Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 7/22/2013 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) June 24, 2013 – Work Session b) July 1, 2013 – Work Session c) July 1, 2013 – Regular Meeting d) July 8, 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, JUNE 24, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 24, 2013 at 5:30 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, City Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith and Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. NEDCO Main Street Program Management Partnership Funding. Senior Management Analyst Courtney Griesel presented this item. She introduced Claire Seguin- Carpenter, Executive Director from NEDCO who provided much of the presentation. In 2010, downtown Springfield was approved as a Transforming downtown community under the National Main Street Program. NEDCO was the lead organization in acquiring this status and remained in the lead role of managing organization since. Beginning in FY13, the City of Springfield provided funding to NEDCO to assist in Main Street Program management. As part of the approved FY14 budget, the City would again be looking to provide funding to NEDCO in the amount $30,000. During the upcoming year, NEDCO and City staff had identified several broad program goals and work tasks. GOALS: • Begin moving downtown Springfield from the Main Street Program category of Transforming to Performing. This work was likely to occur over the next two years. • Work to diversify program funding sources. • Increase community involvement on committees. TASKS: • Create a website for downtown activities, events, building vacancies, and promotional opportunities. • Develop downtown welcome & information packages for new and existing businesses. • Develop a merchant alert system for timely notification of road work, new businesses, special events, etc. • Regularly generate property vacancy/availability reports; including special features and build outs. • Fully operational, well utilized and effectively managed Façade Improvement Program for merchants in need of storefront improvements and enhancements. • Support community involvement for city’s design standards project. • Work to ensure compatible aesthetics and principles across the Façade Improvement Program and the city’s design standards. • Volunteer management strategy and recruitment plan was created. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 2 Ms. Seguin discussed some of the handouts included in the agenda packet. One of their goals was to become a Performing Nationally Accredited Main Street Program. Generally speaking that type of designation also meant the Program was set up for the best possible success rate across the board with good infrastructure in terms of staff, committees and funding. The Main Street Programs evolved over time and Springfield’s was still a very young program. Springfield did start out quickly because we already had a committed community, interested participants across all sectors, and planning in the downtown area. She referred to the list of volunteers who had served on the various committees. Recruiting for committees was an ongoing task that would continue for the life of the program. She described the need for passion and diversification in the volunteers. The most important thing they would be working on this year was finding consistent leaders to implement the work plan the committees had been working on over the last couple of years. As an organization the volunteers were getting more sophisticated and they were able to focus on downtown needs that weren’t identified a few years ago. Some of the things that needed to be addressed could be physical space, business types that were missing, new development to recruit, etc. Tools for tracking those types of things included software the Program had purchased, and committee members that had enough knowledge to lead those programs at that sophisticated level. Ms. Seguin referred to the retrospective of the Main Street Program, which was included in the agenda packet as Attachment 1. This showed the progression and trends of the Program. There were new projects being launched such as the façade improvement program in which they had awarded the first two grants. More information would be distributed at the Mixer scheduled for Saturday, June 26. She noted that the Mixer would include business owners from downtown and invited the Council to attend. The Mixer also provided an opportunity to showcase different businesses that were in varying stages of involvement with the Main Street Program. The deadline for the façade improvement applications was July 15 or until all of the funds were gone. The Design Committee had created new design guidelines which were used to evaluate the proposals. Professional landscape architects and designers served on the panel that awarded the grants. They were holding people to a nice pedestrian design scale and aesthetic sensibility. As more grants went out and more neighbors made improvements, the cumulative effect of having design criteria would make downtown more inviting for people coming to downtown. Next year, that program would be expanded with more funding and more projects. There was also a loan program that went along with that so they hoped to have a couple of applicants that could afford to borrow inexpensively funds to do bigger projects for their storefront. They were very excited about this program. An important step in any Main Street Program was transition because the difference could be seen. Ms. Seguin spoke regarding the Business Incubator Program and the number and range of classes provided. People downtown were fortunate there was that support and effort by other organizations being put into the downtown. The Main Street Program tried hard to leverage that so all the right connections were made to use all assets in the community to promote the downtown. They had been working with the Springfield Chamber on education and promoting Chamber membership. Ms. Seguin talked about the difference between a Transforming Main Street which was the current designation and a Performing Main Street, which was their goal. The table identifying the differences was included in the agenda packet as Attachment 2. The key to reaching that goal was to work on the three items under “Not Met”. Currently NEDCO was the umbrella organization, but the goal was to form a Main Street Community that became its own 501(3)(c) stand-alone entity. As a stand-alone entity, it would have its own funding, board, bylaws, etc. and could be sustainable for many years to come. Main Street Programs generally continued on and on, although the focus could change dependent on many factors. They would be laying the groundwork for that during the coming year and it was their hope that the current Steering Committee could be the structure of the new Board of City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 3 Directors. Currently, Beth Hayes from NEDCO and the committee chairs served on that Steering Committee. They were the group with the bigger vision, who were working hardest on coordinating funding strategies and making sure all of the plans interlocked so the entire Main Street work plan moved forward in a coordinated fashion. As the new structure became clearer, they would be looking for other people to round out that Board that represented a cross section of the community. An adequate operating budget would be essential over time. Most Main Street communities had a mixture of funding resources such as a signature event, membership dues and fee, economic improvement districts, donor campaigns or traditional fundraising. The Steering Committee would look at the current funding and determine what would make sense for downtown Springfield and what business owners would support. The City and NEDCO support had been great, but they didn’t want those two entities to be the only two supporters so would be looking to diversify. The Steering Committee and community would do another check-in about what the Main Street Vision and Mission needed to be. Ms. Seguin said they would be setting up a stand-alone website. The Promotion Committee would be working on the site and would include things like vacancy postings and other resources. They were about half-way through pulling together Welcome Packages that could be handed out to anyone interested in locating downtown. They were also working on a merchant alert system, which would basically be emails on topical matters that might affect or matter to merchants. A new intern had started from Scholars On Board who would be doing some photography and working on the database. They were going to work to support the City’s design standards project. Councilor Woodrow said she had been a fan of the Main Street Program from the beginning. She saw the Main Street Program as a hub for the whole City and wondered if there was something they could do once the organizational committee was formed to promote the program, such as decals or buttons that got people to ask about the program. If Main Street became a destination, it would benefit everyone else. She also suggested that once the volunteer program was up and running they could find some way of recognizing the volunteers through an annual event or something similar. She noted that she still got emails from the Main Street Program in her hometown. Councilor Moore asked if it was possible at some point to look at Main Street East and Main Street North. She wanted to celebrate the whole city and felt there was a need to promote east Springfield, Gateway and the Mohawk area. She asked if that was ever done with this type of program. Ms. Seguin said many communities had multiple Main Street Programs. It was dependent on whether or not there was a geography that could be easily defined and understood by everyone that shared a common set of characteristics. It also needed to be sustainable with enough interest from a volunteer and budget standpoint. It could be configured in a number of ways. Councilor Moore said she felt success bred success. She noticed the positive change in Springfield over the last 10-15 years. Ms. Carpenter said the Main Street Program worked in large towns, small towns and business districts. It was very scalable. Councilor Moore wanted to keep that in mind and get word out there to other areas of town. Mayor Lundberg asked if the Steering Committee was the same as the City’s Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 4 Ms. Griesel said it was a separate entity. They had, however, on occasion combined meetings in order to leverage the group. Many members of the Downtown CAC served on the Steering Committee. Mayor Lundberg said there were many segments of Main Street. She liked the word downtown as it had a tone of excitement about it. We didn’t yet have the identity and characteristics established for downtown that we could identify and promote. That led into the design recommendations for the Façade Program that the Design Committee was developing. They needed a brief explanation of our downtown that could be shared with others and could be understood. We had the opportunity with the five committees working on downtown to create that identity. She hoped that was part of what was occurring and the Council would get some type of recommendation related to that. She hoped all of the downtown committees, including the City Downtown CAC, could have more interaction. Ms. Griesel said the staff lead for the Downtown CAC was also on the Main Street Committee that was working on the design guidelines to make sure there was communication. Also, some of the Downtown CAC members served on the Main Street Committee. That work had gone back and forth between both full memberships. They had worked hard to partner with NEDCO and provide city staff for each committee to make sure we were communicating well and not doing double work. Mayor Lundberg said there were 5 committees for a small geographic area. She hoped we could capitalize on the fact that the Main Street Program was required to have 4 committees. The City had high expectations from NEDCO and she applauded the work being done. All good things were going to happen. She wanted the City to be as supportive as possible to make sure we had our design standards, lighting and other things. She noted that the Springfield Renaissance Development Corporation (SRDC) had always been based in downtown and perhaps they could take on the role of the Main Street organizational committee. Ms. Griesel said Tom Draggoo, a SRDC member, served as the Chair of the Economic Structuring Committee. Councilor Woodrow said the basic Main Street Program was required to have all of those committees. Mayor Lundberg said Springfield looked very good in comparison to other Main Street Programs. Ms. Seguin said branding was difficult and there were a lot of differing opinions. The Downtown Promotion Committee could possibly come up with a process. Everyone felt it was time to make those decisions. They had tried to go through this before and it didn’t go well, but the process was important. Mayor Lundberg agreed. Councilor Woodrow said when they tried this two years ago, there wasn’t nearly as much downtown as there was now. There could be more of a positive response now that we had more downtown. Mayor Lundberg asked if there was interest in the City helping with a process. City staff had some expertise that could be beneficial. Mr. Grimaldi said the City could perhaps assist. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 5 Ms. Seguin said the Main Street Program committees were well supported and staff at NEDCO felt the City was very supportive. There was a good partnership between the City and NEDCO and a lot was getting done. Councilor Moore said she recalled when she first heard about NEDCO at the Farmers’ Market. It was amazing how far the City and NEDCO had come in the last five or six years. 2. Downtown Demonstration Lighting. Community Development Manager John Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item. During an April work session with the City Council, staff provided an update of the 2010 Downtown District Urban Design Plan. One activity identified in the Plan was improvements to the downtown pedestrian environment, including improved lighting. Lighting needs in downtown had been identified as a top priority by Council, citizens, and consultants responsible for the Downtown Circulation Study. Over the past months, staff had worked with downtown stakeholder groups to identify an ideal location to pilot a lighting improvement project. In May, City staff met with downtown stakeholders including the members of the Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee and Main Street Committees. During this meeting, staff and citizens walked downtown during evening hours to assess areas perceived to be deficient in pedestrian level lighting. This walk-about was used to assist the City Traffic Engineer in identifying the proposed demonstration project location. Considered project options included; • Installation of lighting on the north side of Main Street from Pioneer Pkwy East to the east side of 5th Street (current proposed project) • Installation of lighting on both block faces along Main Street from 5th Street to 6th Street • Installation of bollards and raised crosswalks • Installation of sidewalk furniture including, benches, bike corrals, planters, and trash receptacles The proposed project location included eight new fixtures along the north side of Main Street between Pioneer Parkway East and the east side of 5th Street. Funds had been identified in the Downtown Urban Renewal budget to support the installation of the lighting as well as possible installation of several sidewalk furniture-type improvements. This project was identified based on input from downtown stakeholders directing staff to focus on lighting and installing fixtures quickly. While stakeholders expressed interest and value in other proposed options, they advised staff to focus first on the installation of light fixtures. Mr. Tamulonis said the total cost for the project was expected not to exceed $150,000. The budget could allow more than two blocks to be done due to some wires that had been found on the north side of Main Street which would keep the costs down. Staff would send out a bid for the whole thing and then scale back to stay within the budget. All lights would be on the north side of Main Street and would be LED lighting, which took smaller wires allowing more wires in each section of conduit. Mr. Tamulonis said staff would coordinate the downtown lighting with the holiday lighting Council had requested. Bids for the downtown lighting should go out early this Fall once the design was complete. Depending on what the bid alternates were, staff could go back to the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and look at other blocks to consider for additional lighting. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 6 Councilor Brew asked how far the conduit extended that was found on the north side of Main Street. Mr. Barnett said almost all of the existing lighting system was serviced with conduit on the south side of Main Street. The empty conduit referred to tonight was almost all on the north side of Main Street and connected into existing poles. The empty conduit was not continuous the entire length and never crossed the street. That was part of the complexity of the circuiting that would have to be determined. Councilor Ralston asked why lighting was being added to the north side if there was already lighting and conduit on the south side. Mr. Barnett said the conduit on the south side served the existing street lights and the existing circuit for the holiday lighting. That conduit was full. Part of the design was to determine how to budget the electrical loops across the circuits in place versus the circuits to potentially be added. Councilor Ralston asked if the lights on the south side would be upgraded. Mr. Barnett said the proposal was for fixtures and poles on the north side only. Mr. Tamulonis said in the future they could look at the south side to change the lighting to LED which was a cost savings and used smaller wires, allowing for more fixtures. Councilor Ralston said he felt they should replace the lights on the south side to LEDs first. He asked if that was planned. Mr. Tamulonis said if the north side could be figured out first, it would be easier to look at the south side, which was a much more complicated project. Mr. Barnett said if they did replace the existing fixtures with LEDs on the south side, that same wire could possibly be used to carry a load of new poles. Mr. Tamulonis said they would know more once they had the design. Councilor Moore referred to Attachment 2 and asked if that was the design of the lights. Mr. Barnett said the light fixture in the inset was the general appearance of current City-approved light fixtures, such as those along Martin Luther King Parkway. The appearance was in the community, but those were actually metal halide which consumed twice as much energy as the LED lights. The other photo was of one of the lights next to the Justice Center and was taller than what would be proposed downtown. Those lights would be moved to intersections and shorter lights put in their place as part of the A Street project. Councilor Moore asked if the project to upgrade the Plaza included lighting. Ms. Griesel the Plaza improvements included landscaping and surface improvements and did not include lighting because of costs. Councilor Moore said the lights were approved and could be used in the future. Yes. Mr. Barnett said Council could choose a different design. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 7 Councilor Moore asked about the cost and quality of the lights being considered. Mr. Barnett said any decorative fixture would be more expensive than a plain light. Staff looked for long-term quality with a history of success. Councilor Moore said the lights along Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway were nice looking and put out adequate light. Mr. Barnett noted that the shorter lights were installed along some of our multi-use paths. Councilor Brew asked if the City paid a fixed cost to pay for the power for the lights or if it was based on consumption. Mr. Barnett said some fixtures were connected with a meter and some were not. Those on a meter paid based on actual usage. SUB calculated an average flat fee based on several factors for those not on meters. Councilor Brew said if the City switched to LED fixtures, they could pay for themselves over time. Mr. Barnett said that was correct, and the City would also get rebates from SUB. Councilor Brew said ideally we would want more lights on the south side, but there wasn’t enough conduit available so it would require changing the wiring in addition to adding poles. Mr. Tamulonis said the cost of LEDs had come down rapidly over the last few years. A change-out was more likely to occur over time. Mr. Barnett said one of the things that would be included with this project would be a lighting control system that would allow the lights to be dimmed, and would provide a report when a light was out. This would be a great opportunity to demonstrate how that worked. Mayor Lundberg said she was ecstatic to get lighting downtown. This was an excellent project to benefit everyone downtown. Mr. Tamulonis said it would be a great addition. There were some funds set aside to look into street furniture that businesses could buy and the City install. Mayor Lundberg asked if it would include hooks for hanging plants on light poles. Mr. Tamulonis said he would check into that. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 8 3. Review Interpretation of Municipal Code to Restrict Signs on Undeveloped Property within Springfield. Building Official David Bowlsby presented the staff report on this item. Staff had historically interpreted the City’s existing Sign Code language (Springfield Municipal Code Sections 8.240 through 8.268) as prohibiting the placement of signs relating to off premises activity on undeveloped property. Freestanding and wall signs were permitted onsite for businesses in various zoning districts. The definitions in the Sign Code referred to areas where signs may be placed as a “Development Area” and define development area as “The area of a commercial, industrial or residential development that is contained within a single tax lot.” Certain signs which were defined as exempt signs may be placed on vacant property. The City interpretation had been that while a vacant parcel may be considered developable it was not a development area without a previously established regulated structure (building) appropriate for the zoning of the parcel. Additionally, where no development existed, there could be no business present. While the sign code allowed placement of signs for businesses, if there was no business, there was no allowance for signs. This interpretation had been the basis for denial of placing signs on vacant property relating to off premises activity. If the Council wished to permit placement of signs relating to off premises activity on undeveloped properties that otherwise met the restrictions set forth in the existing sign code, they could do so by directing staff to clarify the definition of development area to include property which, though developable, was not yet developed. If Council did not wish to allow placement of signs relating to off premises activity on undeveloped property, they could direct staff to add clarifying language to the existing Sign Code to specifically state that signs were not allowed on vacant property and avoid the ambiguous language of development area vs. developable area. Mr. Bowlsby explained a situation where a sign could be leased to other businesses in one development area. In doing so, the owner of the property sold their right of signage to a third party and that business could only advertise by paying the sign company. The current Sign Code only allowed one of these free-standing signs per development area, meaning that business would not be allowed another sign unless the Code was amended. Signs went through the regular development review process when a structure was being built on the property, but if a sign was put up before a structure, it did not receive the full review. Staff needed direction on whether or not to prohibit signs on vacant property and strengthen the language in the Code to make that clear, or to allow it in a modified way allowing for multiple signs. A similar situation occurred in residential areas regarding review and for that situation the developer had to go through the full process. He explained. Councilor Brew said he saw two issues. First it was up to people buying property to know the rules about the signs and if they purchased a piece of property with a sign that leased space, they should know they couldn’t have another sign. On the other hand, we didn’t want someone doing this (putting up a sign to be leased), preventing development in the future. He liked the suggestion of having a more thorough review before allowing a sign. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 9 Mr. Bowlsby responded to the comment about a person doing due diligence on purchasing a property. In checking with Lane County Assessment, he learned that they didn’t recognize a sign on vacant or undeveloped property as an improvement value. Most of the disclosure laws spoke to improvements or structures so there was nothing that told a seller they had to disclose that information. Councilor Brew said the seller might say this was a way to get income from leasing the sign. Councilor Ralston said he felt this was ridiculous and that we couldn’t allow development to be controlled because of a sign. They needed to protect the owner’s rights. He asked what staff was proposing. Mr. Bowlsby said he was looking for direction on whether or not to clarify the language to specifically prohibit signs on vacant property, or allow this as an expansion of the property owner’s rights in a way that preserved the intent of the use of the property and not prevent future development. One option was to perhaps require that when a sign leads a property, the applicant be required to show evidence of the ability for the signage to be removed or relocated to accommodate building activity or a structure that was appropriate for the zone. Currently, when someone had a long-term lease for a property it was with the understanding the sign was not going to move, similar to a cell tower. City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said this came to the City Attorney’s office when an applicant was denied the ability to put a free standing sign because the property was undeveloped. One point was that the language in the Code was not clear enough. Council could direct staff to go back and draft the Code to be clearer. The second point was that this addressed signs, property rights and owners, and content of signs which was a constitutional issue. There was some case law that talked about signs that were on-premises or off-premises. She explained. If Council wanted to prohibit signs on vacant property or undeveloped property, other things needed to be cited as reasons for doing so such as safety, aesthetics, or number of signs. It may not be as easy as including language in the Code prohibiting signs on vacant property. Councilor Brew asked if the City Attorney could come back with some suggestions. Yes. Councilor Ralston said he didn’t want to prohibit signs. He felt property rights went above signs. Councilor VanGordon asked how many times people had come to the City with this issue. Mr. Bowlsby said about 20 times in the last 10 years. Councilor VanGordon said he didn’t necessarily want to ban having signs on vacant property, but wanted to see some options. Mr. Bowlsby said he felt there was a way to accommodate placement on vacant property, and still preserve the rights of the business operator that would occupy that property at a later time. It could include increasing the number of free standing signs allowed in a certain zone, or limiting the number of signs in the front. That would preserve one sign after development. Councilor VanGordon said he didn’t want a lengthy planning process in order to put a sign on vacant property. He wanted something simple that could protect both development and property owner’s rights. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 10 Councilor Moore said her concern would be design standards and consideration for surrounding properties. Councilor Woodrow agreed. She didn’t want to prohibit these signs, but felt a review process including options from the City Attorney would be helpful, to allow some room but not have free reign. Councilor Brew said another option could be a requirement that limited the term of the lease. 4. City Manager Compensation. Human Resources Director Greta Utecht presented the staff report on this item. Following the Council’s positive review of City Manager Gino Grimaldi’s performance in May 2013, the Finance & Judiciary Committee met to review whether a change in his compensation should be considered. The Committee’s recommendation was being presented, along with other options for consideration by the Council. The Council Briefing Memorandum (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet) described how four different cost-of-living adjustment indices were to be averaged to come up with a percentage that may be used to determine what, if any, changes might be made to the City Manager’s compensation package. An updated survey of how other cities compensated their city managers was also attached to the agenda packet. The Committee asked about what changes were being made to other non-represented employee compensation packages, and staff reported that an additional $250 would be deposited in the non- union employees’ Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRA) effective July 1, 2013, for this year only. After considerable discussion, the Committee voted to recommend that Mr. Grimaldi be given a bonus of $500, to be paid in cash or in deferred compensation, in addition to the $250 dollars added to his HRA account. It should be noted that even with one-time pay out options, the increase impacted the employee’s PERS and deferred compensation contributions. The advantage to the City of granting a one-time lump sum bonus was that it didn’t increase the base compensation for future years. Mr. Utecht noted an error in computing the Eugene City Manager’s total compensation on the Compensation Survey (Attachment 2 of the agenda packet). She noted that the Eugene City Manager also had the provision to cash out two weeks of vacation pay, so that was added into the total maximum allowable amount. She recalculated what a lump sum or COLA would amount to. The original memo to the Finance/Judiciary Committee didn’t include the impact that the PERS calculation and deferred comp would have. She had been asked to return to a work session with other options in addition to what the Finance/Judiciary Committee came up with. She reviewed those options. Mayor Lundberg said she asked to have this come to the Council with options so they could have a full discussion. She noted that Mr. Grimaldi had not received a compensation increase for some time. Ms. Utecht said Mr. Grimaldi had received one increase in 2008 which was given to all non- represented employees. At that time, Mr. Grimaldi’s contract said he would receive any compensation adjustments as other non-represented employees. Last year, changes to his salary were decoupled from those for classified non-represented employees. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 11 Mayor Lundberg said Mr. Grimaldi had done a great job as City Manager and felt his compensation was worth discussion. Councilor VanGordon asked about the comparables and if any were private. Ms. Utecht said the Public Administrators National was all public, but the Western Oregon Officers and Executives included public, private and non-profit. They weren’t broken out into categories so they also chose to look at public administrators. Councilor VanGordon asked about any other changes since 2008. Ms. Utecht said last year there was a change in the deferred comp to a percentage rather than a fixed dollar amount. If his base salary increased, his deferred comp would increase. Councilor VanGordon said he was comfortable with the 2.2% increase either on its own or split between a percentage increase and a lump sum. Many times if incremental increases were not made for a long period of time, they set themselves up for a big payout in the future. It was important to make Mr. Grimaldi’s salary competitive with others for now and for the future. In the past, they had used a combination of lump sum payouts and a move on COLA, so that could be a consideration. This would be in line with what Council had directed. They would be doing the right thing, but would not be excessive. Councilor Ralston said the Finance/Judiciary Committee decided on a bonus of $500. This had nothing to do with Mr. Grimaldi’s ability as he had done an extraordinary job. He was opposed to giving bonuses to public employees and times were tough. Councilor Woodrow said she wasn’t happy with the $500 payout recommendation from the Finance/Judiciary Committee. She looked at the 2.2% increase as an investment in the City and our future. She was disappointed they hadn’t given him anything in the last five years. She wouldn’t have any problem with the 2.2% COLA, but was fine with the split. It was time to recognize and thank him for his work. These were hard times, but sometimes an investment needed to be made. Councilor Moore asked about the full amount discussed at the Finance/Judiciary Committee. Ms. Utecht said they discussed a $500 payout and $250 in the HRA. The Federal Government did not consider Mr. Grimaldi a separate classification of employee. Because $250 was being given to the other non-represented employees, it was required to include that for him. Councilor Moore said the $250 was not a bonus, but was a matter of equity. She was surprised that the technology stipend was ongoing as she thought it was only for one year. One of the reasons the City was in such good shape was because of Mr. Grimaldi’s leadership. She was pleased with him as a representative of Springfield and the job he had done. She agreed Mr. Grimaldi was a valuable employee that set the standard for all of the valuable employees of Springfield and she would like to compensate him for that. Councilor Brew said he was supportive of a 2.2% COLA, which was basically a .4% increase per year over the last five years. He was fine with the split, but felt the COLA was the right thing. Ms. Utecht said if they moved to a COLA, she would need to know the effective date. Mr. Grimaldi’s annual review date was in November, but his evaluation was in May. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 12 Mayor Lundberg said she considered Mr. Grimaldi above everyone in terms of his ability to lead the community. He was patient, he listened carefully to everyone, and never made anyone feel disrespected. Other leaders in the community were very good, but she thought of Mr. Grimaldi as the star quarterback. The City’s finances were stable, the City had a great working relationship with the community and was moving ahead, and the City had gone through some of the toughest discussions. Mr. Grimaldi’s leadership helped get them through all of those things. Mr. Grimaldi had steered them through these times and was a huge benefit to our community. She was very comfortable with a 2.2% COLA or any combination. Ms. Utecht said her recommendation would be to align the COLA with the review date. In terms of the rest of the employee base, she would recommend that if they gave the 2.2% COLA making it retroactive from the date of his evaluation would be appropriate. If they chose to split it into a lump sum plus a 1.1% COLA, she would recommend going back to the review date of November 2012. The rest of the non-represented employees, who did get a new Classification and Compensation Plan, would probably look at the 2.2% COLA as a thoughtful way to move forward. Councilor Woodrow said she liked the 2.2% increase as of May 6, 2013 Discussion was held regarding impacts to PERS and Deferred Comp. Councilor Brew said his preference would be a 2.2% increase as of May 6, 2013. He felt the City Manager compensation should be discussed annually, rather than waiting for multiple years. Councilor VanGordon said he was good with the 2.2% increase effective May 6, 2013. Councilor Moore agreed. Mr. Grimaldi said the comments and increase were very much appreciated. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:09 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, JULY 1, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 1, 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. Spring Clean-up Discussion. Development and Public Works Operations Manager Brian Conlon presented the staff report on this item. The City’s annual Spring Clean-up continued to be a very popular program that provided City staff and volunteers a unique opportunity to connect with citizens on a more personal level. The Mayor and Council asked staff to explore adding a second annual clean-up or a new program initiative that would provide the same positive interaction with our customers and value to the community. Staff evaluated the following options: 1. Hold the Clean-up twice a year by adding it in the late Fall or early Winter In assessing providing a twice annual clean-up, staff discovered that our invested partners Sanipac, Lane County Solid Waste, NextStep, St. Vincent de Paul, Schnitzer Steel, and Habitat for Humanity were not able to absorb the significant operating costs associated with a second event. Staff estimated a project budget of $40K-50K would be needed to essentially duplicate the current Clean-up. 2. Engage the Team Springfield partners in collaborating on some project prospects in the Springfield “Promise Neighborhood” catchment A possible two-for-one approach was to attract youth volunteers by incorporating the Youth Day Of Caring annual event and the Promise Neighborhood project(s). Some initial project ideas included: a focused clean-up in the Springfield catchment area; general neighborhood beautification; improve pedestrian way finding; and safe route to schools enhancement. Initial project(s) estimate $10K-$20K. 3. Coordinate a citywide volunteer effort to do graffiti abatement in public right-of-way and on private properties A citywide graffiti removal project would enhance city beautification and promote safer neighborhood environments. Initial project estimate $5K- $10K. 4. Provide a pick-up service for the elderly and disabled citizens allowing them an outlet to dispose or recycle their large unwanted items. Elderly and disabled citizens often did not possess the ability to dispose of large unwanted belongings. This could be an issue of their inability to transport and or pay for the steeper cost of disposing of their larger items. Initial project estimate $5K- $15K. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 1, 2013 Page 2 Mr. Conlon described the different options as presented in the agenda packet. Councilor Moore spoke regarding Option 3, graffiti abatement. Some of the Police volunteers did that work, but she didn’t know how much they were accomplishing. Police Senior Analyst Mike Harman said they did quite a bit of the graffiti abatement, but were not able to get to it all. Most of their work was focused on removing yard and garage sale signs, and covering up graffiti on public property. When there were large amounts of graffiti on private property, they had waiver forms allowing them to enter the property. Mr. Conlon said the SUB transformers often didn’t get cleaned up. Councilor Moore suggested we coordinate with those efforts. Mr. Conlon said if this was chosen as a project, they would market, advertise and recruit volunteers at a larger level. Staff had done some projects through Youth Day of Caring in the past to address graffiti. Often, the students knew who was doing the graffiti and became vested in the cleanup. Councilor Moore said she liked involving the youth in the Youth Day of Caring. Whatever project they chose, she would like to involve the youth. It would involve volunteers throughout the City and the youth, and would show the City was trying to accomplish some beautification. Councilor Woodrow said sometimes when Springfield partnered with others, the City got lost. People took pride in the cleanup day and the City. Looking at it from that perspective, she would lean towards working with the Police Fleet volunteers to enhance graffiti abatement, or help the elderly and disabled to promote cleanup and assistance. There was a sense of pride in our citizens for what the City did and she would like to do something that was from the City. Mr. Conlon said working with the youth involved both education and civic pride. There was a value in involving younger citizens so they learned what was involved in taking care of our community. Councilor Brew said when talking about the Spring Cleanup, they had talked about how much fun it was for the Councilors. Holding an event during the week could save overtime costs for staff, but would mean that everyone else had to take the day off of work to volunteer at the event. For him, the choice would be whether or not to have it on a weekday or a weekend. During the week, the Youth Day of Caring may get more youth, but during the weekend, more working adults would likely be able to volunteer. They needed to determine if they wanted to do a service to the community or if they wanted the City of Springfield organization to be more visible to the community beyond those that were already out there doing maintenance. He asked if they could switch the days off for employees in order to allow them to attend a weekend event without paying overtime. Mr. Conlon said they could possibly shift people’s hours to accommodate a weekend shift. People were electing to work on that weekend and some wouldn’t mind volunteering, but union rules didn’t allow that. Graffiti abatement was different. When doing the cleanup, they needed the operators to run the equipment. Graffiti abatement could be done with any volunteer so there may not be a requirement for overtime if staff chose to volunteer to help. He would need to check with the union. Councilor VanGordon said his preference for a project would be graffiti abatement, and agreed that weekends could maximize the number of volunteers. A lot of workers could make a big impact on City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 1, 2013 Page 3 cleaning it up. The twice a year cleanup was still of interest to him and he would like to discuss it again after the Fall event. Going with something like graffiti abatement allowed them to make the Fall event open to whatever was needed each year. If they went with another cleanup, it could be something people started to expect. Keeping the Fall event different left it as more of an option, with the cleanup event continuing to be the Spring event. Councilor Ralston said all of the projects had some appeal, but he had been interested in a second cleanup, although it was too much of a cost. He didn’t see this as a list they needed to pick something from. We didn’t have funds and nothing from this list seemed terribly important other than a second cleanup, which was too expensive. If they announced they were going to clean up graffiti, they might get more. He felt the City was doing a good job of cleaning up graffiti. The elderly and disabled service was already offered. Item 2 might be worthwhile and could be done as a TEAM Springfield project. Mayor Lundberg said she liked the idea of doing the Spring Cleanup in the Spring and something else in the Fall. The City was good at getting something done and this was something for the City to take on. She liked the idea that the second event had to do with having a clean, livable city which was one of their goals, and could include members of the community. Others that might be able to assist could be the Lions Club, Boy Scouts and other service organizations. She noted a fence along the EWEB path that continually had graffiti, and it did change the atmosphere of that section of the path. It gave the City an option of something we could do that said we cared and involved the citizens rather than serving the citizens. Her second choice would be to find a group that would take on picking up appliances for senior citizens, or try to advertise that service better during Spring Cleanup. She was in favor of whatever they could do. Councilor Brew suggested posting fliers for the free appliance pickup service during the Spring Cleanup to Meals on Wheels and also the Senior Center. Mr. Conlon said they did have more people taking advantage of that service when they were able to advertise it better. Councilor Woodrow said since the Police Fleet had kick-started the graffiti cleanup, the City could enhance what they had begun. Part of this could also include educating people that helped with the event to recognize the different types of graffiti and what it could mean. Mr. Conlon said that could be done through the marketing process. Councilor Ralston said there was a place on Main Street that picked up appliances for free, and also took in items for free. They could find out the name of that place and pass that information along to the elderly to accomplish the same thing. That way there was no cost and the City could still be part of the solution. He said he could get the store’s information. Mr. Conlon said that would work if they focused on appliances only. In the past, the big item pickup the City had done was for other large items such as bed frames and other things they were not able to dispose of without paying a high cost. Councilor Wylie said St. Vincent DePaul took old cars and could be a partner in getting rid of them. It really helped our community to get rid of those types of items. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 1, 2013 Page 4 Councilor Moore said this was her first year at Spring Cleanup and it was a lot of fun. People that were new to the area had heard about it on the radio. The City had done the cleanup event for so long that we forgot that not everyone knew about it. She suggested putting more money into advertising. She also noted that some people had mentioned the long lines in years past. She asked if they had thought about ways to improve efficiencies. Mr. Conlon said during the tough economic times, the City had looked for cost cutting measures, but they could ramp that back up. It was frustrating to have people waiting in line so staff was always looking at ways to make it move as efficiently as possible. Other ideas were welcome. There were fewer vehicles that went through this year, mainly they believed, due to the rainy weather. Councilor Ralston said they could have people check what they had, and be directed to the different lines. Councilor Brew said if they chose the graffiti cleanup, they could focus on areas that got tagged repeatedly and perhaps invest in the paint that wouldn’t accept tagging. Mayor Lundberg said people that went to Spring Cleanup thought they had to get there immediately so everyone came first thing in the morning causing cars to back up. She suggested to people that they wait and come later in the morning or early afternoon. Perhaps that could be added to the information that went out to the citizens. The majority of the Council were interested in doing a graffiti cleanup as an experiment in the Fall. Councilor Brew asked if they could have a work session on just that possibility. Mayor Lundberg said timing may be an issue. Mr. Grimaldi said more details could be put into a Communication Packet with an opportunity for Council to contact staff if they had concerns or comments. Mr. Conlon asked when they wanted to have this event. The Youth Day of Caring was in the Spring. Mayor Lundberg said they would like to have something this Fall. Mr. Conlon said he would follow through and send out a Communication Packet with the details. 2. Cooperative Agreement for Low Cost Spay and Neuter Services for Cat Owners. Mike Harman, Senior Management Analyst for Police, presented the staff report on this item. City leaders and Police Department Animal Control staff were frequently asked to address the issue of free roaming cats in the community. The resources necessary to hire staff to address roaming cats or to contract for shelter and adoption services had historically been cost prohibitive. One option, suggested by citizen Curtiss Greer, would be to modify the existing City Ordinance which prohibited dogs at large to include all animals, including cats. Such a modification would subject cat owners who allowed their pets to roam freely to fines. Because of the difficulty involved in enforcing such an ordinance, especially the challenge of identifying a cat’s owner, this was not a recommended option. Even if we had the resources to pick up cats running at large, there was not enough capacity in the community to take those animals. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 1, 2013 Page 5 Another option was to manage cat populations by encouraging responsible cat ownership practices to include spaying and neutering owned cats. Doing so should reduce the population of unwanted free roaming cats. This was the recommended option. City Staff had been working with Willamette Animal Guild, or WAG, to develop a cooperative program that would provide low cost spay and neuter services for cats to Springfield residents, as well as transportation to and from the WAG facility. Funding would come from fundraising efforts in the community. Staff recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a cooperative agreement with WAG to provide low cost spay and neuter services to Springfield cat owners. Mr. Harman said the Animal Control office had one full-time employee and a part-time volunteer helping with the office work to allow the Animal Control officer to be out in the field as much as possible. Even still, the majority of the Animal Control officer’s time was spent licensing dogs and dealing with dogs-at-large, vicious dogs, and other animal calls. Mr. Harman said the Mayor’s Animal Subcommittee had met and decided on a cooperative approach with Willamette Animal Guild (WAG). Jill Winans, the Director of WAG, had offered to enter into a cooperative partnership with the City. The City and WAG would do fundraising together, so there would not be City funds other than minor incidental costs, until they raised enough money to fund 15 cats for surgery on a scheduled date. That date would be provided to one of the two businesses in Springfield who had agreed to act as partners, and the citizens would contact that business, fill out the paperwork, and pay the $10 deposit. WAG would pick up the animals, take them to the WAG facility on Highway 99, perform the surgery, and bring the animal back. The City’s role would be to point people to this service and advertise the opportunities. As a 501(3)(c) organization, WAGS could manage the funds and give people a receipt for their donations. The agreement was prepared and would be brought to the regular meeting for approval. The cost per animal was about $48. The citizen would pay $10, WAG would contribute $10 and the other $28 would be raised by the community. Every time $420 was raised, they could schedule another surgery date. Councilor Brew asked what types of businesses were involved. Mr. Harman said one was a cat care business, and the other one didn’t have anything to do with pets. The owner was just a concerned community member and was willing to participate. Councilor Brew asked if this was just for owned cats. Mr. Harman said someone could bring in a feral cat if it could be caught. The focus would be on owned cats from lower income families who couldn’t afford to have them spayed or neutered. This was a way to make it affordable and convenient for cat owners to get their cat spayed or neutered, and to encourage responsible pet ownership. Councilor Ralston said this had always been an issue. Feral cats were a huge problem and anything they did was good, but he was not sure how much good this would do. He fully supported whatever was done, but the problem was very big. There were people that were irresponsible and some actually felt it was cruel to spay or neuter their cat. Mr. Harman said they hoped this was the first step. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 1, 2013 Page 6 Councilor Ralston said getting the word out was the most important. It was a good thing, but educating the public about how serious a problem it was would be most important. Councilor Moore said this didn’t address the feral cat problem, but anything would be a good first step. She received numerous calls from people who had neighbors that were feeding the feral cats. She agreed that anything they did was a step forward, but was concerned that they not just drop it there. She asked if they had looked at what other cities were doing. Mayor Lundberg said they had looked at many things and felt they had to start somewhere. There were more steps involved, but this took a lot of coordination. Councilor Woodrow said there were many parts to this issue. There was a system to trap, neuter and release feral cats through Greenhill. She didn’t expect the City would ever be able to get into a program that would address all feral cats. Education was the key. There were many people that were soft-hearted and would continue to feed the feral cats. By offering an opportunity for low-income people to spay and neuter their own cats, they could help eliminate some of the proliferation. The City wouldn’t be responsible for the $28; it would be community supported. Once it got going, she felt it would be self sustaining. It was a response to something the community had been asking for. Councilor Moore said she appreciated this relationship with WAG and felt it could lead to other solutions. Councilor VanGordon said it was a good beginning. He referred to a meeting where Jill Winans from WAG spoke to the Council. She had really been paying attention to the cat population in Springfield and he would like to hear what type of effect this program had on those figures. Councilor Woodrow initially they hoped they could offer the service twice a month. Councilor VanGordon said doing anything like this would help stabilize the cat population. Councilor Wylie said in the advertising, they needed to emphasize the impact a single unneutered cat could have on the population growth. Every time a surgery was done, they were preventing a large number of litters. Mayor Lundberg said she took personal responsibility to move this forward. She referred to a national speaker at the County who said it was possible to get control of your population to the point where there were only adoptable animals because the community took spaying and neutering seriously enough. It would not happen overnight. Springfield was a big enough community to have our own facility for low-cost vaccinations or spay/neuter services, or even a shelter. This was the first step in getting the most likely candidates to bring the most likely pets to the most likely locations for the least cost. This was a service to the community that people had wanted. She was committed to sticking it out and appreciated staff working on this. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 1, 2013 Page 7 ______________________ 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, JULY 1, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 1, 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 Development and Public Works Director Anette Spickard, 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. Trig Star Competition Recognition. Surveyor Jon Driscoll gave a brief description of the Trig Star Program. He then introduced Joe Ferguson, the State Trig-Star Coordinator. Mr. Ferguson said Trig-Star was a national program put on and supported by the National Society of Professional Surveyors. High school students in all of the states were given the Trig Star test each year. The winner at each high school then moved on to take a State test. The winner of the State test then took the National Exam for which there was a national award. The local Land Surveyors of Oregon supported this program with the help of people like Mr. Driscoll who made presentations to the high school students and then gave the test. Between 150-200 students took the test this year in about 17 high schools. Out of those, Michael Carson from Springfield High School won this competition at the State Level and received a $500 check. Councilor Ralston said he loved trigonometry as a student. It was very applicable to many things including his previous job. He was very supportive of the program. Mr. Ferguson said even the technology of today was based on trigonometry. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. June 10, 2013 – Work Session b. June 17, 2013 – Work Session c. June 17, 2013 – Regular Meeting City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 1, 2013 Page 2 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances a. ORDINANCE NO. 6294 – AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 320-FOOT LONG BY 60- FOOT WIDE SEGMENT OF 31ST STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH LIES SOUTH OF PIERCE PARKWAY AND NORTH OF MARCOLA ROAD (SECOND READING). 5. Other Routine Matters a. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Walmart #4178, Located at 2730 Gateway Street, Springfield, Oregon. b. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for LaVelle Vineyards, Located at 400 International Way, Suite 130, Springfield, Oregon. c. Authorize City Manager to Sign a Contract Extension with Oregon Apparatus Repair, Inc. for Maintenance and Repair of Fire Apparatus. d. Authorize City Manager to Sign a Revenue Contract with Life Flight Network, LLC for FireMed Administrative Services. e. Approve a Motion to Waive the Requirement for Newspaper Advertisement of Requests for Proposal (RFP) Exceeding $100,000 and Allow the City Manager to Award and Sign the P41020 Channel 6 Stormwater Master Plan Contract upon Completion of Contract Negotiations. f. Approve Cost of Living Increase of 2.2% for City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Effective May 6, 2013. – this item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Councilor Ralston. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM 5F PULLED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ITEMS REMOVED IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO ACCEPT ITEM 5F FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 5. f. Approve Cost of Living Increase of 2.2% for City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Effective May 6, 2013. Councilor Ralston said he thought this was to be discussed each year at the appropriate time. Councilor Brew said he had brought that up during the previous work session and suggested that since it had been 5 years since Mr. Grimaldi had a pay increase, it would have been less if it had come to the Council each year to be considered. He didn’t want to revisit the same 2.2% increase every year, but wanted to have the discussion next year. Councilor Ralston said Mr. Grimaldi did a great job, but it was his job. He was opposed to a pay increase. Everyone did their job, but that didn’t justify a bonus. He didn’t feel Mr. Grimaldi would leave his job if he didn’t get an increase and people at the City were happy to have their jobs. He was not going to support an increase, but he pointed out it had nothing to do with what he thought of the job Mr. Grimaldi did. He did an exceptional job. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 1, 2013 Page 3 Councilor Woodrow said she didn’t consider this a bonus, but rather an investment in the City, in the personnel and in Mr. Grimaldi. She liked to recognize diligence and commitment to the position. One way to do that was through monetary recognition when appropriate. Since the Council hadn’t given him a raise in five years, she felt it was time. She didn’t want to take advantage of someone who had been so committed to the Council and the City. Councilor Wylie said in the job she held for 20 years, she had to make a lot of Human Resource decisions and had over 100 – 200 employees. She ran a non-profit, had tight budgets and had to raise the money, but she wouldn’t dream of not giving her employees routine salary increases and evaluations and support for their job performance. She agreed with Councilor Ralston that Mr. Grimaldi had done an excellent job and she wanted to show appreciation for the job he had done. She wished they could give more. Councilor VanGordon said in recognizing employees, sometimes it included monetary compensation. It’s true it was part of Mr. Grimaldi’s job, but as his employers and representatives of the citizens of Springfield they needed to evaluate him fairly and be willing to put forth the dollars to recognize his exceptional performance. Springfield prided itself in doing the right thing. The Council had evaluated Mr. Grimaldi, found him to be an exceptional performer who was critical to what they did each day, and 2.2% was worth every penny. When comparing Mr. Grimaldi’s performance level with the private sector, the private sector position would easily command a 5% raise. It was worth the time to recognize the hard work and dedication Mr. Grimaldi had put in with a 2.2% raise. It spoke to the organization that even with tight budget years, they were able to have this conversation. As the City worked out of the recession, it was time to take the opportunity to recognize his leadership through those tough times. Councilor Moore said she appreciated Councilor Ralston’s point of view and that he wanted to do things efficiently and economically. She appreciated how much Mr. Grimaldi contributed to the workings of the City and she felt he was worth every penny. She felt the Council was not being foolhardy, but were being wise. Councilor Ralston said it was easy to give away other people’s money. Mayor Lundberg said Mr. Grimaldi was a value to the community and they appreciated him very much. Springfield stood on how much we valued our community. She was more than happy to contribute her part to making sure the community was successful. Mr. Grimaldi was a big part of that success. She felt it was very appropriate that they pay for what they were getting and that he was that person that helped our City to shine in all aspects of City business. It was perfectly legitimate to give him at least the 2.2%. COUNCILOR WOODROW SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (RALSTON). 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. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 1, 2013 Page 4 1. Geri Baxter, Springfield, OR. Ms. Baxter said she would like to urge the Council to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with WAG (Willamette Animal Guild) to provide low-cost spay and neuter services to residents who owned cats in Springfield. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports i. Mayor Lundberg noted that a chart was sent out to the Council last week with a listing of the different dinners and events throughout the year. This would help provide a head count for the different events so they could spread themselves out more evenly and decide who should attend each event. Councilor Brew asked if the final information would be presented to Council. Ms. Sowa said she would compile the information and provide it to the Council. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Cooperative Agreement for Low Cost Spay and Neuter Services for Cat Owners. Mike Harman, Senior Management Analyst for Police, presented the staff report on this item. Council had before them a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with Willamette Animal Guild (WAG) to provide transportation and low-cost spay and neuter services for cats. WAG had agreed to partner to provide this service to Springfield citizens. The City’s responsibility would be to advertise the program with the days, times and businesses to contact for owned cats to be brought in to be spayed and neutered. This would not solve the entire problem of cats roaming throughout the community, but was a good first step. They were hopeful that as they continued to work together they could build on the agreement and address the problem over time. Councilor Brew asked how they would verify people bringing in their cats were Springfield residents. Mr. Harman said because this would be run by private businesses, they would not have access to records the City would have. Instead, they would ask people to show their drivers license with their Springfield address. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 1, 2013 Page 5 Councilor Woodrow said this had been a long process and she was glad to be involved. It involved a lot of research, meetings and phone calls. She knew that Mr. Harman, Brian Austin (Animal Control Officer for Springfield) and Jill Winans (WAG) spent a lot of time to put this together for the Mayor's Subcommittee. She appreciated everyone’s effort to get to this point. It was a beginning and helped get started in addressing the situation that the community had wanted addressed. She was very grateful for the effort and time that was involved. Mayor Lundberg also thanked staff and Ms. Winans. It was a first step and they hoped to do bigger and better things as they went along. She hoped this would be a great service to the community. She looked forward to what would happen next. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP WITH WAG TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LOW COST SPAY/NEUTER SERVICES FOR CATS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:24 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, JULY 8, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 8, 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 Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith and Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Wylie was absent (excused). 1. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Urbanization Element: Proposed Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to Address a Portion of Springfield’s 20-Year Employment Land Needs, and to Add Publicly-Owned Land for Parks, Open Space and Public Facilities. (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP2009-00014). Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented this item. The proposed UGB amendment was the product of a multi-year Springfield planning process to consider how and where Springfield would grow and where the UGB might be expanded to designate suitable employment sites, public land, open space and parks. Staff conducted a UGB Alternatives Analysis — a very thorough step-by-step method required by the Oregon statewide planning goals, administrative rules and statutes — to consider all lands surrounding Springfield’s UGB. The UGB Alternatives Analysis was used to identify suitable sites to support development of employment uses shown in Springfield’s Economic Opportunities Analysis, followed by an increasingly more detailed suitability analysis of each area including but not limited to: • evaluation of environmental, social, energy and economic consequences of adding land to the UGB (ESEE factors); • transportation and infrastructure engineering feasibility assessments; • comparative costs of extending infrastructure to new growth areas; • consideration of public involvement received through the entire SRP planning process to date; • consideration of testimony received at public hearings conducted 2008-2011 in response to the 2009 Draft Economic Opportunities Analysis, draft SRP policies and preliminary growth concepts; • consideration of proposed regulatory changes for developing in flood plains; • focused outreach to land owners. The final UGB would be determined by the elected officials after consideration of additional testimony from the public and additional input from staff that may be requested during the public hearing and may include or not include lands depicted in Attachment 2 of the agenda packet and/or other lands. Ms. Pauly presented a slide presentation. She said the purpose of tonight’s meeting was to let Council know staff’s recommendation for expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB). The expansion areas had been reduced from five to three. She would be presenting the three areas selected by staff City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 2 and explain the reasons for choosing those sites. She would also discuss the two areas that staff was not recommending and why. Because this was a 20-year plan, they were looking at how the study areas could look in 20 years. Staff used the 2009 Economic Opportunities Analysis as the basis for the proposed expansion of the UGB. In deciding which of the study areas would be best for Springfield to grow into, they looked at what mattered to people that lived here and what areas of growth would be in sync with what people loved about Springfield. She discussed the things that people had identified as important, including natural resources, and arts and culture. They looked at what Springfield had that other communities didn’t’ have that might attract businesses looking for a site. Staff also went through a process to determine how much of the growth for employment could be accommodated through redevelopment. From that they determined there were 187 industrial sites and 340 commercial and mixed use sites within the existing UGB that would redevelop. All site needs for sites smaller than 5 acres could be addressed through redevelopment. The focus of the UGB expansion was for the larger than 5 acre sites. She referred to a map showing where most of the redevelopment would occur as well as the five study areas. Ms. Pauly said a focused stakeholder outreach process had been done by staff over the last couple of months. A summary of comments from that outreach was included in the agenda packet. The outreach was in response to a letter that was sent out to all property owners in the five study areas. The purpose was to get a sense of how people felt about being in Springfield’s UGB and if there were landowners that would be willing to sell or develop their property in the next twenty years. Two neighborhood meetings were held at the request of the neighbors: one in the Seavey Loop area in which 30 people attended; and the second in the Mahogany Lane area. Ms. Pauly referred to an earlier question from Mayor Lundberg about a letter received from 1000 Friends of Oregon. Staff had not yet responded in a formal way, but would do that before the public hearing. The purpose of 1000 Friends of Oregon was to protect farm and forest land and they didn’t want to see Springfield expand the UGB, especially into farmland. Their concerns would be addressed. The letter stated that 1000 Friends felt the City’s Economic Opportunities Analysis was flawed and did not follow the correct methodology. Staff disagreed with that and had a letter from the Department of Land Conservation Goal 9 specialist stating that Springfield’s Economic Opportunities Analysis was consistent with what the law required. Staff would continue to have conversations with 1000 Friends and would provide a response memo prior to the public hearing. Councilor Moore asked about a comment from Randy Hledik (Wildish) regarding a concern about including land for parks and open space. Ms. Pauly said a map of the study area that included their property was attached to the letter sent out to property owners in April. The body of the letter spoke regarding expansion for employment purposes and also parks and open land. The parks and open land was in a different area than the Wildish property. Ms. Pauly explained to Mr. Hledik that there was no park and open space identified on the Wildish property. Mayor Lundberg said there was a woman in Gateway concerned about development in the floodplain in one area causing flooding in another area. She asked if we were doing flood plain studies. Ms. Pauly said she had talked with that citizen who did farming in several areas around Springfield. Flood analysis would need to be done in the north Gateway area before any development was done to determine the impacts. The last one done was by PeaceHealth. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 3 Mayor Lundberg asked how often a new analysis had to be done. Ms. Pauly said if land came into the UGB, it would be subject to the City’s floodplain overlay district in the Development Code. The Development Code required all development to make an assessment of the impact of their development on surrounding properties. It would depend on the development whether or not a flood plain analysis was required. City Engineer Ken Vogeney said the rivers were continuously moving and shifting and the studies the City relied upon were based on data that was over 40 years old. As updates occurred, some land would be more or less impacted as the river moved. As larger development occurred, updated flood plain analyses were required. When looking at expansion in the UGB, the City may not have funds to do the studies to update the maps to current data. It could affect property values. Community Development Manager for Transportation Tom Boyatt said the private property owner was responsible through development and annexation to make sure there would not be an impact on surrounding properties. If the City conducted the study, it would be for the next development and would set a precedent. Updates would need to continue to be made with new development. Mayor Lundberg asked about Johnson Crushers who was in favor of having his land included in the UGB and hoped to add 125 new jobs with the ability to expand. She asked if that property was being considered in the UGB expansion. Ms. Pauly said his property was in the Seavey Loop area and had an existing business. He would like to expand his operations and needed more land for that expansion. His ideal site would be 15-20 acres. He owned property that was already developed as well as vacant property that he could not expand into because it was not in the urban area and was zoned for exclusive farm use. Mayor Lundberg said if that area was not included, we would want to help him find a suitable place. Councilor Moore referred to a comment from Richard Hunsaker in the North Gateway area regarding historic photos of the river channel. She was not sure how that would be of use in this process. Ms. Pauly said Mr. Hunsaker was planning to do some research in the map library to find data on historical flood patterns to submit prior to the public hearing. Part of the purpose of the outreach meetings was to get more information about each of the sites from the people that knew the land. Councilor Moore referred to another comment about flood plain issues from Earle Wicklund who also had property in North Gateway. Mr. Wicklund recommended the City look at Creekside in Beaverton, Tualatin Commons developing in the flood plain. She asked if this was an issue or how it applied to the area. Ms. Pauly said Mr. Wicklund had submitted another email to Ms. Pauly this afternoon that showed development in that area. All of the comments were part of the record. Councilor Moore said there seemed to be a basic concern in North Gateway about the river and water table. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 4 Ms. Pauly said Mr. Wicklund wanted to be included in the UGB so he could develop his property. His reference to the Tualatin property pointed out that development could be done in a flood plain in the event the City felt the flood plain was an absolute constraint. Ms. Pauly said maps in the agenda packet showed 634 acres of employment land. The Economic Opportunities Analysis supported adding up to 640 suitable acres. The other proposal to add public land and parks showed about 379 acres. Discussion was held about the number of acres for parks and for employment. All figures would be confirmed and rechecked before the public hearing. Mayor Lundberg said she liked the map in the presentation and thought it would be good to use for the Main McVay discussions in a larger size. It not only showed Main and McVay, but also the development areas throughout the City. Ms. Pauly noted comparisons between areas under consideration currently and the original areas considered. If they went with staff’s proposal, they would add 8 large (20 acres or larger) sites to Springfield’s buildable lands inventory. They included: North Gateway – two 50-acre sites and one potential 30-acre site; South Mill Race – one 50-acre site and one 20-acre site; and Mahogany – one 200-acre site which could be split into smaller sites, and two 20-acre sites. There was more land in each of these areas, but these were the larger sites. Councilor VanGordon referred to the Knife River site and asked if that was their current location or the location they were looking to relocate the quarry. Ms. Pauly said that was the proposed quarry site. Councilor VanGordon asked if they would be able to site a quarry there if it was within the UGB. Ms. Pauly said they could do that if they received a Goal 5 inventory approval from the State. That was a plan amendment process. If that were approved, they could apply to have it re-designated and zoned to allow that use. Councilor VanGordon asked if staff had talked with them during the public outreach. Ms. Pauly said she had received an email from them asking to be kept informed. Councilor VanGordon asked if we knew what Knife River’s plans were for that property. Ms. Pauly said she was not sure. They did not submit any testimony in 2010 during the Planning Commission hearings. Councilor VanGordon said he was concerned that their plans could affect the property and its future use. He hoped they would make their intentions more clear. Councilor Moore was concerned that this site was also the well protection area and could restrict use. Ms. Pauly pointed out the well fields in both areas. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 5 Mayor Lundberg asked how the well fields affected development. There were other areas with heavy industrial development near well heads in Springfield. She asked about the restrictions. Ms. Pauly said once the areas were entered into the UGB they would be subject to the City’s Drinking Water Protection Overlay District and the regulations in that district to address chemicals, spills, etc. There could be something new enacted by Council with greater restrictions if they chose. Mayor Lundberg said development could occur, but would need to meet certain requirements. Councilor Brew asked about the location of the Knife River properties. Staff identified the site. Ms. Pauly discussed why large sites were important to attract certain types of development. She reviewed the characteristics of Springfield that could be attractive to development. There had been discussion about including a warehouse and distribution site, but testimony had been received noting that those uses didn’t bring in many jobs. Council may want to reconsider that type of use. She reviewed each site and noted the advantages of each. North Gateway Area: • Interstate 5 visibility • Grew an existing employment center • Contiguous with City limits • Potential for extending McKenzie River recreation path system • Potential for extending EmX transit service • Limited flood plain development to southernmost sites • Flood way was excluded from UGB, kept development impacts away from the river corridor. • Reduced impact to highest value agriculture soils • Excluded productive farms and agricultural businesses The State employment department agreed this was a good site. There was also a potential to extend the recreational path system from donated land. Ms. Pauly noted that only half of the area was selected in order to create more of a balanced approach so all of the land for employment opportunity was not in the flood plain. They did see the value of having the I-5 visibility, and having two 50-acre sites made sense. Reducing the area by half also helped reduce the impacts to agricultural soils and farmland, and limited more impact to the flood plain. Staff looked at soils as required by Goal 14. There were good agricultural soils in this area, but were best further north. The southern portion of this site was contiguous with current City limits and had potential of being annexed which also made it a good choice. Some of the challenges for this area included access which was problematic so creative transportation solutions would be needed. The area also needed a flood plain analysis. There were 18.8 acres of hydric soils which could reduce the number of suitable developable areas. The folks from Business Oregon said it could be difficult to be competitive when a site was in a floodplain. There could, however, be industries that would be interested. Ms. Pauly discussed the Mahogany and South Jasper Area. Some of the advantages of this area included: large, flat sites under single ownership; a number of sites not on the flood plain; it was close to City limits and existing development; had natural beauty; and infrastructure was available. This site did limit the impacts of urbanization compared to the other areas. It utilized land under the Bonneville City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 6 Power Administration (BPA) transmission corridor and was along the Union Pacific rail corridor and Jasper Road. Councilor Brew asked for clarification on ‘limit the impacts of urbanization’. Ms. Pauly said if they expanded into a lot of new areas, there would be impacts to things like natural systems, flood plains, farmland, etc. Limiting impacts meant developing in some areas and not in others. Comparing this site with other study sites, this one seemed to have fewer impacts. Mayor Lundberg said they would be looking more closely at each of these sites. She noted that railroads did impact different types of development for different reasons. It would be important to identify where the rail lines were located in each of these areas. Ms. Pauly said another advantage to this site was that the Jasper Natron area needed a plan. A plan was started about 15 years ago that was never adopted. Since then, there had been a lot of changes including discovery of wetlands along Bob Straub Parkway. There were land use changes that needed to be done in that area and it would make sense to plan it all at the same time. Operations and engineering staff liked this area because they were familiar with the problems and felt having it in our UGB would be helpful. Councilor Moore said it was beautiful, which made her think of residential use. She asked if the land could be rezoned residential in the future if it was taken into the UGB as industrial. Ms. Pauly said these were actually employment sites and not necessarily industrial. Councilor Moore asked if they were committed to maintaining the land as employment by bringing it into the UGB, or if it could later be rezoned residential. Ms. Pauly said during the planning period, they were committing the land to employment purposes. She noted that housing could go in other kind of areas and some of the employment uses could not. There were very few flat areas adjacent to our current UGB and once those were gone, there was no opportunity to get them back. Housing was a more flexible use. Councilor Moore said employment sites could also be beautiful and nicely done. Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said it could become more like employment mixed-use which could possibly accommodate some residential in context with the use. Ms. Pauly said when they did the 2030 Land Use Element, there was a desire to look at the Campus Industrial (CU) zoning. People wanted to do mixed-use development so they could see areas that were currently just commercial or just industrial turn into mixed-use areas. Also, as the City adjusted its inventory, things would be growing and changing. Councilor Woodrow said she was excited about the Mahogany/Jasper Road area. Current residential was not far from that site. There was not that type of employment development in that area and it would be good for east Springfield. A school would also be built in that area in the near future. Ms. Pauly said there was a lot that could be done in this area. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 7 Councilor VanGordon said he liked the large 200 acres site and the proximity to the rail line. His concern with Jasper was that it felt far away and there could be transportation issues. He asked if there was a way to address that concern. Currently, our commercial corridor was near I-5 so he was concerned a site this far away would not be competitive. Ms. Pauly said it wasn’t actually very far from the center of town. Councilor VanGordon said he did agree with Councilor Woodrow that this area needed more employment lands, but he wanted to make sure we could attract development and have them be competitive. Ms. Pauly said there was a benefit in distributing the areas throughout the city. Having a balance seemed more equitable for the community. Mayor Lundberg asked if the City might want to designate someplace to offset wetlands. Eugene had mitigation sites and she wondered if it was something Springfield wanted to consider. Ms. Pauly said the specialist from the Department of State Lands (DSL) would love it if Springfield did that and would be able to assist, perhaps with funding. The City would first need to do a Wetlands Conservation Plan which would allow the City more flexibility around how we developed wetlands. There was a lot of potential for that. Mayor Lundberg asked if staff could look into that (land banking for wetlands mitigation). Mr. Grimaldi said they could look into it. Ms. Pauly said a staff member from DSL said to be careful when drawing the UGB to make sure it included resource land that could be used to mitigate wetlands and other constraints. Ms. Pauly spoke regarding the South Mill Race area. The advantages of this area included: a potential to improve the existing industrial area; it was close to City limits; there was an opportunity to connect parks and open space; and it was no longer viable for farming. Councilor Ralston asked if it was mostly parks and open space. Ms. Pauly said there was over 100 acres of suitable land in that area; some was in the flood plain and some was open space. The State saw this as a potential tech park. This area was quite close to downtown, the Main Street corridor, Agnes Stewart Middle School, and the Regional Sports Center. Currently, it included the Mill Race, mill sites, schools, Booth Kelly Road, junkyards and some farmland. The biggest issue for this site was the access. There was a rail spur going into Knife River. The rail expert said it was best to develop around rail and preserve those opportunities for the future as it was difficult to get new track. Rail usage was a growing use in the transportation system. Selecting this area would be an opportunity to institute the best low impact development practices to protect drinking water sources and riparian resources. Ms. Pauly reviewed the themes from the 2010 Planning Commission public hearings: • Avoid flood plains • Avoid farmland • Protect drinking water source areas. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 8 Ms Pauly said they needed to look at trade-offs in looking at the choices available. Staff had tried to recommend the best ones. Councilor Brew asked about the other two sites that were eliminated. Ms. Pauly said she would be talking about those shortly. She reviewed considerations that needed to be taken into account for each of the sites: number of acres; which lands were better positioned for the future and had fewer constraints; Goal 14 factors; industrial readiness factors; and engineering feasibility to extend transportation and infrastructure systems. Ms. Pauly said the two areas they had set aside were Seavey Loop and North Springfield Highways 126. Staff had first considered Seavey Loop because Goal 14 priorities required them to look where there was already development to see if it could meet our needs. They found that the lands that were already developed had been developed, parcelized and didn’t meet the suitability criteria. There were 262 acres, but only 152 were suitable. Those acres had the highest cost per acre to serve. She referred to a chart showing the different uses of the developed land. There was only one site larger than 20 acres in this area. It was a 50-acre site, but included 29 acres of hydric soils which meant over half of the property could be wetlands that couldn’t be developed. The property owners, the Straub family trust, were interested in having their land in the UGB but not in this time horizon. Mayor Lundberg brought a chart from a previous work session showing the difficulty in price of each site. She noted the high cost of this area. This chart was very helpful and she suggested they provide it during future meetings on this topic. Ms. Pauly spoke regarding the North Springfield Hwy 126. The main reason this site was set aside was that they could only justify a certain number of acres for the full expansion. They eliminated the northern portion of North Gateway, Seavey Loop and this area because it was almost all flood plain. Even the parts outside the flood plain were under water during the 1996 flood. This area also had viable agriculture and one of the property owners was restoring the filbert orchard and had intentions of staying there for the next 20 years. McKenzie River and Cedar Creek habitat also needed to be maintained. The Metro Waterways study included a lot of proposals for restoring this area. It scored high regarding the value of the habitat. She referred to a picture showing the Restoration Concept Diagram for Cedar Creek. Councilor Moore said it would be good to let people know the City had considered that area, but had removed it for those reasons. 1000 Friends may be happy to hear why it was taken out of consideration. It should be emphasized that this site was not chosen in order to address environmental and habitat concerns. Councilor VanGordon said maybe staff could include a couple of slides that discussed the things that were done to protect agricultural land and waterways. It would show that we were not just looking at employable land, but took positive steps to address these concerns. Councilor Moore said she was excited about getting the public lands in the expansion and felt it was very wise. Mayor Lundberg said this was a lot of work and a huge change for Springfield. First we separated our UGB, and now we were looking at expansion. Everything would need to be considered carefully. As they moved forward looking locally for produce, the City needed to consider what constituted City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 8, 2013 Page 9 farmland. It used to be that farmland was vast acreages of one crop, but now we had smaller acreages with multiple crops. That needed to be considered when identifying farmland in the future as it would help determine its value. We may need to expand again in another 20 years, so that type of farming needed to be considered. The Council would be meeting with the Lane County Board of Commissioners regarding the UGB expansion on July 22. Ms. Pauly said it would be a similar presentation as this evening, but with more technical information since the Commissioners had not seen all of this yet. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder