools, but the park was initially designed for the
residents to the east of Bob Straub.
Mayor Lundberg said the Lane County ACT had moved funds to put one upgrade for
pedestrians across Bob Straub. As that area developed that would continue to be an issue.
Mr. Keefer said there was a neighborhood park on the west side of Bob Straub already that
served that neighborhood. This park would serve the neighborhood on the east side so the
families would not need to cross Bob Straub to get to the park.
Councilor Woodrow said the pedestrian crossing was quite a bit north of the park.
2. Colin McArthur, Cameron, McCarthy Landscape Architects, 160 East Broadway, Eugene,
OR. Mr. McArthur noted that the company he represented had prepared the annexation
application on behalf of Springfield Public Schools. The product was a partnership between
Springfield Public Schools and Willamalane Park and Recreation District. Following the
annexation, zone change and site plan review approvals, the partners intended to construct a
neighborhood park. Following the initial phase of construction, the site was planned f
public school. Willamalane’s 2004 adopted Comprehensive Plan identified two neighborhoo
parks in the area: one north Jasper Natron and one south Jasper Natron. The Commu
Needs Assessment in Willamalane’s 2012 Comprehensive Plan acknowledged a need for more
parks in the area to maintain the current level of service. The plan identified this site as a
priority action item and recommended coordination on plan location and site design with other
public facilities and agencies. This project emphasized that coordination. The intent of the
proposed park was to provide recreational opportunities for residents in the immediate
neighborhood. On March 5, the project partners held a neighborhood meeting to inform
residents of the project. The meeting was lightly attended. One resident did raise concerns
about traffic in the neighborhood. The applicant had met with City traffic engineering staff to
discuss traffic calming options on South 60th Street and those options were currently being
reviewed. In conjunction with development of the school, Quartz Avenue would be extended
or a
d
nity
high
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 5
through the site to connect with Bob Straub Parkway which would be the primary access point
to the property in the future. The subject site was adjacent to City limits and was within
Springfield’s urban growth boundary (UGB) thus it was planned for expansion and
redevelopment. The project would require minimal extension of infrastructure and the
applicant assumed the cost of extension of services to the site. The project was designed to
comply with a need for zone change to public land and open space. A zone change application
was currently under review. A Planning Commission hearing on the zone change was
scheduled for April 2, 2013. The written materials demonstrated compliance with all
applicable approval criteria and the Planning Director recommended approval of the
annexation request. His firm concurred with that recommendation. He thanked the Mayor and
Council for their consideration.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
3. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield that Includes the Segment of Franklin
Boulevard Between I-5 and the City Limits at the McVay Highway Intersection; the Segment of
Franklin Boulevard Between the City Limits at the McVay Highway Intersection and the South
UGB Near the I-5 Intersection; and a City Owned Property Located at 4095 Franklin Boulevard
(Site of the Former Tom’s Tapper Tavern).
ORDINANCE NO. 2 – AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN
TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, AND WILLAMALANE PARK AND
RECREATION DISTRICT; AND WITHDRAWING THE SAME TERRITORY FROM THE
GLENWOOD WATER DISTRICT (FIRST READING).
Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. The City Council initiated the subject
annexation action by adoption of Resolution 2013-02 on January 22, 2013. Annexation of Franklin
Boulevard would facilitate future transportation improvements and allow for eventual jurisdictional
transfer of the facility from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to the City.
Additionally, upon annexation the Franklin Boulevard corridor provided City limits contiguity for
properties seeking to annex to Springfield. This annexation action was consistent with the City
Council’s vision for ongoing planning and urban development pursuant to the adopted Glenwood
Refinement Plan and would allow development requests from abutting properties to move forward
more efficiently. Approximately 2.1 miles of Franklin Boulevard right-of-way were subject to this
annexation action. Concurrent annexation of the City-owned property at 4095 Franklin Boulevard was
a necessary and desirable action for future site development or redevelopment.
The City Council was authorized by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 222.111(2) and Section
5.7-100 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) to initiate annexation actions. In accordance
with SDC 5.7-155 and ORS 222.040, 222.180 and 222.465, if approved the annexation would become
effective 30 days after signature by the Mayor or upon acknowledgement by the State, whichever was
later.
The portions of right-of-way subject to the annexation action were owned by various public agencies
including ODOT, Lane Transit District and Lane County. The affected public agencies had not
expressed any concerns or opposition to the proposed annexation action. Because the public right-of-
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 6
way provided a key transportation function and was a preferred corridor for extension of urban
services, an Annexation Agreement was not required for this action.
The public right-of-way segments were contiguous with the City limits at the I-5 bridge crossing and
the intersection with McVay Highway. As outlined in the staff report (Attachment 1 of the agenda
packet), the annexation area could be served with the minimum level of key urban facilities and
services as required in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and the adopted
Glenwood Refinement Plan. The attached staff report also confirmed the annexation action met the
criteria established in Section 5.7-100 of the Springfield Development Code.
Staff recommended the City Council (a) approve the annexation of territory, as shown on Exhibit A, to
the City of Springfield and Willamalane Park and Recreation District,; and (b) withdraw the same
territory from the Glenwood Water District.
Mr. Limbird said staff hosted a public information meeting for the annexation last week and about 20
people attended. Staff answered questions about annexation and the potential effects on adjoining
properties. There should be no appreciable impact to adjoining properties. This annexation provided
an opportunity for adjoining properties if the owners wished to annex. Some of the attendees from the
meeting were in the audience and may speak to the matter. ODOT did support the annexation request
and eventual jurisdictional transfer of Franklin Boulevard to the City.
Councilor Brew asked about the process of someone wishing to annex as the City was working
through the Glenwood Refinement Plan.
Mr. Limbird said the Glenwood Refinement Plan was adopted in September and Phase I was the
current condition under which an annexation would be reviewed and considered. The conditions that
would be required in addition to contiguity would be showing that urban services were available to the
site or readily accessible. There currently was an annexation request in process. Areas to the far west
of Glenwood close to the I-5 bridge, and north of Franklin Boulevard were properties that would likely
seek annexation first. Both were more readily served by the existing utility infrastructure. The areas
along McVay Highway to the south had lesser utility infrastructure. With the exception of the Wildish
and Franz Bakery properties, which were already annexed, there was no perceived desire or interest to
annex along that section.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
1. Barbara Land, Franklin Blvd, Eugene, OR. Ms. Land said she lived next to Roaring Rapids
was disabled and needed to ride the EmX. She would like to see some kind of pedestrian
crossing on Franklin Boulevard to assist people getting to the bus stop that brought passengers
to Springfield, that was located on the other side of the road. The stop going into Eugene was
right at her driveway, but if she wanted to come into Springfield, she had to ride the bus first
to Eugene, and then back to Springfield because she was too scared to cross Franklin
Boulevard in her wheelchair. She noted that bicyclists were also a danger because they rode
on the sidewalk. There were many seniors that crossed at that area, not only for the bus but for
other businesses. There was not a safe area to cross.
,
Mayor Lundberg asked if a staff member could talk with Ms. Land.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt met with Ms. Land to discuss her concerns.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 7
2. Linda Page, Franklin Boulevard, Eugene, OR. Ms. Page said she didn’t attend the recen
information meeting. She attended a meeting a couple of years ago and had been told that she
would not need to worry about the piece of property where she lived being sold, but now she
wasn’t sure what was happening. The property was just up the street from Roaring Rapids.
She asked if they were going to have to move.
t
Mr. Grimaldi said the annexation tonight did not cause them to have to move.
Ms. Page asked if that would make her move in the future.
Mr. Grimaldi said that would be up to the property owner if they chose to do something
different with the property.
Ms. Page said it was her home and she didn’t want to move.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
Mayor Lundberg said nothing was happening at this time other than the road.
Mr. Grimaldi met with Ms. Page to discuss her concerns.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
ORDINANCES
1. Amendment of the Metro Plan Boundary East of Interstate 5 Making that Boundary Coterminus
with the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. Planning File #TYP411-00003.
ORDINANCE NO. 6288 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) BY ADOPTING A NEW
METRO PLAN BOUNDARY THAT IS COTERMINOUS WITH THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EAST OF INTERSTATE 5; AND
ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES
Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. Lane County was proposing to
move the Metro Plan Boundary east of I-5 so that it would be coterminous with Springfield’s Urban
Growth Boundary. This action involved approximately 8,128 acres all of which would be integrated
into the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan as a direct result of this proposal.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 8
The elected officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County conducted a joint public hearing on this
proposal at Harris Hall on March 13, 2012. Subsequent to that hearing, the Springfield City Council
conducted a work session on September 24, 2012 for the purpose of discussing public testimony on
this matter and to review alternatives to the County’s proposal developed in response to that
testimony.
The preparation and refinement of these alternatives occurred as a result of numerous meetings
involving staff from Springfield, Lane County and Springfield Utility Board, as well as the timely and
thoughtful participation of several Lane County and Springfield elected officials. Although this
proposal had undergone an unusually lengthy period of discussion and problem solving, the most
viable strategy to emerge from this effort was a three-party, Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA,
Attachment 4 of the agenda packet). The draft IGA included various actions and time lines that
captured many of the issues and divergent outcomes originally perceived as insolvable and placed
them, and their solutions, into a context and format that was uniformly supported by each of the
participants.
Mr. Mott said the significant change was the creation of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). The
key elements in the IGA addressed specific concerns around drinking water protection for Springfield
water. He described some of the proposals in the IGA and how they addressed that issue.
Councilor Moore thanked staff for the many hours put into this whole process and addressing the
concerns about the drinking water.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6288. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AND
AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Budget Committee Appointments.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. The Budget Committee had
two vacancies that expired on December 31, 2012. The City advertised for potential candidates
from Wards 5 and 6 during January and February. The City received applications from and
interviewed 4 candidates on February 25. From Ward 5, Diana Alldredge was the lone applicant.
For Ward 6 Kimberly Alvarado, Joe Pishioneri and Paul Selby all were applicants. Since the
interviews Joe Pishioneri had withdrawn his application for consideration. The Council was being
asked to appoint one applicant to each of the two positions. The appointee for both Ward 5 and
Ward 6 would serve a three year term that would expire on December 31, 2015.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO RE-APPOINT PAUL SELBY TO THE WARD 6 POSITION ON THE
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 9
BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2015. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPOINT DIANA ALLDREDGE TO THE WARD 5 POSITION ON
THE BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2015. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Moore reported on a meeting she attended with the Springfield Shelter
Rights Alliance (SSRA) where they discussed the homeless sleeping securely through
the night and accessibility to public toilets 24/7. The issue of garbage disposal was
also discussed. It was a good community discussion and they would have liked to
resolve the issues. The issues regarding public toilets and garbage may be able to be
addressed in the future. Housing Manager Kevin Do would be looking into both
further.
Councilor Ralston asked if they had discussed a specific location.
Councilor Moore said they weren’t talking about a specific location, but rather the
possibility of making a public toilet available. They did ask Willamalane to keep their
restrooms open, but it was noted that there were security issues in doing that. They
also looked into getting some portable toilets. Nothing was settled, but they had
wanted to meet to discuss these issues and would be meeting again.
b. Other Business.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Master Fees and Charges Schedule.
ORDINANCE NO. 6289– AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD AMENDING ARTICLE 1, TABLE 3-A STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEES;
TABLE 3-B ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES; TABLE 3-C PLUMBING PERMIT FEES; TABLE
3-D MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES; TABLE 3-F OTHER INSPECTION AND FEES OF THE
“SPRINGFIELD BUILDING SAFETY CODE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE” OF THE
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT; COMMUNITY
SERVICES DIVISION “BUILDING SAFETY CODES”.
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-04 – A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING A MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE FOR
FEES, CHARGES, RATES, PERMITS AND LICENSES AS ESTABLISHED BY THE
SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. The Council had reviewed
recommended changes to its master fees and charges schedule in two separate work sessions (February
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 10
4, 2013 and February 19, 2013) and held a public hearing on March 4, 2013. The most notable
changes, those relating to the Building Code, had been presented to and were supported by the Lane
County Home Builders Association. The first action requested was an ordinance amending the
Building Code, which was necessary as the specific fees amounts for services were embedded within
the Building Code. This was a second reading for this ordinance. The second action requested was a
resolution by Council authorizing the adoption of a master schedule of fees and charges where Council
had already been granted authorization to set these fees by the Municipal Code. A public hearing for
this second presentment on these fee changes was not required but was scheduled to allow more time
for public input. Both actions had an effective date of April 1, 2013.
The passage of the ordinance for the change in fees for the Building Code was expected to generate
$50,000 per year dedicated to expenses related to the City’s building program. The passage of the
resolution to increase the City’s miscellaneous fees was expected to generate approximately $10,000
per year. This revenue was undedicated revenue to the City’s General Fund.
Mr. Duey reviewed the increases and why they were bringing them forward at this time.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6289. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-04. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Council Initiation of an Amendment to Chapter IV of the Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan).
Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. The planning staffs and legal counsel for
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County had prepared amendments to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan for
the purpose of implementing ORS 197.304. This proposal required Council initiation by motion.
ORS 197.304 (HB 3337) established separate Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) for Eugene and
Springfield and was the impetus for the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and the Envision Eugene
planning initiatives. As these planning efforts were readied for adoption, amendments to Chapter IV
were needed to clarify which governing bodies would participate in decision making given the
establishment of separate UGBs.
The most significant changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan were:
• Three types of Metro Plan amendments were established: Type I which required the
participation of all three jurisdictions; Type II which required the participation of the home
city and Lane County; and Type III amendments which may be enacted by the home city
alone. The current policy defined only two types of amendments: Types I and II.
• The proposed amendments more carefully defined “regional impact.” Metro Plan
amendments having a “significant impact” on the water, storm drainage, wastewater, or
transportation facilities of the non-home city were defined as having a regional impact. The
current policy language used the term “demonstrable impact” which was a lower standard to
meet. Actions requiring amendment of a jointly adopted regional transportation system plan,
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2013
Page 11
ith
ecision.
cipating in the decision.
or a regional public facilities plan were assumed to have a regional impact. Amendments w
regional impact entitled the non-home city to intervene in a Type II d
• When governing bodies did not reach consensus on a Metro Plan amendment, the current
policy sent the matter to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). The proposed
amendments would send unresolved decisions to the Chair of the Board of County
Commissioners and one or both of the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield for resolution,
depending on how many governing bodies were parti
These amendments were reviewed in work session on March 11, 2013. Staff recommended that
Council formally initiate the plan amendment process.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER IV OF THE METRO PLAN TO
REFLECT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES
FOR EUGENE AND SPRINGFIELD STEMMING FROM THE ENACTMENT OF ORS
197.304, ALSO KNOWN AS HB 3337. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:42 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, MARCH 25, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 25, 2013 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors 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.
Councilor Brew was absent (excused).
Mayor Lundberg acknowledged Chief Jerry Smith and noted that tonight was his last meeting in his
official capacity before his retirement. She presented him with a plaque thanking him for his service to
the City and acknowledged his great leadership as Chief of Police. It was a very important job in our
community.
Chief Smith said he had a great deal of admiration for the Council members who volunteered their
time. He had enjoyed serving the City over the last 43 years.
Councilor Wylie thanked the Chief for his service and friendship.
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery introduced the first item as City Manager Gino Grimaldi had a
conflict of interest as a resident of one of the subdivisions being discussed.
1. Water Quality Facilities in Subdivisions – Compliance Issues.
Maintenance Manager Brian Conlon presented the staff report on this item, along with Environmental
Services (ES) Tech II Meghan Murphy. He acknowledged ES Senior Tech Sunny Washburne, ES
Supervisor Bill Hamann and Operations Supervisor Greg Ferschweiller who were also in the audience
and available to answer questions. Since the early 1990’s the City’s Development Code had required
the installation of stormwater management systems (both structural and non-structural Water Quality
Facilities (WQFs) in public and private developments through the development review and approval
process. Staff had found that business owners were generally proactive and willing to maintain their
WQFs. In contrast, achieving compliance for WQFs in subdivisions and maintaining City owned
WQFs had been more problematic. Seasonal staff resources may be needed to more effectively
manage these facilities.
The purpose of stormwater management was to, by mimicking natural hydrology, improve water
quality, and collect and effectively convey stormwater runoff. The WQF Management Program was
implemented in 2010 and was an inspection and compliance program to ensure that both public and
private systems were effectively maintained. There were currently 38 WQFs that the Environmental
Services and Operations Divisions oversaw and regulated; 10 City owned and maintained WQFs, 10
Private WQFs with negotiated maintenance agreements (City to maintain system functionality), and
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 25, 2013
Page 2
18 private WQFs where systems maintenance was the responsibility of the homeowners associations
(HOAs). Many of these WQFs, such as detention ponds in multiple lot subdivisions, were in poor
functional condition and needed attention.
Achieving compliance for WQFs that served multiple properties in subdivisions had been much more
challenging. Many homeowners and residents were unaware of the HOA’s responsibility to maintain
their WQFs. Another problem was that many HOAs were administratively dissolved or non-
functioning making communication and enforcement difficult. HOAs often lacked the funding and
knowledge to properly maintain these facilities. Staff continued to dedicate many hours pursuing
formal compliance solutions and facilitating WQF education and outreach to meet regulatory
obligations.
Ms. Murphy presented a power point presentation. She explained a water quality facility and how
natural resources could be used to handle water runoff. She explained why these facilities had been put
in and the Water Quality Facility Management Program that was in place. There were several issues in
trying to gain compliance for privately owned or HOA owned facilities. Ultimately the City was
responsible to be compliant with our MS4 permit and State and Federal regulations. Staff had met to
try to find solutions to the issues of compliance and maintenance of the facilities. The proposal that
had come out of the meetings was a pilot project increasing the budget by $40,000 to increase FTE for
operations staff and summer crew labor to remove vegetation or trash from the sites as needed.
Environmental Services would remain involved with the HOA’s and the education piece.
Mr. Conlon said staff’s proposal was to address the issues around the WQF’s. Part of the proposal
included additional education for the HOA’s and citizens. Ms. Murphy and ES Public Information
and Education Specialist Rachael Chilton had already done a great job of making contact with and
working individually with people and with the HOA’s to educate them about the need for compliance.
Increasing the summer work crew to assist with maintenance of these facilities was one option. The
clean-up efforts would be in a partnership with Environmental Services and after conferring with the
City Attorney’s Office. The City was not in a position to purchase the privately owned properties, but
he felt the proposal could be done within the existing rates and would not increase current rates.
Councilor Woodrow said getting this as streamlined as possible might help the whole process.
Everyone paid the stormwater fee, whether they belonged to a HOA or not. She asked if there were
funds in the stormwater fees that could cover this program.
Mr. Conlon said there was enough in reserves to pay for the project. They would also be looking at
what staff was doing and possibly reprioritize the stormwater management work being done. They
also felt the partnership approach and working with the public was a benefit. That was why they had
considered buying a cargo trailer with equipment to loan out to citizens to do their own work.
Councilor Woodrow asked how the agreements were made with the HOAs.
Ms. Murphy said it was usually done with the developer when the development was being built.
Mr. Vogeney said those agreements were to be signed by the developer at the time the subdivision plat
was prepared and recorded. Those agreements were supposed to go to the HOA with that package. It
was not until more than 50 or 70 percent of the lots had been sold that the developer stepped away and
the property owners or HOA were responsible. Sometimes that was a number of years after the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 25, 2013
Page 3
development had occurred; therefore, many homeowners didn’t realize the stormwater management
was part of their responsibility.
Councilor Woodrow said the partnership idea, education and outreach would be important. That would
give the homeowners the opportunity to see the importance.
Mr. Conlon said staff had done a lot of work educating people; unfortunately they had also been
enforcing which made it more difficult. Some HOAs were very proactive and staff was able to make a
lot of headway with those groups. Unfortunately, some HOAs had been disbanded, making it very
difficult.
Councilor Moore asked if the inventory of these sites was complete and available to citizens.
Ms. Murphy said it was always being updated and not currently available to the public.
Councilor Moore said there was a catch basin on her property, and she didn’t know if it was her
responsibility. She asked how she would go about getting the information about whose responsibility
the catch basin was on their property. There were other citizens in that situation so perhaps a mailer to
those citizens would be helpful as they were identified.
Ms. Washburne said as part of the inventory process, staff notified homeowners and provided them
with a pamphlet of information on the purpose of the facility and maintenance. The pamphlet included
staff contact information. Not all catch basins in the City were water quality and those property
owners may not receive notice.
Mr. Conlon said ESD was developing pamphlets and availability to the website to educate people. It
was an evolution of what people needed to know.
Councilor Moore noted that Code also changed and there were now other options, such as rain
gardens.
Mr. Conlon said ESD now had information on installing rain gardens. People wanted to know and the
City needed to find ways to provide the information to those that needed it. If people had a question
about a facility on their property, they could call the City.
Councilor Moore said education was key.
Mr. Hamann said the trailer was a great idea because it would be tangible and they could advertise the
stormwater program and website on the side of the trailer.
Mr. Conlon said there was another element to this program. The City was obligated by the
development of Phase I and II of the Corps of Engineers project on the Mill Race. The additional staff
being proposed would help remove invasives the City was required to remove at that site.
Councilor VanGordon asked how many sites there were where the City had good relationships with
the HOA or homeowner.
Ms. Murphy said there were about 28 facilities and about 10 held challenges working with the HOA.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 25, 2013
Page 4
Mr. Conlon said that didn’t include the functional maintenance responsibility of the City which was
growing faster than we had been able to maintain with decreasing budgets and increased development.
This was a pilot program and staff could let Council know how it was working. The funds were
coming from the stormwater reserves.
Councilor VanGordon suggested if they could focus on the groups that could be educated and move
forward to improve. The goal was to make sure someone was taking care of the facilities. It would be
important to look ahead and see what the second year would look like. If they kept working on this
project, we wouldn’t have the funding to keep it going. It was an important project and he felt the
educational challenge was to educate the HOA so they were keeping up with the maintenance.
Mr. Conlon said that was one of the major goals and objectives. Bioswales were different from
landscaped gardens and people had difficulty in learning the difference.
Mayor Lundberg said this was an experiment in 2002. At that time she was unsure people would
embrace the idea of bioswales and ponds. This was set up was with the intent of keeping our water
clean and cool. The bioswales and ponds cost much less than traditional facilities, but needed
maintenance. She felt the City should be responsible because it was our ultimate responsibility and
homeowners changed. She would like to see how the pilot went over the year. It was important to call
it a water quality facility so people would understand it was to keep the water clean. She would like to
see what it would cost for the City to take full responsibility.
Mr. Conlon said staff could evaluate that as well.
Councilor Moore asked if public service announcements were still available at no cost.
Mr. Laudati said it depended on the issue, but he felt an outreach plan could be worked up and
submitted.
Councilor Moore said it affected the entire area.
Ms. Murphy said traditional stormwater went straight through pipes to the river without being treated.
When older developments changed, they would need to go through the development review process
with new requirements for water quality.
Mr. Conlon said other things helped increase water quality, such as increased sweeping.
Councilor Wylie said she was supportive of this project. She liked the concept of water gardens and
healthier fish and cleaner water, and felt it was important to keep telling the public about those things.
Councilor Ralston said he remembered when this was first implemented and he remembered giving
the private sector the responsibility. The reasons that option was provided was because it cost less than
the City maintaining these facilities. The City needed to enforce those that were not complying, or not
have those facilities. The City was tight on money and he didn’t want to keep spending money.
Ms. Washburne said the hardest part was the enforcement issue. They tried to work with the HOAs in
an effort to avoid taking them to court because it could involve up to 50 people in the HOA going to
court. It was difficult to determine who to enforce when the HOA was no longer in place or never got
started.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 25, 2013
Page 5
Councilor Ralston said in the future, the City needed to know who would be responsible and that they
needed to maintain the facility.
Mayor Lundberg said this year we had these mechanisms to use to try to deal with these situations and
figure out what to do in the future. They did need a mechanism to enforce. Council knew the risks
when they first started.
Mr. Conlon said they would work with City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith and the City Attorney’s
Office to see what could be done.
Councilor Woodrow said communication and education were key. New people moving in may not be
aware of the impact of stormwater if they had not lived in a community where the stormwater ran into
the river.
Councilor Moore asked about tall grass and weeds and enforcement.
Mr. Conlon said the Fire and Life Safety used to enforce it as a fire code, but it was no longer
enforceable. Staff tried to work with the property owners.
2. Amendments to the Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 4.3-145 – Wireless
Telecommunication Systems Facilities; and Certain Terms Found in Section 6.1-110 – Meaning of
Specific Words and Terms, Which Apply to Section 4.3-145.
Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. On October 22, 2012, staff met in work
session with Council to discuss its concerns with current policies regulating the siting and design
standards for Wireless Telecommunication Systems (WTS) facilities. At that meeting, staff proposed
an approach to resolving Council’s concerns. Council approved the approach and directed staff to
develop amendments to the Development Code to implement desired changes.
Attachment 1 of the agenda packet was an annotated version of the amended Section 4.3-145. The
amended section replaced the existing section and amended the Section 6.1-115 ‘relocate’ terms
specific to WTS facilities to Section 4.3-145.
Key changes found in the amended Section 4.3-145 included provisions for:
• Council notification and Planning Commission review of all new cell tower installations; and
• Establishing minimum setbacks for towers from streets; and
• Requiring cell tower applicants to fund a peer review of certain applications where towers are
proposed in or near residential areas.
Attachment 2 of the agenda packet was a staff report which examined the proposed amendments for
their consistency with the criteria found in SDC Section 5.6-115 for approving Development Code
amendments.
Mr. Metzger further described the proposed changes and explained the different types of cell towers.
He discussed the peer review process, what triggered peer review and the costs involved. He noted that
there had only been one cell tower built in the last five years. Since October, another had been
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 25, 2013
Page 6
proposed but was an incomplete application. The proposal was for a faux tree type tower on Lane
County’s waste transfer site. More small aerials were being installed rather than cell towers.
Mayor Lundberg said Mr. Metzger had done a great job and she appreciated his work.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder