Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/20/2013 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa Staff Phone No: 541-726-3700 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) May 6, 2013 – Work Session b) May 6, 2013 – Regular Meeting DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MAY 6, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 6, 2013 at 6:15 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 Transportation Systems Plan Update – Updated Draft Policies Review – P41014. Transportation Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The Transportation System Plan (TSP) update was intended to serve as a blueprint to guide future multimodal transportation system improvements and investment decisions for the City of Springfield. Goals, policies and action items helped provide guidance to decisions made in the Plan. The draft goals, policies and action items in the draft TSP update had gone through an extensive planning process, resulting in the attached edited document (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet). Existing goals, objectives and policies found in TransPlan were used as a basis to begin the update. Staff also used Council and Planning Commission input from previous work sessions, as well as input from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, Project Core Team and the public to develop draft goals, policies and action items. As shown in the attached process outline (Attachment 2 of the agenda packet), several revisions of the draft goals, policies and action items had taken place over time. All input received to-date was considered in developing the attached draft. Of specific focus for this work session were the newly updated transit policies and multimodal level of service policies. A brief explanation of where each proposed edit and/or addition came from and the potential impact of these edits and/or additions were included in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. The goal of the work session was to finalize the draft goals, policies and action items prior to the final review of the draft Plan later this calendar year. Attachment 3 of the agenda packet included an updated project schedule for reference. Mr. Reesor reviewed some of the changes that had been made in the Draft Policies. Councilor Woodrow referred to Policy 2.3 and asked if it locked the City into the Regional Transportation Options Plan (RTOP). Mr. Reesor said there did need to be consistency among plans, but we were not locked in. The RTOP still needed to go through a review process through the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and our Springfield representatives would be weighing in on that project. The RTOP was a separate document and not binding regarding specific policies. The draft strategies were developed from the Springfield and Eugene’s draft TSP policies. Councilor Woodrow said basically it was putting us in a position of collaboration. Correct. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 2 Councilor VanGordon referred to Policy 2.9, Multimodal Levels of Service. He asked if going to a multimodal level of service methodology would measure the system as a whole, and perhaps cause a decrease service for one section. Mr. Reesor said it was complicated. The idea was to balance system needs in a way that wasn’t detrimental to any one mode. It was meant to provide other options in transportation such as biking, walking, etc. Multimodal LOS was a way for the City to evaluate how the systems were working and provided options. Councilor VanGordon said he wanted that to be clearer in the policies. He wanted to make sure we weren’t sacrificing one part for another. Mr. Reesor said one of the action items within that policy was development of that methodology, which would include involving stakeholders from all modes. Mayor Lundberg noted that Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) had changed around LOS. She asked how that would affect the references in this document. Mr. Reesor said engineering staff used the current LOS and there hadn’t been any discussions about eliminating that. Community Development Manager Tom Boyatt said the OAR had changed for the state system and related to corridors. Our plan referred to the state mobility standards for the state system. The City was watching that and could eventually bring something back as a TSP amendment. Council was responsible for setting the standard for Springfield’s TSP. Mayor Lundberg said we were graded on how well our system was working. The City did have state highways and how we handled those corridors translated into dollars. She also referred to Policy 2.9 and noted that she would like the same wording under Bicycle as was under Pedestrian. She referred to the following page (Attachment 1, Page 7 of 14). Under the second action item only Gateway, Glenwood and Downtown were listed for multimodal methodology. She suggested naming all areas in town or none of them. It was important to include all of our corridors when talking about standards and connectivity. Mr. Reesor said that section was intentionally written that way to start with those three areas. The idea was to start with Downtown, Glenwood and the Gateway area for the multimodal LOS rather than starting citywide. They could then see how it was working and apply it to other areas. They wanted to start looking at areas with higher density for mixed uses that coincided well with multi modal transportation. From the Project Team’s perspective, those were good areas to start as they had viable options. They could look at expanding that list if Council directed. Councilor Moore said she would like something added that said in future the City would hope to add all of Springfield. There were neighborhoods in other areas such as Mohawk and Thurston that had potential and could be encouraged. Mayor Lundberg said one of her concerns was connectivity throughout the City. We needed to always pay attention to that connectivity and look at it comprehensively. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 3 Councilor Brew referred back to the question about the OAR changes for State corridors and the City deferring to the State for their corridors. Both Glenwood and Downtown were basically state corridors. Mr. Reesor said the City was working on a jurisdictional transfer of Franklin Boulevard in Glenwood. A portion of downtown was a Special Transportation Area (STA) which allowed some deviations for typical state standards recognizing it was not a traditional highway. Councilor Brew said he was confused about what the TSP was saying regarding deferring to the State. Mr. Boyatt said it was about trade-offs. Main Street within City limits was over 7 miles long and was expensive to own and operate. The mobility standards that were set in the Oregon Highway Plan had a range and there was always the opportunity to apply to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) to reduce the mobility standards. He discussed congestion along Main Street and noted the difference between good congestion and bad congestions. Councilor Woodrow referred to Policy 4.1 regarding a flexible transportation finance system. She asked what type of financing incentives was being referred to under the fourth action item. Mr. Reesor said he envisioned something like system development charge (SDC) type reductions, parking requirements that could be flexible saving the business money and other similar incentives. Mr. Reesor asked for Council direction under the second action item of Section 2.9 and if they wanted to include it city-wide or just reference to future expansion to the full city. Council said to just include a reference for future expansion. Mr. Reesor said he would be back on June 17 to talk about project list and would bring the draft back in the fall. 2. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Urbanization Element (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP2009-00014). Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. Adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Urbanization Element would allow the City to identify areas where the UGB would be expanded to establish future growth areas for economic development and infrastructure planning purposes in accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic Development, Goal 14 Urbanization, other applicable land use goals, rules and statutes and local community development, livability and environmental quality goals. Springfield’s UGB expansion proposal would also include a public land, parks, and open space component. Staff was preparing the Urbanization Element of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan — a new comprehensive plan policy document that amended the Metro Plan for Metro area lands east of Interstate 5 to provide guidance for managing and balancing Springfield’s urban growth needs over the 20-year planning period. The Plan would include maps and descriptions of Springfield’s planned growth areas within the City Limits and existing UGB and in locations where the UGB may be expanded. Springfield was in the process of considering how and where the UGB might be expanded to provide suitable large employment sites, public land, open space and parks. The Council had reviewed the City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 4 results of the employment land suitability analysis, including information comparing estimated cost and difficulty of extending Springfield’s urban services to five potential UGB expansion areas. At the March 18th work session, the Council requested information from staff to help visualize the types of industrial development and other employment uses that would be suitable and well-matched to the site characteristics and unique potential of each distinct location. Ms. Pauly distributed a concept map to the Mayor and Council. She said she didn’t have a lot of detail on their questions from the last work session, but had a lot of photos of the various types of employment that could be suitable for some of the areas considered for expansion. The concept map allowed them to visualize Springfield as a set of places with names. She presented a power point with photos of the different types of development that could occur over the next twenty years in the different areas of Springfield. The City was required by Oregon law to do land use plans based on an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). The uses identified in the EOA included different types of industrial development, commercial, office, retail and other uses. Staff would be looking both at existing sites within our current UGB and new sites outside our UGB. The EOA did have assumptions about redevelopment in Springfield. Before the City decided to expand the UGB, we needed to demonstrate utilizing land within our current UGB, and that the needs identified for the expansion area were different from the needs on land already in our UGB. Ms. Pauly said there were 187 industrial sites and 340 commercial sites noted on the map. Staff was assuming all site needs for less than five acres would be accommodated within our existing UGB. She asked if the photos had been helpful. Mayor Lundberg said she wanted to see what type of development could go into the different study areas and what type of needs there would be for each such as electrical, infrastructure, etc. Ms. Pauly said Community Development Manager John Tamulonis could bring more economic development information to the Council in an upcoming work session. She noted photos of the type of development being done in other cities in Oregon which could be competition for Springfield. She noted the amenities in Springfield that would be a draw for development. A copy of the slide show could be made available to the Mayor and Council after the meeting. Letters had been sent out to property owners that lived in the UGB expansion study areas. A copy of the letter was included in the agenda packet. Staff had received about nine responses and would be meeting with one property owner tomorrow. Ms. Pauly would be going out to Seavey Loop in June to talk with residents in that area. Councilor Moore asked about the next steps. Ms. Pauly said staff would be gathering information about the five study areas from residents in those areas and include that information in their analysis. There would be a joint work session with the Lane County Board of Commissioners on July 22, with a public hearing scheduled for October. City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said in terms of process, the Council would meet and deliberate with the Lane County Board of Commissioners with an opportunity for public input during a public hearing. Once the public hearing was closed, it was a legislative process. Once that closed, the Council would deliberate and make a decision about where and if and how to expand. During the deliberations was the time to look at more of the detail of what could be done and what was needed. Staff was gathering that information now. There would still be a big public input process. Final decision would probably be sometime in 2014. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 5 Mayor Lundberg said the Council had a huge decision about UGB expansion and they needed to be very careful about what area(s) was chosen. The information they received and how it was received was extremely important. The next phase included some public feedback from the surrounding neighbors. Ms. Pauly said they wanted to give people a chance to be part of the process before they started the public hearing so they could understand it at the neighborhood level. She would also be meeting with the fire chiefs and utility providers to hear their rankings of the different areas. Mayor Lundberg said at some point if we brought in a very large industry, our electrical rates would increase. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 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, MAY 6, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 6, 2013 at 7:05 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 1. Earth Day Poster Winners. Rachael Chilton, Public Information and Education Analyst with the Environmental Services Department, introduced the winners of this year’s Earth Day Poster Contest. Mayor Lundberg came down and presented a certificate to each of the winners. This year’s winners were: 1st Place: Maggie Westover 2nd Place: Sabrina James 3rd Place: Izabele Hogan 4th Place: Iree Holden 5th Place: Tara Vulliety Mayor Lundberg said it had been very difficult choosing a winner from the many entries. She congratulated all five winners and thanked them for their posters. It was noted that the posters were on display in the City Hall Lobby near the Library. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. April 15, 2013 – Work Session b. April 15, 2013 – Regular Meeting c. April 22, 2013 – Work Session 3. Resolutions City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 2 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Authorize the Finance Director to Approve City Provided Financing for a Sewer Extension to Three Privately Owned Homes Located on the 900 block of Q Street and Within the City limits. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ITEMS REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. 1. Liquor License Endorsements for the Renewal Period of 2013-2014. Sophia Seban, Administrative Assistant with Development and Public Works, presented the staff report on this item. The list of 164 businesses provided in the agenda packet would likely be applying to the Development Services Department for their 2013-2014 liquor license endorsements prior to June 30, 2013. On December 19, 1994, Council approved Ordinance No. 5768 that established specific criteria to be used when reviewing an application for a liquor license endorsement. Council may recommend denial based upon reliable, factual information as it related to any of the criteria listed in Section 7.302 of the Springfield Municipal Code. Some of the required information for liquor license renewal, i.e., ownership of the establishment, cannot be determined until staff received the actual application. However, some determination about meeting the listed criteria could be made now since the criteria related to the level of police activity associated with the establishment. The public hearing was scheduled for Council to receive community testimony relative to the liquor license renewal endorsement. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council was requested to provide one of the following recommendations to the Oregon Liquor License Commission for the license renewal of the listed establishments: 1. Grant; 2. Do Not Grant Unless (applicant demonstrates commitment to overcome listed concerns); 3. Deny; or 4. No Recommendation. At this time, staff had no information that would tend to support negative recommendations on these renewals. Accordingly, subject to any public input received at the hearing, staff recommended that the Council provide a positive recommendation for renewal to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Ms. Seban noted public notice was posted for these renewals and she had not received any phone calls or testimony related to these applications to date. There were a few business establishments that were not on the police activity report because their business had not yet opened for business. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 3 No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO GRANT THE LIQUOR LICENSE ENDORSEMENTS FOR THE RENEWAL PERIOD OF 2013-2014. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Proposed Resolution Setting Local and Regional Wastewater and Stormwater User Fees. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-06 – A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL SETTING LOCAL AND REGIONAL SEWER USER FEES AND LOCAL STORMWATER USER FEES AS SET FORTH IN THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE. Katherine Bishop, Senior Finance Analyst in Environmental Services, presented the staff report on this item. Each year, the City Council reviewed and established the rates for local wastewater and stormwater user fees. These rates were established to provide adequate revenue to fund operation and maintenance (O&M) of Springfield’s sanitary sewer and stormwater systems, and a portion of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for each program. The Council also adopted the user fees set by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) for the Regional Wastewater Program. The City Council reviewed and discussed the proposed local wastewater and stormwater user fee increase at its April 22, 2013 work session. Staff prepared a schedule of user charges for a public hearing, based on a 3% increase in the local wastewater user fees and a 4% increase in the local stormwater user fees. In addition, the Council was informed that the MWMC adopted a 3% increase in the regional wastewater user fees that also needed to be incorporated into the schedule of user charges for FY 13-14. Staff would continue to explore options for a long-term strategy to further reduce pressure on user fees while continuing to meet environmental and regulatory standards. A successful strategy would take multiple years to implement and would, in part, depend on the City’s ability to significantly reduce reliance on user rates as a source of capital, by improving the ability of System Development Charge (SDC) revenues to fund a greater portion of the capital investment. This could reduce and/or defer the need to rely on future debt financing and reduce the importance of providing coverage for debt service as an operating budget constraint in the long-term financial forecast. Staff was also beginning to explore whether alternatives that provided some relief to senior citizens could be managed within our overall goals to contain rate increases to the rate of inflation or less. Staff expected to report to the Council after the summer recess. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. Councilor Ralston asked how the stormwater fee was determined for non-residential. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 4 Ms. Bishop said it was based on the square footage of impervious surfaces. Mayor Lundberg said the City didn’t currently have any allowances or reduction for low-income seniors. The City of Coburg has something in place. She asked if Council would want to look at some options. Ms. Bishop said staff had started to solicit ideas from other cities regarding a possible plan in Springfield. Councilor Ralston asked how they could determine a person’s eligibility. Ms. Bishop said that was one of the things staff was researching. Staff would report back to Council later in the Summer or Fall. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1. The motion died due to a lack of a second at this time as a citizen approached to speak. Mr. Yarnall came forward and spoke although not part of the public hearing testimony. James Yarnall, 632 West D Street, Springfield, OR. Mr. Yarnall said in the event the stormwater did not go to the street and into the system, but rather through the aquifer with a variety of measures, he would suggest Council look at how that could be recognized and handled. Councilor Brew said when the rates came back next year he would like to look at a different debt coverage ratio. He also said he supported Mr. Yarnall’s suggestion for a credit for rainwater collection, dry wells, etc. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-06. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 3. Fiscal Year 2013-2014 One Year Action Plan of the Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development (City of Springfield Section). Housing Manager Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. One-Year Action Plans must be submitted to HUD prior to the beginning of each fiscal year as amendments to the five-year Eugene- Springfield Consolidated Plan. The purpose of the annual action plan was to indicate how the cities intended to use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds to fulfill the priorities established in the Consolidated Plan. This was the fourth One-Year Action Plan under the 2010 Consolidated Plan. The City of Springfield received CDBG funds as an entitlement community and HOME funds as a participant in a HOME consortium agreement with the City of Eugene. CDBG funds were awarded to communities who carried out community development activities directed towards neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and the provision of improved community facilities and services. HOME funding was a housing block grant program allocated to communities to be used for housing rehabilitation, new construction, acquisition and tenant based rental assistance activities. A public hearing was held on April 15, 2013, to review and consider applications for CDBG and HOME City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 5 funding. Council approved four projects for CDBG funding, one project for HOME funding, and one project for both CDBG and HOME funding. Council also approved changing the recommendation for the Catholic Community Services proposal from a loan to a conditional grant. The FY2013-2014 One Year Action Plan included the CDBG and HOME funding allocations for projects and activities, and was consistent with the Council’s actions of April 15, 2013. The plan must be approved by both the City of Springfield and City of Eugene prior to submission to HUD. In addition to the approved projects, a description of other activities that may be initiated was included in both the CDBG and HOME sections of the Action Plan. The public comment period for the City of Springfield section of the document concluded with the public hearing on May 6, 2013. The City of Eugene section of the Action Plan was being adopted separately by the Eugene City Council. The combined Eugene-Springfield One-Year Action Plan would be submitted to HUD on or before May 15, 2013 for review and acceptance. Mr. Ko noted that HUD had still not released their actual allocations. They instructed the City to guide allocations on a five percent reduction, but the final numbers were not yet available. Mayor Lundberg said when they brought up the issue of the continued reductions in CDBG funds to Senator Merkeley, he took note for his staff to look into it further. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Irene Alltucker, Executive Director with Relief Nursery, 850 South 42nd Street, Springfield, OR. Ms. Alltucker said she wanted to speak as a previous recipient of CDBG funds and to note the impact the funds made for non-profits and the community. The only way they were able to break ground for their new facility in Springfield, was because of CBGD funds received in the past. These funds really made a difference and it was good to know the City of Springfield valued their service. She supported those that came before the CDAC with applications for funding. It was a difficult choice for the CDAC to choose who would receive funds and how much. They were able to stretch their dollars a very long way. They were hoping to soon have occupancy and their playground finished and invite the Mayor and Council to see the difference the funds made. She thanked the Mayor and Council. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. Mr. Ko thanked the Mayor and Council. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD SECTION OF THE FY2013-2014 ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 4. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield – Annex a Partially Developed 1.3 Acre Parcel Located at 3005 & 3007 Franklin Boulevard in Glenwood. ORDINANCE NO. 1 – 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). City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 6 Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. A request for annexation to the City of Springfield had been received from Alpesh and Komal Patel, owners of property on the south side of Franklin Boulevard just east of the I-5 Bridge in Glenwood. The 1.3-acre property requested for annexation was inside the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and was surrounded by the City limits. The property owners were requesting annexation to the City to facilitate connection of public utilities and construction of a multi-story hotel building, parking lot and associated site improvements. 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. With recent annexation of Franklin Boulevard, the subject property was surrounded on all sides by the City limits. The property was developed with a gravel driveway serving an existing single family house and a secondary studio dwelling unit. According to the most recent Lane County Assessment and Taxation records (Tax Year 2012), the subject property had an assessed value of $162,359. Public utilities were available at or near the edge of the subject property so an Annexation Agreement was not required for this request (Attachment 3 of the agenda packet). Upon annexation, utility extensions to serve the proposed development site would be subject to the Site Plan Review process. Construction costs for extension of utility connections to the subject property were the responsibility of the property owners. The property requested for annexation was currently zoned Office Mixed-Use with an Urbanizable Fringe Overlay (UF-10) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the recently adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan. Upon annexation, the UF-10 overlay would be removed. As outlined in the attached 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, and withdraw the same territory from the Glenwood Water District. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Rick Satre, 375 W. 4th Ave, Eugene, OR. Mr. Satre said he was speaking on behalf of the applicant. Many who lived or did business in Springfield long believed in Glenwood and saw it for what it could be in the future. Council demonstrated a similar belief with the adoption of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan last year. There was a business member seeking to take the first step in property development or redevelopment by requesting annexation. He thanked staff for their assistance through this process and for their recommendation. The applicant concurred with the recommendation and was available for questions. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 7 BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. Mary Davidson, 184 South 72nd Street, Springfield OR. Ms. Davidson said she was a volunteer who worked on behalf of neighbors without addresses through the Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance (SSRA). The more she learned about what the Council did, the more she appreciated the effort, time and dedication they put into their volunteer positions. She thanked Mayor Lundberg and supporting councilors for their interest in assistance so far in obtaining more sites to participate in the St. Vincent DePaul overnight parking program. They looked forward to hearing news from City staff soon regarding the inclusion of Conestoga huts in that program. There was already interest from citizens and a church. On February 1 many from their group met with the Mayor and some City staff to improve conditions for those without adequate shelter in our City. On March 14, Councilor Moore met with them along with Housing Manager Kevin Ko, Police Chief Smith and representatives from Willamalane to continue that conversation. At that time they gave special attention to safe legal places to sleep with access to public toilets 24/7. They were still looking for safe, legal places to sleep in Springfield with available toilets, but with no answers proposed. She noted an article in the Register Guard about using city owned property that was not developed or a park. She suggested they look at such properties in Springfield and craft an ordinance that would make it legal to sleep in such a safe, approved location. The ability to sleep through the night with access to toilets, garbage and recycling would be of great benefit to those trying to stay safe and get their lives back to stability. The mentally ill were the most vulnerable and those addicted to substances could be a long way from gaining stability, yet all deserved dignity and it was worth our efforts to make their living conditions meet minimum basic standards of health and safety. She asked that they begin a conversation about using undeveloped public lands not used by the City for safe, legal sleeping. 2. Shelley Corteville, 438 C Street, Springfield, OR Ms. Corteville thanked the Mayor and Council for their support to bring about changes for the unhoused. The Mayor’s letter in support of the car camping program and placement of Conestoga huts made a difference. Mr. Ko generously created a Frequently Asked Question sheet to give to prospective sites. Those two things showed City support and would help them increase the number of sites for the camping program. She was here to talk about 24-hour toilets and garbage cans. Recently, at a dinner frequented by our unhoused citizens, she overheard discussion regarding the restroom and garbage issue. There were some in the unhoused community that policed each other when one of their members did something wrong. They knew that behavior created negative consequences for the unhoused population in general. Everyone needed to use toilet facilities and the unhoused had nowhere to go. The lack of 24-hour toilets created a health issue in our community. Garbage cans were also needed in legal areas where the unhoused were welcome. There were risks to 24-hour toilets, but they were far outweighed by the benefits. She asked that the Council help restore the dignity and respect and health in our community by helping to find 24-hour bathrooms and garbage cans. 3. Mia Nelson, 1000 Friends of Oregon, P.O. Box 51252, Eugene, OR. Ms. Nelson distributed a document regarding the cost of extending services to the different study areas for the urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion and a letter from 1000 Friends dated October 10, 2012. She expressed support for the approach staff was taking with the UGB expansion by looking at the cost of service of the difference sites. Not all jurisdictions did that. She referred to the document showing the cost of service per developable acre. The second page was a flyer from City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 8 the Mill Creek Industrial Area in Salem. She noted the high cost for extending services to two of the study areas (boxed out on the copies distributed) compared to the value of the property. She wanted Council to consider that those two sites were already financially not feasible. She referred to the letter from 1000 Friends which expressed their concerns about the way the land need determination was done in the Economic Opportunities Analysis done by ECONorthwest. She wanted City staff to take an independent look at that issue because she found error in the claim that 450 acres of large land industrial was needed for 375 new employees. She did not get anywhere with staff, but given the high quality of staff’s work, she encouraged Council to ask staff to look into the questions raised in the letter independently. It was a shame that Springfield was going forward on the assumption that the land use was done correctly. 4. James Yarnall, 632 W D Street, Springfield, OR Mr. Yarnall spoke regarding consultant Rick Williams who helped develop the parking program that was adopted a few years ago. That document was done with a lot of collaboration with staff and the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). As a member of the CAC, he felt it was a beneficial experience. The plan, formalized and accepted by Council, was a road map that any high school graduate could fully understand. It was written in layman terms. The plan had a time schedule and he asked where we were in that process. When it was approved, the previous Mayor indicated that staff would develop language to be codified in the different City codes as there was no provision for a parking plan or management. The key challenge for Springfield would be the ability to attract development consistent with the downtown vision. Mayor Lundberg suggested staff talk individually with Mr. Yarnall about his question. Mr. Towery said this was scheduled to come to Council on June 3 for a work session. During that time, Council would hear the answers to most, if not all of the questions raised by Mr. Yarnall. Mayor Lundberg asked Mr. Yarnall to continue his comments at a future meeting as he had already used his three minutes. Mr. Yarnall said he would be willing to meet individually with the Mayor and Councilors. He felt it was pertinent that they understood his thinking. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 9 1. Councilor Woodrow said there would be a formal announcement for a program where the City would be partnering with Willamette Animal Guild (WAG) to offer local low-cost spray and neuter services for cats. They were still working through the processes but were getting close. Councilor Ralston asked if it was for all cats. Councilor Woodrow said it was only for owned cats now, but could expand. Mayor Lundberg said they had worked very hard to get a program started. She thanked Mike Harman, Animal Control Supervisor, for his assistance in getting to this point. 2. Councilor Wylie said Community Action Committees were meeting regarding High Speed Rail. One was held at the Eugene Public Library with representatives from Springfield and Eugene. They were now discussing potential routes coming into our community and thinking about possible terminus locations. There was a lot to discuss so the meetings would continue. 3. Councilor Brew said he and Councilor Moore attended the Vineyards and Violins fundraising event for Willamalane Adult Activity Center. It was a good time and a good event. b. Other Business. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FY 2013-14 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Katherine Bishop, Senior Finance Analyst in Environmental Services, presented the staff report on this item. As provided for in the MWMC Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), the City of Springfield, the City of Eugene, and Lane County, as governing bodies, must ratify the annual MWMC’s Budget and CIP. The FY 13-14 Regional Wastewater (RWP) Budget and CIP document was approved by the MWMC on April 12, 2013. In preparing and reviewing the Budget and CIP, the MWMC convened three work sessions and a public hearing prior to taking action to adopt the FY 13-14 MWMC Budget. The FY 13-14 Budget funds all operations, administrative services, and capital projects planned for the Regional Wastewater Facilities. The approved budget included a 0.9% budget reduction in administrative costs and a 1.6% increase in operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, resulting in a combined regional operating budget net increase of 1.1% in FY 13-14, when compared to the prior year. The CIP outlined and described the capital projects planned for the next five years. The FY 13-14 RWP Budget and CIP document reflected a continued focus on the completion of facilities upgrades and expansion, and operations and maintenance activities to provide wastewater treatment for a growing community through 2025 in a manner that protected the public’s health and safety, and the environment. The Commission took a corresponding action to adopt a 3% increase in regional City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 10 wastewater user charges in order to fully fund the Budget and CIP. Following tonight’s public hearing, Council was scheduled to adopt a resolution to set the FY 13-14 regional user fee rates within the City of Springfield. In accordance with the IGA, the MWMC contracted with the City of Eugene for operations and maintenance services, and with the City of Springfield for administrative services. The MWMC budget document provided regional program and budget summaries as well as detailed budgets for services provided by Eugene and Springfield. The budget document also provided information about how the RWP activities were driven by the MWMC established goals and performance measures. The FY 13-14 RWP Budget and CIP must be approved by the MWMC and ratified by Lane County, the cities of Eugene and Springfield, and then finally adopted by the MWMC, prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year (July 1, 2013). The Eugene City Council was scheduled to ratify the MWMC Budget and CIP on May 13, 2013, and the Board of Commissioners was scheduled to ratify the MWMC Budget and CIP on May 21, 2013, with MWMC final budget adoption on June 14, 2013. Councilor Moore said she read through this document and appreciated the time and effort that went into preparing this budget. She also appreciated the information provided for the capital projects. Councilor Brew asked if this could be put on the Consent Calendar in the future since they were required to ratify it. Yes. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT A MOTION RATIFYING THE FY 13-14 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP). THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:49 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder