Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 11/25/2013 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) September 23, 2013 – Work Session b) October 7, 2013 – Work Session c) October 7, 2013 – Regular Meeting d) October 14, 2013 – Work Session e) October 17, 2013 – Joint Elected Officials Work Session f) October 17, 2013 – Joint Elected Officials Regular Meeting DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, September 23, 2013 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused). 1. Stormwater User Fees. Environmental Services Manager Matt Stouder and Katherine Bishop presented this item. Based on earlier discussions with Council regarding stormwater user fees, staff had provided preliminary details for a conceptual residential stormwater user fee adjustment program to accommodate low impact development such as rain gardens and/or onsite treatment. In any discussion of possible adjustments to the City’s stormwater user fee program, it was necessary to consider changes in the context of the City’s overall stormwater services program. Therefore, Attachment 1 of the agenda packet provided an in depth overview of the City’s overall stormwater services and user fee program, including a review of the current stormwater user fee rate structures for commercial and residential accounts. Additional topics of discussion included: • The City’s Stormwater Management Program • Stormwater Program Funding Sources and Uses • Generally Accepted Rate Structure Goals and Objectives • Stormwater Billing and Collection Services and Trends • Stormwater User Fee Adjustment Considerations If, after discussion, Council desired to move forward with any adjustment to residential stormwater user fees for low impact development, staff would develop the framework for the adjustment program, including necessary requirements and regulations, and recommended Council consider formal action on the program as part of the annual stormwater user fee rate review in spring 2014. Mr. Stouder noted the Council Goals that were impacted by stormwater management. He provided a history of stormwater fees starting in 1989 and the changes over the years due to State and Federal requirements. Residential fees had a flat fee of $12.62 per month, and commercial fees had a base fee of $1.4666 per 1000 square feet plus an impact fee based on the impact to the system. He described these fees and the services those fees paid for to maintain the stormwater system. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 2 Councilor Woodrow referred to the $1.465 administrative fee and if that was for collection by SUB. Yes. She asked how the coefficient figure was determined, such as regulation or impact. Ms. Bishop said the calculations took into consideration the hard surfaces on commercial development. The typical commercial development didn’t have much lawn or landscape, and had parking lots and sidewalks. This took into account the runoff from those hard surfaces and also, in the case of industrial, took into consideration the strength of the runoff. The variables allowed it to be applicable to many different scenarios and allowed them to apply the rate to individual situations. Councilor Brew said he thought this had more to do with the percentage of impervious to pervious areas, not necessarily what was coming off the roof. He wondered how a typical residence would fall in this calculation if this same formula was applied that was used for commercial. Mr. Stouder said the residential fee was set up as a base fee for the service provided with the assumption that generally ran off into the system. There were very few green type developments although they were beginning to see more. The commercial and industrial impacts were different. Councilor Brew said this concept was the ratio of pervious to impervious. All of the water from his roof did go into the system, but he also had a lot of lawn in which it didn’t. Councilor Ralston asked if this rate structure covered the cost of the system. Ms. Bishop said the user fee from residential and commercial accounted for 98% of the total revenues to support city stormwater services. A portion of that revenue went to debt service obligations, and some to the capital fund to invest in the stormwater system and maintain the infrastructure. Councilor Ralston asked if the roof counted as an impervious surface. The base rate seemed high compared to the commercial rate. He would like the breakdown of that at some point. Mr. Stouder said a slide later in the presentation may address that question. Councilor Moore said the $12.62 just started in August and was previously $12.13. She asked about the increases Council had agreed upon recently. Ms. Bishop said the only increase Council adopted this last year was the 4% in stormwater fees that was effective July 1, 2013. Staff was looking to contain costs and bring back information later this year. Councilor Wylie asked if someone would receive a reduction in their fee if their downspout ran under the driveway into a rain garden. Ms. Bishop said currently they didn’t have a program, but staff would be presenting something during this meeting for Council to consider. Mr. Stouder referred to a slide regarding a case study of the Planned Parenthood site in Glenwood and how site design could impact user fees. He noted the difference between a heavy use fee and light use fee and how it related to impervious surfaces. The Planned Parenthood facility did not have an impact to the City system so were charged the light fee, for no or little impact. He provided an overview of the Stormwater Management Plan which was adopted by Council in 2004 and updated in 2010. The City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 3 Plan provided policy and management guidance for stormwater activities within the City. Seven key outcomes that were adopted by Council were included in the Stormwater Program. He reviewed those outcomes. The Program included planning, permitting, regulatory administration, illicit discharge program, preventative maintenance, engineering, capital program and program management. Ms. Bishop distributed a table that had been requested by Councilor Moore of the stormwater program operating budget by program service. She referred to the chart included in the agenda packet showing that 98% of the total revenue for the Stormwater Program was from user fees. Of the total customer base, about 93% were residential and 7% were commercial, yet commercial accounts made up about 55% of the funding. Often the accounts receivable trend could provide a measurement of customer’s ability to pay their bill. About 82-83% of the customers paid the bill when it was due and about 14- 15% paid up to thirty days after it was due. Less than 2% went into the 60-90 day window, and less than 1% beyond that. This was a good measurement of the financial viability in determining our revenue stability and cash flow. Councilor Brew said since this was being collected on the same bill as electricity, people often weren’t looking at the stormwater bill separately. Ms. Bishop said there were programs available for people that could assist with the electrical portion of their bill. Councilor Brew said most people looked at the entire bill and determined if they could pay the bill or not based on the full amount. Ms. Bishop said for customers on a limited income, there was a program through SUB that assisted in paying for winter heat. Those in the program could get up to $150 of one-time credit to use during the winter for heating. If someone had a credit, their services could not be cut off by not paying the other components. The data presented in this chart was also used by credit agencies when going out for bonds and trying to secure financing. She referred to the rate structure goals and objectives which included compliance with legal requirements, insuring revenue adequacy to meet operating capital needs, providing equity and fairness between customers, being easy to understand and administer, and facilitating ongoing review to maintain rate stability. Mr. Stouder provided a brief summary of the commercial rate structure. Mayor Lundberg asked if there were other commercial businesses besides Planned Parenthood that had zero impact. Mr. Stouder said there were a few with less than 20% pervious, but very few with no impact. There would potentially be more as new development was built. Mayor Lundberg said the current proposal by staff was that commercial would pay a base fee which was current practice, to help pay for the entire system that everyone used. Mr. Stouder said that was correct. Ms. Bishop said the proposed residential fee adjustment program included a reduction in user fees for qualifying residential accounts who managed their stormwater runoff on private property, which reduced the stormwater impacts to the City’s public system. The proposed program objectives were to City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 4 support safe and appropriate onsite collection and treatment of stormwater runoff on residential properties, and to operate and maintain a system that reduced stormwater runoff from residential properties to the City’s public stormwater collection system. The proposed user fee adjustment program could include a 20% reduction in monthly user fee charges (about $2.52/month) with at least 75% of property hard surfaces that drained onto the private property, a 10% reduction in monthly user fees with at least 50% of hard surfaces that drained onto the property, and no reduction in fees for properties with less than 50% of hard surface drainage onto the private property. There would be program administration costs and the reduction would have an impact on revenue of approximately $26,000-$52,000 for the 10% discount and $52,000-$104,000 for the 20% discount. Currently 1% of the annual user fee revenue was about $58,100. Councilor Woodrow said she appreciated that people were doing things to keep as much from going into the system, but was concerned on the overall financial impact of the discounts. She didn’t want to see people that might not be able to afford to do something be penalized. If there was a financial impact, fees would need to be increased to cover that cost. Mr. Stouder said it was difficult to forecast the overall cost. They could determine financial costs based on number of people eligible for the discounts, but there were also administrative costs in monitoring how these systems were operating and being maintained. Staff would need to perform the inspections, which was an added expense. Councilor Moore said the City of Gresham gave a 27% discount. She felt 20% was not enough of an incentive for people to do anything about their runoff. She asked if they were doing this to collect money or keep water out of the system, which would save us money in the long run. She also noted that Gresham only collected every other month. She asked if that could be a savings in the amount paid to SUB to administer the billing. She asked what that included. Ms. Bishop said the City paid SUB for utility billing services for wastewater and stormwater, per transaction which was a separate fee. The administrative fee of $1.456 also took into consideration some commercial rate structure and also the customer service provided by city staff. When a customer called in about their wastewater or stormwater bill, they were referred to a city staff member. The residential was a level fee and was built in. Councilor Moore asked if we could save money if we charged bi-monthly. She asked if there was a service fee paid to SUB for each water, sewer and electrical. Ms. Bishop said it was for wastewater and stormwater only and it was per transaction. If there was bi- monthly billing, that amount could be less; however, it was beneficial to have the cash flow coming in on a monthly basis because expenses were going out on a monthly basis. Money coming into the city did earn some interest, although minimal. Some agencies did bill bi-monthly or quarterly, but the industry standard was monthly. Councilor Moore said a 20% discount was hardly an incentive so she felt it should be more if there was another way we could save money by billing differently. Councilor Ralston said he applauded those that reduced the stormwater runoff, but the savings were minimal and may not be worth it. If we did offer discounts, the funds would need to be made up in another way perhaps by penalizing those that weren’t reducing runoff. It was good to discuss this, but it seemed like a lot of work to make a few people happy. He wouldn’t want to change anything and City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 5 just keep things the way they were. It seemed like a lot of expense for a small benefit to the homeowner. Councilor Brew said Planned Parenthood of Southern Oregon (PPSO) had almost a 50% discount. He agreed it would be difficult to implement something like this on an existing house. This should be brought up during the systems development charge (SDCs) discussion. If they wanted builders to build houses with less impact, they could offer an incentive at that time. He asked how they measured lawn runoff. It seemed like it would be a 100% capture. Ms. Bishop said other agencies took into consideration the number and size of trees. Councilor Brew said the savings weren’t applied fairly. It seemed like commercial got a better deal than residential would, but he felt they could make an impact if they looked at this during the SDC discussion. Mr. Stouder said the SDC methodology did account for no impact and no fee. Councilor Wylie said she agreed the amount was too minimal to make someone put in a rain garden, yet she did want to look at incentives and wanted people to do it. She thought it was a good idea to look at something from the SDC standpoint. It was not just about the money, but about the standard of living. She asked about the figures provided. Ms. Bishop explained the calculations that were figured on an annual basis. Councilor Woodrow agreed that looking at the incentives in the SDC methodology would be a way to be proactive with new buildings and better than a program for existing residential. She liked the idea of rewarding the new way of building. Councilor Brew asked what the City was paying per bill to SUB. Ms. Bishop said the City paid $1.11 to SUB per transaction for stormwater and wastewater services. The stormwater and wastewater funds each paid a portion of that fee. For comparison purposes, EWEB billing for the City of Eugene was about $1.46 per transaction. Councilor Brew said if they went to every other month billing, more funds could be saved compared to any interest they could earn. He felt they should look at that option. Mr. Goodwin said there was nothing in the current contract about monthly billing. Councilor Moore asked if someone could get a discount if they wanted to pay quarterly or annually. Councilor Ralston said he felt they should go to billing every other month. SUB did averaging anyway, so there wasn’t any reason why we should bill monthly. Ms. Bishop said for some customers with a limited income, it could be difficult to try to pay two months’ worth of the bill. Many cities had switched from every other month billing to one month billing for that reason. With bi-monthly billing, once a customer fell behind they wouldn’t get their next bill for another two months, making them four months behind. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 6 Councilor Ralston said with monthly averaging by SUB, it would be the same amount each month. Ms. Bishop said average pay was available to customers that had a 12 month history, but many customers chose not to do average pay. Councilor Brew asked if they could ask staff to explore the bi-monthly billing. Yes. Councilor Wylie said she got different figures. Staff would review the figures. Mayor Lundberg said there were many homes that didn’t put any runoff into the system. Long before there were stormwater systems, people had basic systems that didn’t dump into the main system. There may be people that didn’t need to put anything new in to keep the runoff from going into the system since their home was already set up that way. They should look at all of the varieties of ways of impacting or not impacting the system. She agreed they should look at how they could provide incentives, perhaps through SDCs, for new housing with green systems. They could also look at a larger incentive and bi-monthly billing. Many people looked at their total bill, not the separate components. There were a lot of fees between the City and MWMC, and all of those needed to be considered. Ms. Bishop asked if Council wanted staff to look at bi-monthly billing for both wastewater and stormwater. Yes. Councilor Moore said she would like to know what other cities were providing in terms of a discount. Ms. Stouder referred to a slide that showed other cities and what they were doing. Ms. Bishop said they looked at communities that the City historically compared user fees to, regarding what those cities were doing in terms of a basic user fee and a residential stormwater green infrastructure fee adjustment program. Of those communities, four had an adjustment program. It was very new and cutting edge. Mr. Stouder said the four that had programs were Phase I communities, meaning they had 100,000 or more in population and were held to a higher standard than Phase II communities. Springfield was a Phase II community. It was good that Springfield was having this discussion now as regulations would tighten for Phase II communities. Ms. Bishop said in the future they would be having this discussion from a regulatory standpoint. She referred to the slide showing the four communities and the benefits provided in their programs. She said she could email that out to the Council. Mayor Lundberg said the follow-up and discussion tonight had been on the residential side. At this time, there was no need to make any changes on the commercial side. She asked if staff could prepare a response to PPSO to address their recent letter regarding their request for a reduction in stormwater fees for their facility in Glenwood. Mr. Stouder said staff would work on doing a better job on the front end of working with people to help them understand how the bill worked. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 7 Mr. Bishop said she was clear on looking at the SDCs for new residential and looking at bi-monthly billing options, but was not clear if they should look at a 27% discount as some councilors expressed concern about the financial impact on the other customers. Councilor Brew felt they could go much higher for incentives such as 50%. The people that would take advantage would be a very small percentage. A proposal needed to be big enough to make a difference. Mayor Lundberg asked if Council was also willing to look at existing residential that didn’t have an impact on the system. Councilor Brew felt that could need to be part of a staff recommendation. Councilor Moore said part of the stormwater fee also paid for street maintenance. Mayor Lundberg said they could do a base fee and impact fee, similar to commercial. Councilor Moore said for those willing to do it, it was not so much about saving money as it was taking care of the water runoff and keeping it out of the system. Councilor Ralston said he felt they needed a base fee. Any incentive needed to be worthwhile for those taking the steps, but they needed to determine where any difference in revenue and additional costs would come from. Councilor Brew said the current system was not equitable. Mr. Stouder said the proposed adjustments were minimal and most of the costs were recovered in the base fee. Ms. Bishop said when she met with SUB staff regarding the stormwater and wastewater, their perspective was that the City customers had few questions about their stormwater service and were usually focused on the larger components on their bill. Having the level fee, people could anticipate the cost each month. Councilor Wylie said they needed clear criteria defining when reductions could be applied. That criterion could include future planning for housing, existing housing and changes in current housing. Mr. Stouder said staff could bring information back to Council for discussion on reduction scenarios, impacts, criteria, and could propose a set of standards. 2. Boards, Commissions and Committees Review. City Recorder Amy Sowa presented the staff report on this item. In the past, the topic of possible changes to the City’s BCCs in terms of the appointment process had been raised. One area of consideration was in the area of qualifications of candidates. The Council had expressed a desire to encourage citizens who may not already be involved in public service to apply and be appointed to open positions. Concern had been expressed regarding appointment to City BCCs of people currently serving as an elected official on another agency’s Board or Commission. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 8 Another area of consideration was the process of interviewing candidates for certain BCCs and not others. The City Council was responsible for appointment of members to most of the City’s boards, commissions and committees, and had the option of interviewing candidates prior to their appointment. Currently, the City Council interviewed for positions on the City Council (when vacancies occurred between elections), Budget Committee, Historic Commission, Planning Commission and Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) (Section 10 Subsection 3.8 from the 2013 Council Operating Policies and Procedures). Attachment 1 of the agenda packet noted which BCC positions Council interviewed for and which they did not. Mayor Lundberg said they were trying to get new people on boards, committee and commissions and there have been times when members served on our boards that were elected to other boards and agencies. There had also been a couple of issues that had to be worked through recently with members of some City committees. One of the criteria for Council appointing to certain committees was the fact that those committees made policy decisions and financial recommendations to the Council. Councilor Ralston said ultimately the Council did approve of the committee members, whether from a recommendation by the board or through an interview. The interview process took a lot of time for Council and he was not interested in sitting through five or six interviews every time a position came open. He was not too concerned about the current process. Mayor Lundberg said Councilor Ralston missed the recent Council meeting where a committee brought forward their recommendation and Council wasn’t able to make up their mind. Councilor Wylie said there was inequity with the current system. The citizens on the various commissions wanted to be involved in choosing their next members and that needed to be respected. One thought was that the commission would do the screening and initial interviews, and then send the top two to the Council to interview and appoint. They wanted standardization in the process. Councilor Moore noted the concern about the same people serving on different committees. She wasn’t aware of who was on the various committees until looking through the list. That position could be offered to someone who wanted to get involved. We have had great applicants in the past that were not appointed. She wasn’t sure how to put that in their policy. She agreed there needed to be consistency and she liked the idea of the Council interviewing the top two as recommended by the committee. Mayor Lundberg said in the case of the Planning Commission, the Council would interview all applicants instead of just the top two. Mr. Towery said it sounded like they wanted more consistency and a way to both engage the existing committee members and still feel comfortable about the appointment. The committees and commissions such as the Arts Commission, Historic Commission, Library Board and Police Planning Task Force seem to be a little different from the committees the Council already interviewed. They were larger groups that met on a regular basis. It may be easier for both the Council and the engagement of the committees to have that two-step interview process. That could be tried for a period of time to see how it went. The Council could step up the involvement for those committees they currently didn’t interview for and keep the same process for those they currently interviewed. The membership and eligibility was a separate issue that wasn’t driven by the process, but more by the Council’s desire for representation and more engagement. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 9 Councilor Ralston said he was not concerned about one person serving on more than one commission. He wanted the most qualified people on the boards, committees and commissions. Some committees were more important than others such as Council, the Planning Commission and the Budget Committee. He felt those were the only three the Council needed to interview. Councilor Woodrow said in light of recent concerns, having a system in which the Council interviewed the top two applicants created an engagement by the Council with the person they selected. That engagement helped the person appointed understand the importance of their commitment, the position and their committee. She didn’t have a problem appointing the best people, but she felt they lost out on a lot of good people that could be the best if given the opportunity to get involved. There seemed to be a lot of people that wanted to be involved and she would like to see something in place to give them consideration. There are other commissions that had policies to not have elected officials as part of their commission or give opportunity for others. She felt the engagement of the Council with the person appointed created a connection and recognition of the importance of their commitment. Councilor Brew said he agreed with Councilor Woodrow. They may not need to interview the top two candidates, but it would always be a good idea to bring the top candidate in to meet the Council, hear their charge and engage with the Council. He noted that during his nine months on the Council, whenever they interviewed for a position, they had always selected the applicant with the experience. There were other candidates that were eager to go, but were not selected because of lack of experience. If they wanted to develop new members, they needed to look at that balance. If there were two openings, they could consider one person with experience and one new person. Councilor Ralston said interviewing the top two for all of them would be consistent and a great idea. He felt they always needed to interview for Council, Planning Commission and Budget Committee. Regarding new people compared to experienced, he felt they needed to get the best person because important decisions needed to be made. Councilor Wylie agreed with Councilor Ralston about the interview process, although she wasn’t sure if they should add the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC). They could look at a policy that stated that when possible, not appoint someone who was currently serving as an elected official of a governing body. And also, when possible, appoint people to one committee only. It shouldn’t be black and white, but rather when possible. If they put the interview policy into place and found it was too much interviewing done by Council, they could revisit it and make changes. Mayor Lundberg liked Councilor Wylie’s recommendation. Councilor Woodrow said she agreed. She did note that the Council could determine between two candidates who would be the best candidate. Before she was on Council, she applied for but wasn’t selected to the Library Board because of lack of experience. She would like to see a way to present more opportunities for citizens. Councilor Moore said the Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee met quarterly or more, yet the summary sheet said they met ‘as needed’. She felt they should be on the list with the other committees. She asked what the criteria were for being included on the list and being interviewed. Mr. Towery said the Budget Committee, Planning Commission and City Council all had statutory authority and the ability to make policy on their own. The other committees and commissions make City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 10 recommendations to Council, but had limited ability to make policy. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee was established for a set amount of time. That time had most likely passed and should come back to Council to make sure it needed to be continued. At that time, they could change how that was listed. Councilor Moore referred to the other committees the Council members served on as a liaison or member. She asked how much information she should be sharing with the rest of the Council regarding those committees she served, or how she would find out what was happening on the other committees. She asked if there was a policy about shared information from people serving on those outside committees. Mayor Lundberg said those were all appointments made by the Mayor. The person that was designated to each of those committees was responsible to attend those meetings, keep track of everything and report what was important to the rest of the Council verbally during the regular meeting. If a Councilor wanted to know what was going on with another committee, they could call the Councilor who served on that committee. The alternate generally did not attend those meetings unless the representative was unable to attend. Councilor Woodrow asked if all the committees had a limited number of members and were their opening made public and interviewed. Ms. Sowa said they all had a set number as reflected in their Charge. Whenever there was an opening, an advertisement was sent out to all of the media. Councilor Woodrow said the criteria for the Council interviewing the top two candidates could be that it was a committee: with an established number of members; that was publicly noticed when there was a vacancy; and that interviewed the candidates. Mayor Lundberg said there were a set number of committees with charges so it would be fairly simple to determine. Ms. Sowa said she may have inadvertently left off the Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee. There were also committees that were appointed by the Planning Commission as the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI). Some of those would not be on this list. Councilor Brew asked about the Development Advisory Committee and if the Council interviewed those members. Mr. Towery said some of the advisory committees didn’t have a set number, but rather a maximum number they strived to appoint. For some of those advisory committees, the Council had made appointments based on an application process rather than an interview process. When they first established the Downtown Advisory Committee, they had about 45 applications and were originally only going to have nine people on the committee. With the interest, they decided on seventeen members. They started with the application review process and did some interviewing to fill the final group. For more of the advisory committee appointments, it had just been an application process to start the committee, with some interviews when filling vacancies. Mayor Lundberg said they had committees so they could have a broad number of people to study an issue and give recommendations to Council. Until recently, it had worked well, but there had been a City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 11 couple of times an issue had come up with a committee person that had taken some time to resolve. The discussion about appointing people that were elected officials on another board came up during an appointment to the Library Board. The issue with appointing someone that served on another agency board was that people could perceive that person as serving the other agency rather than the City. She liked the idea about the changes recommended by Councilor Wylie regarding elected officials, and interviewing the top two candidates. That would be a good check-in point for those members so they could meet the Council before beginning to serve. Councilor Ralston asked if Lee Beyer serving on the Planning Commission when he was elected to another position was an example of that situation and if that was a problem. Mayor Lundberg said it was not necessarily a problem, but it could be perceived as a problem. All of our committees were a good place for people to get involved. She had seen a lot of great people out there wanting to step into leadership roles and we needed to provide that opportunity. Mr. Towery recapped the information from Council. The Council would continue to interview for the Budget Committee, Council vacancies, and Planning Commission. For the other committees, the Council would be looking for a recommendation from that board on the top two candidates and the Council would then interview those top two. He asked about Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) since the Council had just added them within the last year to the list of committees Council would interview. He asked if they wanted to continue to leave that on the interview list. Ms. Sowa said that in the past, and under the Council Operating Policies and Procedures, the Council had interviewed for the Historic Commission vacancies. She asked if they wanted to just interview the top two as recommended by the Historic Commission. Council consensus was to move the Historic Commission and MWMC from the list of the Council always interviewing to the list of interviewing the top two candidates. Mr. Towery said the other rule staff would bring back to Council would be a new standard regarding candidates currently serving on another board. Ms. Sowa noted the language from Councilor Wylie stating that “when possible, appoint people to only one committee”. She asked if the Council wanted that language, as well as “when possible, do not appoint someone currently serving and elected to another agency”. Councilor Moore said she liked the addition of “when possible” as it gave the Council some leeway. Council agreed. Councilor Woodrow said the MWMC did not have a protocol for interviewing people since each entity had interviewed and appointed their own representatives. She asked if they would leave that commission on the interview list, or ask MWMC to come up with a protocol for interviewing. Councilor Brew said he didn’t feel there would be many times when they had three or more qualified candidates for that position, so he felt they could identify the top two from their applications, then bring the top two in for an interview. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 12 Mayor Lundberg said people interviewed much differently than what was on their application. Councilor Brew said he didn’t want the other MWMC members interviewing and selecting the Springfield representative. Mayor Lundberg said she agreed. She felt the Council needed to interview for MWMC and asked that they be added back to that list. Mr. Towery said the Council could decide how many candidates they interviewed. Staff could take the applications, review them for the Council and present the top one or two to the Council for interviews. Councilor Moore asked about the Human Services Commission and the citizen member that served. She asked if she was selected because she served on the Budget Committee. Councilor Ralston said the Council appointed people to the Budget Committee, and then it was up to a member of the Budget Committee to volunteer to serve on the Human Services Commission. Councilor Moore said she would like to see a list of all of the citizens that currently served on all of the committees. Ms. Sowa said they could provide that list. Councilor Woodrow referred to Attachment 3 of the agenda packet, Section 6.3 on page 5. She asked for clarification on the board member liaison and if that was a member of the board. Having a member of each board, committee or commission take care of some of that communication could be helpful to staff. Councilor Ralston said that was done during Business from the Council during the regular meetings. Councilor Moore read from the last part of Section 6.3 which stated “Such transmittals of information shall be coordinated between the City Councilor liaison and the board member liaison”. It seemed like there should be a connection between the board member and the Council liaison. Councilor Brew referred to Section 2.3 (page 1 of Attachment 3 of the agenda packet) which stated, “The City Councilor liaison member is responsible for coordinating with the respective City Council liaison designed by the board, commission, committee or task force to establish a regular communication channel between the City Council and the respective board, commission, committee or task force”. That would indicate that the City Councilor was responsible for attending meetings of the other boards they were appointed to, and the appointed member of those boards should be attending Council meetings and communication should be occurring between the two liaisons. Councilor Woodrow said she hadn’t seen that in practice, but it could help take some work off staff if there was more direct communication between the Councilor and committee representatives. Mr. Towery said currently the City boards, committees and commissions were not appointing liaisons to the Council. The Planning Commission had a rotating responsibility for a member to attend the Council meetings. The language may be out of step with current practice. If the Council felt there wasn’t a good flow of communication between the Council and one of their boards or commissions, this language would allow them to have the formal mechanism to make that happen. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 13 Councilor Woodrow said it might have been helpful in the recent situation with the Arts Commission. Mayor Lundberg said part of that issue was that the Arts Commission met on Monday evenings so the Council liaison was not able to attend so was not aware of the issue until it became something that had to be handled separately. It had been resolved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 7, 2013 at 5:57 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston 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. Councilor Woodrow was absent (excused). 1. Springfield Transportation System Plan – Review of Draft Plan. Transportation Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) provided a 20-year blueprint for how the City should maintain and improve the transportation network to meet growth demands within Springfield’s existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This Springfield 2035 TSP would replace TransPlan (amended 2002), with respect to Springfield. TransPlan had served as the adopted TSP for both Eugene and Springfield. In 2007, House Bill 3337 was signed into law, requiring the two cities to develop separate UGBs. With separate UGBs, the State of Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule required that Springfield and Eugene develop city-specific TSPs. While the Springfield 2035 TSP was an “update” of TransPlan, it was the City’s first independent TSP. Over the past several years, City and consultant staff had engaged the public, partner agency staff, and appointed and elected officials in an in-depth planning process to plan for Springfield’s future transportation system. Consistent with state law, this TSP addressed all modes of transportation. It clearly outlined goals, policies and action items to guide implementation of the Plan and contained project lists for 20 years and beyond. The TSP Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) both recently reviewed the draft Plan and recommended approval. Comments on the final draft TSP had been collected and summarized from the TAC, SAC and public to-date, and were provided in Attachment 3 of the agenda packet. Springfield Staff met with the City Planning Commission on September 17th, 2013. The Planning Commission asked some clarifying questions, but did not suggest any additional edits and passed the draft Plan to Council for review and comments. After this Council work session, Staff would continue the adoption process with a Lane County Board work session scheduled for October 29th, 2013. Subsequent public hearings would follow with the City Planning Commission, City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Reesor presented a power point presentation. The TSP covered all modes of transportation and major facilities. Councilor Wylie asked about TransPlan. Mr. Reesor said TransPlan was a joint plan for Eugene and Springfield. Upon separation of the two cities’ UGBs, each city was required to draft their own plan. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 2 Mayor Lundberg said TransPlan was part of the Metro Plan. Mr. Reesor said TransPlan would remain in the Metro Plan as the regional plan, but this would be Springfield’s local plan. He explained the TSP process and reviewed the adoption process. Following this work session, staff would present a work session to the Lane County Board of Commissioners (LCBC). After all of the work sessions, public hearings would begin with the Planning Commissions, City Council and LCBC. The document was created to be easy to read, with technical information included in the appendices. He noted the chapters of the document. Mr. Reesor reviewed the goals, priorities and actions of this plan. The goals were high level and the priorities supported each of the goals. He noted the projects in the plan and said they had tried to make those projects very flexible to allow them to take advantage of opportunities while they arose, while keeping some guidelines in place. He discussed the different projects in this list. A map showing the location of each of the projects by category was displayed. Mr. Reesor noted that although this was a 20-year plan they had included projects that could be considered beyond the 20-year mark. Councilor Ralston asked where the Highway 126 and 52nd Street intersection was included. Mr. Reesor said it was in the Priority list. He discussed the study projects, the frequent transit network and the financing piece of the plan. There was a wide disparity between funds available and the cost to do all of the projects. No TSP showed every project being completed. Councilor Brew said the Plan showed the As Development Occurs cost, but not the revenue coming in from the developers. Mr. Reesor said that was true. Much of the costs would be from the developer. Councilor Moore referred to the recent report that the Franklin/McVay project had been adopted as a high priority for funding with federals funds. She asked if that was included in this Plan. Mr. Reesor said the funding sources in the TSP did include federal funding sources. Mayor Lundberg said this was our wish list so everything was there in the event funding became available. Projects needed to get into the list and worked through the system to eventually become reality. Not everything would come to fruition and some things may change. Mr. Reesor said in the transportation world, there was a lot of federal funding that could possibly come, but it changed often and was not always reliable. Staff did their best to project based on historical information. He asked for questions and comments from the Council. There was time between now and the first public hearing to allow staff to make changes based on their comments. Mayor Lundberg said Opportunity projects in the Marcola area had roundabouts as an option. She would be interested to see where the freight routes would go in that area. She wanted to make sure those routes weren’t short-changed in our planning efforts. She would like to see where the different freight corridors were located throughout town. If there were roundabouts at each of those points, they may not be a practical solution if those areas were to remain a freight route. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 3 Mr. Reesor said there was a truck route map in the Draft TSP, but staff could work with the engineers to see where the proposed roundabouts overlapped with the future truck routes. They could also add language where needed to include ‘signal or roundabout’. Councilor Brew said when looking at the areas for UGB expansion, they all had issues with transportation. As those areas got finalized, the transportation needed to be considered in those areas. Mr. Reesor said the current TSP only included the current UGB area. If the City did expand their UGB, staff would come back to amend portions of the TSP for those areas. Mayor Lundberg said flashing lights were noted in the Opportunity section. She was reminded that they didn’t have a flashing light for people crossing the street from Thurston High School across to the Children’s Development Center. There had been three accidents at that location last year. She would like to see something added there. She would also like to get rid of the flashing lights at 2nd and Q Street. There was an intersection about a block from that light and there were a number of issues in that area that were being studied. She would like them to look at the full intersection. Mr. Reesor said they would look to see what type of street 58th Street was and add it to the list for future projects. Mayor Lundberg said they had talked for a long time about having a connection between Wayside Loop and RiverBend Hospital for bicyclists and pedestrians. It was listed under As Development Occurs and she would like to see it looked at sooner to get people off the main roads. Mr. Reesor said they could move it to the Opportunity list. Councilor Moore asked about the crossing at the Fire Station at 5th Street. She asked if some of the older style lights for crossing could be updated to the flashing lights. Mr. Reesor said the newer lights were more appropriate for that type of crossing. Mr. Grimaldi said the light on 5th Street was also for the fire station. Mr. Reesor said he would need to talk to the traffic engineers more about that particular light. Mr. Grimaldi said staff would also look into the timing of the light. Mayor Lundberg said it was important for Council to remember that we were getting close to the public hearing and adoption of the TSP. Mr. Reesor said he would return to the Council for a public hearing in December. 2. Booth Kelly Business Plan Update. Facilities Supervisor Jim Polston presented the staff report on this item. The City of Springfield currently owned and operated the Booth-Kelly Center, which included a number of large industrial and commercial warehouse, storage, manufacturing and office spaces. Some but not all spaces were currently renting to Springfield businesses. However, even with many positive attributes, Booth Kelly, like many industrial and commercial spaces in the area, suffered from unoccupied space, deteriorating infrastructure and increasing operating costs. These facts, along with the interest the Budget City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 4 Committee expressed in Booth Kelly at its May 21st meeting were the reasons for this update to Council on the efforts to create a business plan for the Booth Kelly facility for this transitional period, or at least until the industrial/commercial market rebounded from the current doldrums and allowed for more robust reinvestment. Following the Budget Committee discussion on this topic, Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin put together a group of staff including Greg Mott, John Tamulonis, Marcy Parker, Sophia Seban, Mr. Polston and several others, to get a handle on possible directions for Booth Kelly. If Booth Kelly was to continue to function effectively until a major redevelopment took place, an interim plan to provide needed preservation and maintenance was necessary. Regardless of which option was eventually chosen by Council, City Staff would continue to work together in an attempt to ensure continued success of the facility. Currently staff from the Office of the Director and the Operations Divisions were working as a team to maintain and operate the facility. Operations staff was overseeing the maintenance, preservation and capital improvements at the facility. Staff from the Office of the Director oversaw tenant needs and worked to continually attract new tenants while working with existing tenants to maintain our existing leases. A Request for Proposals had been sent out to have a facilities plan done on the Booth Kelly site. Mr. Polston presented a power point on this subject. He referred to a map showing each site and which ones were currently leased, as well as a list of the different tenants. Mr. Polston reviewed the following 5 options being presented to the Council. 1. Status quo approach to operating the facility with minimal investments by finding tenants preferring low-cost space over extra amenities or who are willing to make improvements for a fair low-cost space. 2. Selective focus on improving certain buildings/suites into flexible rental space for incubator/business development purposes. 3. Selective removal of the most deteriorated structures to create space for potential redevelopment. 4. Selective addition of structures on a build-to-suit or Request for Proposal (RFP) basis. 5. Removal of all structures and prepare site for total redevelopment. Staff would also work to leverage funds if and when possible to supplement City funds in making needed improvements. Some possible resources included: • Apply for and use grant monies to help create business opportunities and do environmental cleanups if needed, continue holding special events and increase energy efficiency. • Include environmental, beautification and recreation improvement to the site, if possible, as future phases of the Mill Race project. • Continue to improve partnerships and work with agencies such as Willamalane, the University of Oregon, Lane Community College, Chamber of Commerce and NEDCO to help advance Booth Kelly. Mr. Polston discussed funds available for some repairs and improvements of the facility. He referred to some slides showing some of the improvements that had been made at the site. In the short term, staff felt it wasn’t the appropriate time to make big investments, but to keep necessary investments and expand the tenants. Staff would be back before Council to discuss long term plans. Councilor Brew said his inclination was to move forward with Option 2 by partnering with NEDCO for microbusinesses, etc. He asked if there was a Master Plan for the Booth Kelly site. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 5 Mr. Tamulonis said there was a very old Master Plan. It had been difficult as companies had recently been moving in and out of the different communities. In a couple of years as things filled up, they would have a better sense of the market. Councilor Ralston said the parking was listed as vacant space. Mr. Polston said it was not actually vacant space, but there were some vacant office suites near that area. He explained the configuration of that area. Councilor Ralston said years ago there was a grocery store at that location. He asked where that had been located. Mr. Tamulonis noted on the map where the different stores were located. Some of that space had to be torn down due to safety concerns. Councilor Ralston said we had to adjust as we went and he preferred Option 1 along with some partnerships with other entities. It was a great place for NEDCO to have the incubator businesses. Councilor Moore asked how much of the area was owned by the City. Mr. Tamulonis noted the full 17 acres owned by the City on the map. Councilor Moore said she would love to have a tour of the facility as they looked toward long-term planning. She recently heard a keynote speaker at the Main Street Conference who spoke of place making. She felt that Booth Kelly would be a great ‘place’. She noted that somewhere in Florida, they built a Springfield which was a Simpson Amusement Park. She thought Booth Kelly would be a great place for a Simpson Amusement Center. Councilor VanGordon said he was in favor of an Option 2 ‘lite’. Looking at the amenities and bringing in a non-profit made sense to him. In the following year’s budget, they could perhaps start looking at things like WiFi and shared utilities. The tenants that were attracted by the rate structure were looking for storage and warehouse space. As they started to clean up the building they could look at adding those amenities to attract tenants for other uses that brought in people and activity. Mr. Polston said there had been a number of options considered, including the ideas from the Sustainable City Year (SCY) students that provided some great directions this facility could go in the future, maintaining the major architectural elements in place. Councilor Wylie said she hoped that eventually during redevelopment, they would keep some of the historic parts of the site. Long term she would like to see the terminus of the high speed rail at this location along with hotels and restaurants. Councilor Brew said the reason he didn’t choose Option 1 was because we had been in Option 1 for a long time and he would like to move forward. When looking at buildings to retain, they needed to consider that this was formerly a mill site and there was likely a lot of industrial contamination under the asphalt. They would need a comprehensive environmental review of the site before trying to market or redevelop. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 6 Councilor Ralston said he would like to see Option 2, but it required capital investment which the City didn’t have. He was willing to make improvements if we had a tenant that was lined up that wanted something specific. Mayor Lundberg said she liked an Option 2 ‘lite’ version, although she saw the railroad tracks as an issue. She noted that younger entrepreneurs wanted spaces that could provide multiple uses. She had brought up Booth Kelly with the University of Oregon for those types of businesses or start-up programs. In the study, we needed to look at how to configure the spaces in the short-term. Not too many years ago Booth Kelly actually made the City money, but was now a drain on our budget. She would like to look at what we could do to improve the facility and make it someplace that people liked. Lane Transit District (LTD) used part of the area for overflow parking which should be upgraded with lights, etc. to make it safer. Mr. Polston said a study would show where the hot spots were located. Some projects would be costly, such as roof replacement, but the study could show where things could be done at a lower cost. Councilor Moore said Astoria had redeveloped their waterfront area. Clatsop Community College had a program that involved rehabilitating buildings and provided information on what could or could not be done. She suggested staff contact the head of that program (she could provide name) for a study. Mayor Lundberg said they could also contact the UO or others besides NEDCO as NEDCO was already stretched thin. She said Council was interested in staff looking more into Option 2. Councilor Ralston said he wanted to know the costs. Mr. Polston said staff would work on that and bring something back to Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 7, 2013 at 7:09 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, VanGordon, Moore, Ralston 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. Councilor Woodrow was absent (excused). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Employee Recognition: Matt Stouder, 10 Years City Manager Gino Grimaldi introduced Matt Stouder who had worked for the City for 10 years. Mr. Stouder introduced his wife who was in the audience. Mr. Grimaldi acknowledged the accomplishments of Mr. Stouder with the City, including his growth through the department up to being appointed the new Environmental Services Division Manager. He appreciated Mr. Stouder’s common sense and creative approach when presented with problems and issues. He was a great communicator and a great manager. Mr. Stouder thanked the City for the opportunity for the growth he had experienced. He thanked his wife and family for their support. He thanked the Mayor and Council for their leadership and his staff for their support. It was the great staff that kept him with the City of Springfield. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. September 9, 2013 – Work Session 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances a. ORDINANCE NO. 6299 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 4, GARBAGE AND REFUSE, TO ELIMINATE DISCREPENCIES EXISTING BETWEEN ILLICIT DISCHARGE, SECTION 4.372, AND City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 2 DEPOSIT OF REFUSE UPON PROPERTY OF ANOTHER OR UPON PUBLIC PROPERTY, SECTION 4.428, TO ENSURE PROPER HANDLING OF SIDEWALK DIRET AND DEBRIS AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. 5. Other Routine Matters a. Authorize City Manager to Sign a Contract with Lane County for Data Center, E-Mail, Network, and AIRS Public Safety System Operations and Support. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WOODROW). ITEMS REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. 1. Signs in the Public Right-of-Way; Code Update. ORDINANCE NO. 2 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE “SIGNS” TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AMENDING SECTION 8.234 “EXEMPT SIGNS” (SUBSECTION 17) “PORTABLE SIGNS” AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. ORDINANCE NO. 3 – AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW SECTION UNDER “STREET”, SECTION 3.223 “PLACEMENT OF SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC WAY,” TO THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Senior Management Analyst Rhonda Rice presented the staff report on this item. The City had three banner sign types and one sandwich board type that could be placed in the public right of way. Each banner type and the sandwich board had unique specifications for placement and at least one had a fee for the use of the right-of-way. The goal was to create common code language for all three banner types and the sandwich board. The City had been using Springfield Municipal Code 3.224 for the placement of the Over-the-Street banner for many years. Section 3.224 was written in reference to utilities and telecommunications placement of objects in the right-of-way, not temporary signs. With the addition of the Light Pole banners and the “OPEN” banner it was prudent to provide consistent and uniform processes to regulate these signs. The proposed ordinances would provide for the temporary placement of banners and sandwich boards in the right-of-way and add clarity for which zones allowed sandwich board signs on private property. Ms. Rice explained each of the changes for each type of sign. Council reviewed the proposed ordinances in work session on September 9, 2013, and directed staff to present drafts for consideration and possible approval. Councilor Ralston asked if the light pole banners fee of $100 was for the full year. Ms. Rice said it was per use for an application. She explained the different zones for this type of sign. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 3 Councilor Ralston expressed concern this could be advertising and there should be an annual fee. He would be in favor of an annual fee for those and for the sandwich boards. Ms. Rice said the light pole banner was only allowed to be up for 28 days and would need to be renewed if they wanted it longer. Councilor Ralston was pleased to hear that. Councilor Brew noted the light pole banners were only for non-profit and they had to pay for hanging these banners. He asked how the City was protected against liability for people hanging the signs. City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said the City was protected by the requirement in the application for the group to have insurance for the installation, and that the contractor used needed to be an insured contractor. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. Mayor Lundberg said they could perhaps look at Sandwich Boards during their regular fee discussion in the Spring. FIRST READING ONLY. NO ACTION REQUESTED. 2. Code Amendment – Homeless Overnight Parking Program. ORDINANCE NO. 6300 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNCIPAL CODE SECTION 8.012 TO PERMIT AN INCREASE IN OVERNIGHT VEHICLE SHELTERS FROM ONE TO THREE ON CERTAIN DESIGNATED SITES, ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Housing Manager Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. At its June 18, 2012 regular session, the City Council adopted an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code to expand the Homeless Overnight Parking Program (HOPP) by including industrial sites to the inventory of eligible sites. While the changes expanded the types of sites that were eligible for the program, the Municipal Code continued to limit the number of vehicles to one per HOPP site. Recently, the Mayor, City Manager and staff met with members of the Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance and St. Vincent de Paul to discuss the impacts of increasing the number of vehicles allowed on a HOPP site from one vehicle to three. It was determined that the expansion would have minimal financial impact, and grouping vehicles may enhance the safety of the participants. It was also acknowledged that the property owner would have full control over how many vehicles would be allowed on the site. The attached ordinance included an emergency clause to allow the increase of vehicles on new and existing HOPP sites as soon as possible. St. Vincent De Paul would continue to serve as the City’s authorized agent for management of the program under existing procedures for homeless overnight parking. St. Vincent De Paul and local City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 4 advocates would continue to coordinate location, compliance and funding information with Housing Program staff. The existing budget of not to exceed $7,000 was sufficient to initiate the proposed HOPP expansion; staff would provide an update on the HOPP utilization and budget as necessary, or at the request of Council. A letter from Mary Davidson was provided to the Mayor and Council in support of this ordinance. Mr. Ko said he and Mayor Lundberg would be attending a meeting on October 10 to encourage churches to sign on to this program. Councilor Moore asked how many sites were currently in the program. Mr. Ko said there were three active sites. If Council adopted this ordinance, the churches in the program would not be required to have three vehicles. Councilor VanGordon asked if there were any industrial sites. Mr. Ko said they hadn’t been able to recruit any industrial sites for the program. When they met with the church leaders and got more church leaders on board, that might generate more interest so they could get more industrial sites. Councilor VanGordon asked if any of the three churches currently in the program wanted to add more campers. Yes. He asked if they had heard any complaints with the program. Mr. Ko said he had not heard any. If there were complaints they had been handled through intervention with St. Vincent DePaul. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Judy Harold, 641 City View Blvd, Springfield, OR. Ms. Harold said she was representing Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance (SSRA) and had been a volunteer for this program for the last four years. They appreciated what the City had done as they had brought issues to them. She thanked them for the changes they had made incrementally, including the recent approval of the Conestoga Huts which allowed those without a vehicle a place to stay. The three sites currently in the program included two churches and Catholic Community Services, and all were interested in serving more people on their sites. The three sites (Ebbert Methodist Church, Springfield First Baptist Church and Catholic Community Services) had demonstrated that the program was successful. The sites were safe and secure and managed by St. Vincent DePaul. She had worked at the Egan Warming Centers and several churches had served as sites during the winter providing shelter for the unhoused. Her work at Egan Warming Centers and SSRA continued to enrich her life by the experiences she had of meeting people that were struggling or unhoused. She had also seen the number of people that needed those sites. She hoped they would increase the sites to three. 2. Shelley Corteville, 438 C Street, Springfield, OR. Ms. Corteville thanked Council for supporting the car camping program and the Conestoga Huts. Their help had been vital to support unhoused neighbors. She was also representing SSRA. Living in a community was deeply important for everyone and our unhoused neighbors also lived in a community. One of City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 5 the important reasons to approve three vehicles and/or huts was to provide community and safety. Community was vital and by increasing the number of cars and huts to three, they were believing in the power of community. The residents in the program would encourage and support one another in taking steps to find permanent housing, jobs and perhaps college. They would be very thoughtful about placements to ensure a healthy community at each of the sites in the program. A team of people had been developed to make decisions on who would go to which site taking compatibility into consideration. She knew Council would do the right thing and vote yes to increase the number of vehicles allowed to three. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. Councilor Moore shared a letter from the Housing and Community Services Agency (HACSA) and signed by the Lane County Board of Commissioners (LCBC). The letter related that the Housing Policy Board would need to determine which 125-150 families would lose Section 8 vouchers as of January 2014. The letter noted that the HACSA reserves were being used this year in order to maximize the number of vouchers that had been allocated. That also ensured they would receive the most favorable Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding possible next year because 2014 funding levels would be based on the number of vouchers released and the subsidies. Unfortunately, unless Congress decided to adequately fund the program, they estimated that between 125-150 families would lose their vouchers, increasing the homeless population which was already at record levels. This was an added emphasis that the need was great. She also noted that October was Housing America Month. Councilor Wylie said these were hard times for many citizens and she felt it was Council’s job to do whatever they could to help people find a place to stay warm and dry in the winter. We all needed to be working on more solutions. Councilor Brew asked if Booth Kelly would be an eligible site for this program. Mr. Ko said if it was industrial, it may qualify. He would look into that and get back to Council. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6300. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WOODROW). Mayor Lundberg noted that staff would be meeting this week to discuss the homeless issue further and she would be attending the event with Mr. Ko on October 10. Part of the issue was that there were not many churches currently in the program, and no industrial sites. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. John Brown, 101 East Broadway, Suite 101, Eugene, OR Mr. Brown said his comments were not representative of any board or commission, but were his own. He spoke regarding river quality. He had been cleaning up the Willamette in Springfield for decades and had again cleaned up last Saturday. He distributed photos to the Mayor and Council of the cleanup and the amount of debris located near the boat landing at Island Park. He picked up 160 hypodermic needles within 100 yards of that boat landing. It was as bad as it had ever been and they were only able to get one side of the river. They filled six trucks with debris. Wilsonville, Sherwood, Corvallis, Adair Village and many other communities drank the water downstream on the Willamette. The City of Eugene had the same problem, but if they were City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 6 going to be good stewards of the water they needed to do something about this issue. He could get the funds to oversee a work crew for those that might need to do community service, but it was too much for the volunteers to do alone. It took dump trucks and boats and real care in making sure people weren’t hurt. This was a good community and they needed to do something to take care of this problem. Mr. Brown also noted that Booth Kelly was zoned BKMU (Booth Kelly Mixed-Use). COUNCIL RESPONSE Councilor Ralston said cleaning it up was one issue, but keeping this from happening was the real issue. Councilor Moore said she was over in Eugene in the wetlands area off West 11th. They had cleared out all of the undergrowth in that area making it look much nicer and they no longer had people staying there. That could be one answer to the problem. Mr. Grimaldi said some of the property was a mix of private ownership and public. Mr. Brown said some was privately owned. This was a Class One stream and there were vegetation removal standards to keep it shady and cool for the habitat. It was difficult to get stewardship from the property owners, but the public property was worse. It may be helpful to put some pressure on those that owned the property to clean it up. Councilor Wylie said it looked like methamphetamine use because of the needles. She asked if the City was arresting people in possession of methamphetamines. Chief Lewis said they were. Occasionally the City Prosecutor’s office addressed the sentencing differently. They were arrested if they had methamphetamine and the equipment on them. Mayor Lundberg said this was an ongoing issue and should be discussed further. Mr. Brown had come to the Council every year. He had volunteered his time to clean up the river. It was also part of a bigger issue and involved unhoused people. She asked to put this on an upcoming agenda to see what could be done and what could not be done, and ways to make progress. Mr. Grimaldi said with the full schedule ahead, staff could bring this to Council after the winter break. In the meantime, staff could begin some discussions with property owners. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence from Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Regarding City of Springfield Proposed UGB Expansion. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WOODROW) BIDS ORDINANCES City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 7 BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments 2. Business from the City Council a. Committee Reports 1. Councilor Moore reported on the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) Conference which she attended last week in Portland. She was able to attend some very informative workshops and found the keynote speaker very interesting. Next year the conference would be in Eugene. Councilor Moore reported that she had been invited to attend the 2013 Oregon Main Street Conference in Astoria. She had a great time touring Astoria and listening to Fred Kent of Project for Public Spaces discuss place making. Councilor Moore said the Council was invited to a National Walk to School Day Breakfast on Wednesday, October 9 from 7:00-9:00am on the EWEB Path near Debra Street. This event was being put on by Point to Point SmartTrips. Mayor Lundberg said the City just got a grant for our Point to Point SmartTrips to help promote kids walking or biking to school safely. 2. Councilor Wylie said she also went to the LOC Conference and enjoyed it very much. There were many good hearted volunteers in other communities. She took the tour and listened to some great speakers on upgrading our city, becoming more self-sufficient, and other various topics. She suggested that with the LOC Conference in Eugene, they should do an educational session on TEAM Springfield. Many in other communities found it very fascinating how well TEAM Springfield was working. She thought they could also include discussion about some of the joint elected officials meetings they had held as well. Mr. Grimaldi said he would contact the LOC. 3. Councilor VanGordon spoke about his recent trip to Italy. The Italians knew how to do plazas very well! They had a fantastic trip. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. McKenzie Oxbow. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-14 – A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE WILLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT AND THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO TAX LOTS 17-02-03-401 AND 17-02-29-2901, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE MCKENZIE OXBOW NATURAL AREA, A LEASE OF THE MCKENZIE OXBOW NATURAL AREA AND TAX LOT 17-02-30-2500, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING OFFICERS OF THE CITY TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS EFFECTING THE TRANSACTION. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 8 Assistant Development and Public Works Director Anette Spickard presented the staff report on this item. In 1993, the Weyerhaeuser Company donated a parcel of land immediately north of the Eugene Springfield Highway and east of 42nd Street, to the City, with the intent that it be preserved as an open and natural area. In 2001, the City conducted a master planning process for this site and on June 18, 2001 directed that the plan be recognized as the management plan for the site, and that City staff comply with the policies when making management decisions concerning the property. The plan, in summary, concluded that in addition to the existing uses for production of potable water for City residents and as a utility corridor, many of the functions were educational or recreational in nature. In furtherance of the plan objectives, a portion of the property was transferred to the McKenzie River Trust. Conceptually, many of the remaining functions were believed to fall within the customary activities of the Willamalane Park and Recreation District. The principal alternative City use for the property was to support stormwater management functions. City staff have examined the needs in that area in depth and concluded that those needs could be met by reserving an appropriate easement with respect to the existing stormwater facilities. As a result, staff recommended that the entire balance of the property be conveyed to Willamalane, reserving to the City sufficient rights with respect to existing stormwater facilities. When staff reviewed the proposed action on October 22, 2012 Council directed that certain modifications be considered, including, among other things, clarity with respect to responsibility for the Levee Path which occupied Lot 2500, adjacent to 42nd Street. After further discussions with Willamalane, staff from the two agencies had agreed upon a mix of responsibilities for certain aspects of the path and the land on which it was located. Staff recommended approval by the Council. Willamalane staff were also available to respond to questions. Mayor Lundberg said during a recent discussion with Bob Keefer from Willamalane regarding the EWEB Path, she learned that Willamalane took care of the path and the County took care of the grass. She wanted to know if the users of the path could have one point of contact. Ms. Spickard said her understanding was that the City routinely partnered with Willamalane on the mowing of properties across the City. The customer service call number for concerns went to the City’s Public Works Operations division. Staff in that division were very responsive or contacted the appropriate agency to address the concerns. The agencies worked very closely together and tried not to duplicate services as a cost savings. Mr. Grimaldi said typically the arrangements such as that with Willamalane were dependent on the type of equipment being used. He explained. Staff would get back to the Mayor with information. Mayor Lundberg wanted to make sure that a citizen only had to call one agency to get their concern addressed. She knew the City was good about taking care of those concerns by contacting our partner agencies if needed. Mr. Grimaldi said that was our typical approach. Ms. Spickard said staff would communicate that to Willamalane to make sure they treated calls in the same way. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 7, 2013 Page 9 IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-14. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WOODROW). 2. Ratification of Agreement Between the City and Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Management Analyst for Human Resources, Peter Fehrs, presented the staff report on this item. The bargaining teams met on September 18th, 2013 in mediation to settle the contract. During that meeting the teams reached agreement on several outstanding items and agreed on a total contract. SEIU ratified the agreement with their membership. Mr. Fehrs reviewed the contract and the market study used for this negotiation. He explained the market study further and noted that this was a huge shift for the union and was very much appreciated. The $1500 payout to employees next year provided some assurance during the transitional period of going to the market study approach. He explained the language changes made to line up with current practice in regard to temporary employees and health insurance. A lot of work was done to clarify language and separating out hourly employees and salary employees. Councilor Ralston had a question about the figures and received clarification. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPROVE THE SEIU COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR FY2014 - FY2016. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WOODROW). BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 8:02 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 14, 2013 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Woodrow and Ralston. 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 Brew was absent (excused). 1. Main – McVay Transit Feasibility Study. Transportation Planner David Reesor presented this item. Mr. Reesor introduced Stan Biles, a consultant working on the Main Street outreach plan. The purpose of the Transit Improvement Feasibility Study was to analyze the need, technical viability, and public support for potential Main Street transit improvements. There were four related projects occurring in the Main Street corridor (Smart Trips, Downtown Demonstration, Main Street Vision, Pedestrian Crossings) that had been closely coordinated with this initial public outreach for the potential Main McVay Transit Feasibility Study. It was critical that all of these projects were coordinated and managed in a way that was understandable to the community in terms of consistency and interrelationships. To date, these projects had been coordinated through a three-tiered management structure that included project direction provided by an ad hoc Governance Team that included Mayor Lundberg and Councilor Woodrow, and staff project management coordination and project oversight. A well-coordinated project team including City, LTD, and consultant staff had worked closely with elected and appointed officials from City of Springfield and LTD to conduct initial stakeholder and public outreach. This initial outreach included small group meetings called, “Community Conversations,” general public outreach at this summer’s Summer Fair event, National Night Out, and at the recent Nick Symmonds Springfield 800 Community Run adjacent to City Hall. City and consultant staff presented the findings of these public and stakeholder events to the Main Street Projects Governance Team on September 26th, 2013. After hearing the input received to-date, the Governance Team unanimously recommended to Council to move forward with the Main McVay Transit Feasibility Study. In addition, the Governance Team worked with staff to develop to draft Main Street Project Goals that provided overarching guidance to all of the Main Street Projects. Mr. Reesor reviewed the four different Main Street projects. Mr. Biles introduced Chris Watchie, Cogito Partners, who was also a consultant on this project. Ms. Watchie had provided the history of the corridor and some of the population projections for the City of Springfield. She had also prepared the final report which was included in the agenda packet. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 14, 2013 Page 2 Mr. Biles started with the first of the questions he had asked during their outreach meetings, “What was working well in the Main Street corridor?” The specific answers helped show what was important to the variety of attendees. The answers showed trend and agreement regarding the area along the right-of-way from the outer edge of the sidewalks across the five lanes of traffic. People said they really liked how the corridor functions for automobiles, trucks and buses, and that they could get from one point to another point fairly easily without a lot of delays. Businesses said it was a good place to do business because of visibility, easy access in and out for large trucks, vans, customers and employees. There were good comments about public transit regarding the frequency, condition, size, and the importance of the service provided. Several people commented that downtown was changing in positive ways and gave credit to the City. The next question was, “What short term improvements would you make on the corridor?” One of the initial comments was that the speed was too high in the middle portion of the corridor. This response was heard not only from the bicycle and pedestrian interests and advocates, but also from the business owners. Businesses thought if people drove by slower, they could focus more on the businesses along Main Street making it easier to decide to stop. Regarding land use, comments were made that development in the mid-town section of Main Street was not consistent and there was no theme. When asked about improvements that could be made in this area, the most common answer was aesthetic and streetscape improvements, such as street trees, bushes, water features, benches, nicer bus stations, public art, pocket parks, public gathering spaces, etc. Several people felt if that was activated by the public or a non-profit, it could serve as a catalyst for private capital to invest in redevelopment. The final question pertaining to non-transit was also the toughest question. This question was, “What is your vision of the corridor looking out twenty years?” That question usually prompted conversation back and forth. Some of the aspects gleaned from those conversations included aesthetics, increase of density, mixture of uses on properties, and improved infrastructure such as wider sidewalks. There was also an emphasis on the transit and the value of public transit in the redevelopment of the corridor given population projections and likely congestion. Participants wanted to maintain, expand or improve public transit in the corridor. The final question was, “Should the City of Springfield and the Lane Transit District (LTD) move forward with a feasibility analysis of various strategies to enhance public transportation in the corridor?” About 85-90% of the respondents answered yes. There were about 10-15% that didn’t feel that way, were not positive about public transit and were critical of the service and funding. The majority felt they should move forward with the study and share the information with the public to use for decision making. Some of the obvious reasons for conducting the study were to address the projected increase in population to minimize any issues, and due to costs being less now than in the future. Another response was that if they waited to do the study, decision makers could see some of the options physically unavailable as properties redeveloped. Those that were critical of the study felt they weren’t sure if a problem was coming or what the problem might be. They felt they should wait until they had a problem and then develop strategies more tailored to the problem. Both views were heard, but most agreed to move forward. Mr. Biles said the population of Springfield was about 60,000. Although they only received direct input from 26 people, those 26 were very diverse and included people of different age groups, new and old residents, women and men, educational interests, bicycle/pedestrian interests, small and large businesses, and representatives from long-time businesses and new businesses. He felt that diversity was important. There were two additional procedural steps. David Reesor and Chris Watchie engaged members of the public at several city events that occurred after the community conversations: National Night Out, 2nd Friday Art Walk, Summer Fair, and Nick Symmonds 800M. During those events, City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 14, 2013 Page 3 information was provided to people they spoke with. Those sessions confirmed what they had heard by the 26 participants of the community conversations. He noted that Mayor Lundberg and Councilor Woodrow attended most all of the sessions. Councilor Woodrow noted that in the agenda packet, Attachment 1, page 10 under Land Use was listed ‘more mixed use, higher density housing’. They had not received substantial input for that and it should be removed. Mr. Reesor said better wording for that section could be ‘more mixed use’ rather than high density housing. The comment was referring to the Royal Building. That item would be removed from the list. He noted that as well as the community conversations, the Mayor and Councilor Woodrow attended the National Night Out and Summer Fair and also heard comments from the general public. Councilor Ralston said he liked the first question and felt the resounding answer was that it was working well. He found it contradictory that they liked the fact that traffic flowed, yet thought the speed was too high. He disagreed and felt 40 mph was not too fast, people just sped. He would expect bicycle groups would want the speed reduced, but he found it interesting that businesses also wanted the speed reduced. The vast majority of people using the corridor were not business owners and wanted to get from point A to point B. Aesthetics included costs to the City for sidewalks and regulations to be imposed. Regulations added costs to businesses and somebody had to pay. He noted that safety was not discussed. He didn’t understand what crime in mid-Springfield had to do with traffic. Main Street was divided into neighborhoods, but that’s what streets did. He didn’t feel that was a defensible argument. Regarding the comment about inconsistency, he said they couldn’t require all businesses to build the same and it put too much government into the mix. It would have been great if it could have been planned out, but that wasn’t how it worked. He saw both sides of the argument of going forward with the study. Currently, he didn’t feel it was broken. Doing the study wouldn’t hurt, but was not necessary. Councilor Woodrow said the comments regarding things that were not working well were not things that needed immediate attention, but were part of the conversation. Most of the comments regarding aesthetics were in context of downtown Springfield and Mohawk and the OPEN Banner signs, etc. They would like to have something that would unite and make the corridor look better, not necessarily making universal store fronts. They just wanted something that would make businesses more attractive. The comments regarding safety weren’t necessarily related to the corridor, but were related to safety. During the discussion about speed of traffic, the businesses were looking at a business friendly corridor. They understood that people generally went about 5 miles per hour higher than the posted limit. Posting a slower speed limit could help make it easier and safer for pedestrians, and allow better visualization for the businesses. Councilor Moore said many of the people she spoke to at the Summer Fair were not from Springfield. She referred to Councilor Ralston’s comment that two comments contradicted each other and noted that the comments came from different people. Regarding safety, some people spoke about pedestrian accidents along the corridor, but others mentioned the lighting. Councilor Ralston said a lot of improvements were being made along Main Street. Mr. Biles said public safety came out at different times in different places covering different subjects. A couple of business owners noted that they were having to install greater security around their buildings because of vandalism and break-ins. Safety concerns from bicyclists focused more on speed of the vehicles since there was no barrier between the bike riders and vehicles. There were also safety City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 14, 2013 Page 4 concerns expressed on behalf of pedestrians crossing the street, but participants did note the many positive things that had been done. Mayor Lundberg said the reason this was being done was because she wanted a process since the City was studying long-term visioning for the Main Street corridor, which included Main Street and the neighborhoods on each side. Development needed to occur and there was vacant and underutilized land along this corridor. The visioning process gave the City an opportunity to talk to the citizens about what they wanted to see happen in twenty years. Some of the safety issues were in surrounding neighborhoods and businesses, and some were regarding traffic. Visioning was the land use piece of the process, the crossing lights and medians were part of the pedestrian safety piece, and consideration of transit improvements which included components of an EmX line was another piece. They wanted to go out and ask the public first what they would want to see so that when the elected officials made decisions it was with knowledge of what the community would support. She and Councilor Woodrow attended most of these meetings, as well as LTD Board Chair Doris Towery and Board Member Mike Dubick. The comments were brought back to Council so they could make a good assumption of what the community would support. There would be difficult decisions to be made. This was the model that worked for the Beltline/I-5 project which won awards when it was done because everyone was satisfied with the process. She was involved in that process and was confident in what was done with the public and the responses received that was a good blend of what the community was thinking. She was confident in the process being used. As they moved forward, they would keep grounded in that process and get an end product they could all feel good about. Councilor Ralston asked how much the study would cost and who would pay. Mr. Reesor said LTD had received a grant from the Federal Transit Administration in the amount of approximately $750,000 which would be used towards the Transit Feasibility Study. That grant was awarded some time ago, and since that time new Federal Transportation legislation had passed which gave more flexibility in terms of what they could do with the study. The Governance Team would be writing a full scope. Some of that money had been used to date for this public outreach. Councilor VanGordon asked what the end product would be from the study. Mr. Reesor said the overall goal was to look at an option for transit improvements along the Main Street corridor and was a precursor to NEPA Work. The general goal of the study was to analyze the feasibility of different types of transit. The study would look at all options, talk to citizens and narrow the options down. It provided an opportunity to look at the public transit piece at the same time as the land use piece. Councilor VanGordon asked if all four studies were tied together. Mr. Reesor said they did tie together, some more than others. There were different funding sources and we were fortunate to have all four come together at one time. The way this had been set up and modeled, they were able to coordinate the projects through the process. Councilor VanGordon referred to the transportation study which would be the basis for determining the EmX line along that corridor. After the study and the community outreach, he would like to see that the proposed solution would show improved capacity on Main Street with the projected increase in population over the next twenty years. He wanted to know if we would get better transportation for bikes and pedestrians without decreasing our freight or vehicle capacity. The corridor was very complex and this should provide as many different options as possible. As they worked through the City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 14, 2013 Page 5 decision points, he wanted to be careful not to close down any options. This was a huge corridor and it could be easy to paint it with one brush, but to make it successful they needed to look at individual problems, individual businesses and infrastructure. Councilor Wylie said an important reason to have the study was because of the complexity and length of the corridor. She hoped the study would help find solutions or point us in the direction to best modify or handle various modes of traffic, population, and transportation. The decision points would come later, but they would have information to make those decisions. This corridor needed attention and needed a lot of things citizens wanted to see. The corridor and how it was addressed would be key to the community. This was a great opportunity. Councilor Moore asked how this project might tie in to the Scenario Planning and Lane Livability Consortium which included reducing pollutants. Mr. Reesor said that Scenario Planning did look at ways to reduce pollution, but it was regional and metro wide. This corridor was substantial and would be one piece of the greater study. Councilor Moore asked if they could use some of the study that had been done by the Lane Livability Consortium for the corridor. Mr. Reesor said some pieces from that work could be pulled into this study. Mr. Goodwin said there was a clear linkage between the Scenario Planning work and this study. They speculated that one of the outcomes of the Scenario Planning study was that the community was doing well. This study would also provide a basis for any additional work that might need to be done and provide ideas of how to move forward. The Scenario Planning Data Model was not refined down to the corridors, but would allow an exchange of data. Mayor Lundberg noted that Main Street was part of Highway 126 which went from the mountains to coast, from Glenwood to Thurston. It was the place people saw first when coming from the mountains, yet the middle section hadn’t received much attention. The visioning process allowed them to decide what type of development they wanted to see in that area. They were fortunate to be doing all this at the same time. She was excited to take a look at this area. Councilor Moore commented on the foresight to build the expressway and that it was a great asset. Councilor Woodrow said it had been exciting working on this since February and collaborating with other agencies. It was exciting to see from the community what a connector the corridor was and to know that there were so many possibilities beyond what existed today. She was also excited to get the pedestrian crossings installed. Once people started to talk during the meetings, they really became engaged and involved in the conversation. Mr. Reesor thanked those that had helped by talking to the public. The list of Main Street themes was taken to the Governance Team and the Governance Team made a formal recommendation to the Council to move forward with the study. He asked if Council was supportive of moving forward. Mayor Lundberg thanked Stan Biles for stepping in and working with everyone. She also thanked Chris Watchie for her work in getting to this point. There was still a lot of work. The Governance Team would meet regularly and report to the respective boards. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 14, 2013 Page 6 Councilor Moore asked how McVay would be included. Mr. Reesor said the McVay corridor was a vital connection in regards to transit. It connected the Thurston area with Lane Community College (LCC). Also, the Glenwood Refinement Plan update involved that corridor. There were plans for that corridor to redevelop over time and this was an important transportation component to support land use decision. Councilor Woodrow thanked LTD staff and board members for the number of meetings they attended. Mr. Reesor said they would move forward with the study. The Governance Team would decide when to report back to the Council and LTD Board. He noted the project goals on the last page of Attachment 2 of the agenda packet. To draft these goals, they looked at the Council goals and Main Street themes, then brought this to the Governance Team and Project Leaders Team for review. The purpose of the project goals was to provide guidance as to which projects to move forward, and to communicate with the public and project leaders of the city’s intentions for each project. There would be more specific goals and purpose statements with each individual project, but these more general goals would keep them on track as they went through the process. The Governance Team provided input and several changes were made. He referred to the goal #5 “Create Main Street Identities” and felt it may need to be reworded to ‘refine’ or ‘strengthen’. Councilor Wylie suggested adding the word ‘connective’ making it “Create Connective Main Street Identities”. Councilor Ralston said he wasn’t sure why #5 had to be there. He noted the goals regarding improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, but he wanted to know that they would maintain traffic flow for cars and trucks. This corridor was made for transportation. Discussion was held regarding where to add that to the goals. It would be added to the end of #3 – “while maintaining or improving current traffic flow for cars or trucks”. Councilor Moore said representatives from the freight industry should be included. She asked if they had been part of the public input. Yes. There were also railroad crossings that should be mentioned. She read recently that identities for neighborhoods were important. It would be nice if the City could put flags all the way down Main Street instead of just specific areas to make it more inviting and attractive. She was supportive of #5. Mr. Reesor said staff could add the suggestions from Council to the goals and present it back to the Governance Team. Councilor Wylie said currently they had freight and cars going through town, but they would like to see if there were options for another way for them to travel through the community. Mayor Lundberg said that was why they were doing the study. Councilor Woodrow said the Main Street Identities goal was a response from those participating. It would not be up to the City to decide on the identity for each area. Mayor Lundberg said participants noted the different areas identified in Springfield and that it would be nice to identify the mid-part of Springfield and Main Street. As they went through the study, it would become clear what people wanted to see. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 14, 2013 Page 7 Mr. Reesor said he appreciated their thoughts and ideas. Staff would take their comments to the Governance Team. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder MINUTES OF THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS WORK SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2013 A joint elected official’s work session with the City of Springfield and Lane County was held in the Springfield Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Thursday, October 17, 2013 at 5:30pm with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Mayor Lundberg welcomed everyone to Springfield City Hall and opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, and Woodrow. Councilors Wylie and Brew were absent (excused). Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present. Commissioner Leiken opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Leiken and Commissioners, Farr, and Stewart. Planning Manager Matt Laird and other Lane County staff were also present. Commissioners Bozievich and Sorenson were absent (excused). 1. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Phase 1 (Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00005 & TYP411-00007, Lane County File No. PA 11-5489). City Planner Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. In response to LUBA’s Final Order and Opinion, staff had worked with the City Attorney’s Office to address the following issues upon which LUBA remanded the adoption of Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan: 1. Demonstrate compliance with Goal 9 and the Goal 9 rule based on an acknowledged Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and inventory; 2. Demonstrate compliance with Goal 10 through consistency with the Metro Plan policies relating to housing; 3. Demonstrate compliance with Goal 12 and the Goal 12 rule (TPR); and 4. Demonstrate compliance with Goal 15 through setbacks based on the protection of resources identified in Greenway inventories. Therefore, staff proposed amending the Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram and the refinement plan text to reflect changes made to the Plan diagram, including policies and implementation strategies regarding land use and open space within the Glenwood Phase I boundary and amend the Findings associated with TYP411-00005 to address the deficiencies identified in LUBA’s Remand related to Goals 9, 10, 12, and 15. Staff also proposed amending the Springfield Development Code Section 3.4- 245, 3.5-280, 4.3-115 and Appendix 3 to implement the policies in the Glenwood Refinement Plan by establishing land use designations and Willamette Greenway development standards and amend the Findings associated with TYP411-00007 to address the deficiencies identified in LUBA’s Remand related to Goals 9, 10, 12, and 15. Ms. Markarian presented a power point on this subject. Staff provided this same presentation to the Planning Commission earlier in the week. The Planning Commission noted that they hadn’t seen a LUBA appeal in a long time, and neither had the Council, so she provided a quick overview of the land use appeals process in Oregon. The Glenwood Plan Phase I update was a Type IV package of amendments involving a Metro Plan Diagram amendment, a Glenwood Refinement Plan text and October 17, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 2 of 10 diagram amendment, a Springfield Development Code amendment and a Zoning Map amendment. Because some of Glenwood was annexed and some was not, it was a joint County/City amendment. It began with a recommendation from the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission, and then to the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners where the Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase I was unanimously adopted. The notice of adoption was sent to Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). If no appeal was filed, the Plan would be acknowledged, however within twenty-one days of adoption, someone could file a notice of intent to appeal. The owner of Shamrock Mobile Home Park filed a notice of intent to appeal within that time period. Following that notice, staff compiled and submitted the record to DLCD, and then the petitioner submitted their brief outlining the ways they felt the Plan was deficient in terms of compliance with Statewide Planning Goals. The City, as the respondent, submitted their brief in response. The City’s legal representation went to Salem to present an oral argument before one of the LUBA judges. In July, they issued their decision to the City. The petitioner had submitted nine assignments of error and LUBA found components of four assignments of error they remanded. The rest were in our favor. In order to address the remand, the City needed to go back through the process. There was an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of Springfield and Lane County wherein within the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB), the Lane County Planning Commission could cede their decision making to the Springfield Planning Commission. They opted to do so in this case; therefore, the Springfield Planning Commission acted on behalf of both Planning Commissions earlier this week per that IGA. Ms. Markarian referred to a timeline of the Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase 1, starting with project initiation in October 2008. By December 2011, there was unanimous joint Planning Commission approval of the Phase 1 update, followed by unanimous City Council approval in June 2012, and unanimous Board of Commissioner approval in September 2012. The intent to appeal was submitted later in September 2012 with the decision from LUBA coming in July 2013. The City had been working on addressing the decision since that time and was now before the elected officials with those proposed amendments. Ms. Markarian reviewed the four components of error which LUBA remanded. The first was Goal 9 – Economic Development. State law required the City to base planning on an acknowledged Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and also required the City to use the best and most current information. When going through the Refinement Plan process and developing the staff report to address the Statewide Planning Goals, they relied on the EOA that had been adopted by resolution in 2010. Because it was adopted by resolution and not by ordinance, it was technically not an acknowledged EOA. Staff went back to the acknowledged EOA for Springfield; the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Policy and Inventory Reports from 1993, and the Springfield Commercial Lands Study from 2000. From that, staff amended their findings in the staff report that related to Goal 9 showing that the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan update conformed to what was in the acknowledged EOA. Ms. Markarian said the next goal was Goal 10 – Housing. LUBA asked the City to adopt a more adequate explanation for why making existing manufactured dwelling parks in Glenwood nonconforming uses was consistent with Metro Plan Policy A.25, and why deleting the policies in the old Glenwood Refinement Plan related to housing in this particular area of Glenwood was also consistent with the Metro Plan policy. In the appeal, the appellant focused on a portion of this sentence, and the City focused on the sentence as a whole. The City addressed this by outlining the whole process the Citizen Advisory Committee went through to determine that Subarea D, the location of the appellant’s property, would not be appropriate for housing because of the chemical plant across the way, the rail lines to the north and the industrial uses to the west. October 17, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 3 of 10 Ms. Markarian said the next goal was Goal 12 – Transportation. The remand asked for the City to place a study in the record which had not been included originally. The other remands addressed some mathematical decisions about determining significant affect congestion of a zone change could have in the area. To address this remand, staff took a two-pronged approach. The first related to a recent law that went into effect in January that enabled jurisdictions to designate certain areas within their community as multi-modal mixed-use areas if they met certain thresholds for connectivity and multi-modal transportation. That criteria included dense development and establishing design guidelines that would promote that type of development, which was done in Glenwood Phase 1. Staff was proposing to designate Glenwood Phase 1, a Multi-Modal Mixed-Use area in order to obviate the need to conduct another congestion analysis. The second prong to the approach was to address the mathematical questions form LUBA. Commissioner Stewart asked if Mixed-Use Management and Multi-Modal Mixed-Use were the same. Ms. Markarian said it was basically the same and was called the Multi-Modal Mixed-Use area. Commissioner Leiken referred to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding for Franklin Boulevard. He asked if those funds would go towards straightening out Franklin Boulevard, or potentially providing a separate EmX lane. Tom Boyatt, Community Development Manager for Development and Public Works, said when the money was programmed in the STIP and with a sizable City match, the best outcome would be to build all, or at least the north side, of Phase I of the hybrid multi-way boulevard from the Springfield Bridges through the Franklin/McVay and Franklin/Mississippi intersections. The rest of the project, Phase II, would continue those improvements through the Glenwood Boulevard intersection. Currently, the EmX was being studied. There was room within the width for future capacity. They were also looking at intersection designs to keep the whole corridor moving so there may not be a need for dedicated EmX lane until congestion increased substantially. They would preserve that future capacity for that or another purpose. Councilor Ralston asked where the property was that was owned by the appellant. Ms. Markarian said it was east of the McVay Highway, just south of the railroad trestle. Councilor Ralston asked what the appellant’s intent was in filing the appeal. City Attorney Lauren King said his attorney had the ability to raise a lot of issues, although only one implicated his property. We were required to go through this process from the remand. Ms. Markarian said the final goal was Goal 15 - Willamette Greenway. In the old Refinement Plan, there was a need for a greenway setback line to be determined prior to development. The greenway setback was the area in which only water related and water dependent uses could occur. Some of the objectives of the greenway setback included scenic vistas, recreation access to the Willamette River, and preservation of natural resources. At the Federal level, riparian setback lines were required along the Willamette River. The City put those into place in 2005 to address the Clean Water Act. The objective of that was focused on the natural resources and protection. Because the overlapping setback lines could be confusing to the public and because research had been done in 2004 by a wildlife biologist indicating that a greenway setback line would be less than 75 feet along the river, staff October 17, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 4 of 10 proposed a co-terminous setback line in Glenwood making the greenway setback and riparian setback the same. Staff did know doing that was a risk if appealed. The remand directed that the City needed to establish a greenway setback line in conformance with Goal 15. The City’s approach in addressing that was to go back to the wildlife biologist who had done the original assessment in 2004, and ask him to revise his recommendation based on current land configuration and rules. That assessment was not yet complete, but had been started. The consultant had done the assessment all by aerial imagery and found some pocket along the Willamette riverfront that were potential habitat for Western Pond Turtle nesting grounds. The consultant needed to physically go to the sites to establish if that was true. In the meantime, to address the remand, staff proposed going back to the policy from the original Plan, which was to address the setbacks on a case-by-case basis with developers. Once the work with the wildlife biologist was concluded, they would provide that information to the public for use with their setback applications moving forward. Councilor Ralston asked if this appeal could increase the required setback. Ms. Markarian said it was possible if the land was found to be suitable habitat for Western Pond Turtle nesting grounds. It would not affect the appellant’s property. Ms. Markarian said the next steps included a first reading before the Lane County Board of Commissioners on October 29, followed by a joint public hearing on November 18. She anticipated that the appellant and/or his representation would testify at that public hearing. Ms. King said from Mr. Kloos’ (the appellant’s representation) testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing, they anticipated he would be appealing again so the City was preparing for that possible action. The City Attorney’s office and staff would be meeting on October 18 to discuss processing permits as they went forward in the Glenwood area. No official notice of an additional appeal had been received at this point. Mayor Lundberg said when they embarked on this process, they went forward because they were confident that the legal counsel had reviewed the Plan carefully and were comfortable with the product. Ms. King said as the process continued, the number of remands would likely decrease as they went through each appeal. The appellant couldn’t raise additional issues in the plan, but only those already addressed. 2. 2012 Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. He was joined by Rebecca Gershow from Willamalane. The City of Springfield relied on Willamalane Park and Recreation District for park and recreation planning under Statewide Planning Goal 8—Recreational Needs. The 2004 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan was a refinement plan of the Metro Plan. The 2012 Plan was intended to update and replace the 2004 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan. This proposal was being processed as a refinement plan amendment. The Draft 2012 Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan was presented to Council in work session on September 24, 2012. No substantive changes were requested by City Council. Submittal and adoption proceedings were delayed until this budget year and the document was now ready for formal consideration. . October 17, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 5 of 10 Minor changes to the Strategies and Actions section of the 2012 Plan had been made since Council reviewed the draft version of the plan last year. No substantive policy changes were contained in the current version of the 2012 Plan. Attachment 3 of the agenda packet included the Community Needs Assessment which formed the basis for the 2012 Plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 2012 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan on July 16, 2013, voting unanimously to recommend Council approval of the plan. Staff had evaluated the proposed 2012 Plan against the approval criteria for refinement plan amendments found in Section 5.6-115 of the Springfield Development Code. The staff report contained findings which provided the Planning Commission a substantive base for recommending Council approval of the Plan. Ms. Gershow introduced Bob Keefer, Superintendent of Willamalane and Vincent Martorello, Planning and Development Manager. She reviewed the Plan through a power point presentation. She said the 2012 Plan was amending the 2004 Plan, which had been adopted by Willamalane, Springfield and Lane County. The purpose of the Plan was to provide a framework for decision-making over a 20-year planning period regarding acquisition, development, and management of the Springfield area’s park and open space system. Active community involvement was a critical piece of the success of the Plan. Ms. Gershow described the four phases of the planning process: Project Start-up; Determining Needs; Developing the Plan; and Adopting the Plan. The steps in the Project Start-up included reviewing their 2004 Plan, planning their framework, determining the public involvement plan and submitting to their Board for approval. The need to update the Plan was due to a lot of changes since 2004. She referred to a list of some of the improvements that had occurred since 2004. The Planning Framework was reviewing with the Board and stakeholders Willamalane’s core values, vision, mission and goals; developing strategies and actions; and determining their performance measures. The Plan Framework started with a broad range of community involvement activities that fed into sub-reports for parks and facilities, recreation services, and management and operations. From that came the community needs assessment. The Assessment Report led to their strategies and actions, their Capital Improvement and Operations Plan, and finally the 2012 Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. The second phase, Determining Needs, included the Community Profile. During this phase, Willamalane staff came to the City Council and Board of Commissioners and other interest groups and presented the findings of the Needs Assessment in 2011. One of the key pieces of the Needs Assessment included how the community was growing and would grow over the next twenty years in terms of demographics and income levels. Other pieces were the Public Involvement Activities including the Springfield Summer Fair, a Community Survey, a Spanish-language Community Survey and Teen Workshops. Through those venues, over 2080 people participated in the Community Needs Assessment. Mayor Lundberg asked what the top two things kids voted for and the top two things from the community. Ms. Gershow said she would be sharing that shortly. The Teen Workshops were held in government classes at both high schools. Kids and teenagers were big constituents for Willamalane so it was good to get their input directly. She reviewed some of the Community Survey Findings including: favorite October 17, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 6 of 10 household activities such as walking for pleasure, swimming, etc.; major park and recreation projects such as indoor recreation facilities for a variety of uses, off-street bicycle paths and trails, etc.; outdoor recreation features most needed in Willamalane’s Parks such as outdoor water playgrounds, riverfront access point, etc.; and groups in need of more or improved recreation services such as teenagers (13-17), youth (6-12), and adults (18-49). Being more creative in developing programs for teens was a focus of some of the strategies and actions based on the results. They felt they were doing a good job meeting the needs of seniors. Another component of the Determining Needs phase included the Park and Facility Analysis. In this process, classification and definitions were developed for the park and recreation system, including an inventory assessment, mapping and geographic analysis of current parks and natural resources, and a standards analysis. Some of the key findings from the Park and Facility Analysis included an overall standard of 14 acres of parkland per 1000 residents, determining that by 2030 an additional 364 acres of parkland would be needed, evaluating geographic distribution and public access, understanding that rehabilitation and development of existing parks and facilities was important, and continuing strengthening partnerships. Councilor Moore referred to the additional 364 acres needed and asked if that was part of what had already been purchased in areas such as the ridgeline. Ms. Gershow said that acreage would be included, but the analysis looked at where they were in 2010. The Plan was developed as a result of the first two phases. The third component of the Determining Needs phase was the Planning Process. They looked at their key findings from the Needs Assessment and developed their strategies and actions, plan maps, detailed cost assessment of the prioritized improvements, looked at available projected revenue to develop the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), determined the cost to operate and maintain the additional parkland and facilities and developed some performance measures. The key component of this phase was getting people’s input. Ms. Gershow provided a highlight of the improvements in the Plan. Most of the actions of the highlights were included in the first phase of the CIP and many were included in the bond list for the bond approved by voters last November. Collaboration was a key theme throughout the Plan. Some examples of collaboration included: the Pacific Park Neighborhood Park in which land was donated by the Pacific Park Homeowner’s Association, and grant money was received for facilities; the McKenzie Weyerhaeuser Natural Area Park which was on land donated by Weyerhaeuser to the City and then deeded to Willamalane to develop; and Jasper-Natron School/Park (Quartz Park) which was a collaborative project with Springfield Public Schools. Glenwood and Downtown: Willamalane was partnering with the City and other community partners on improving experiences for residents and visitors to both areas with neighborhood park blocks, Glenwood Riverfront Linear Park and improving and expanding Island Park. Thurston Hills Ridgeline: They were looking to provide opportunities to enjoy nature close to home, preserve the natural environment, and provide trails in the south Thurston hills. Connections to Waterways: This was very important to the community based on the survey results so Willamalane had a variety of projects to improve people’s connections to the McKenzie, Willamette and the streams and tributaries in between, including additional improvements to Clearwater Park, development of the Mill Race Path, connecting downtown Springfield to the Middle Fork Path, and creating the McKenzie River Connector. October 17, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 7 of 10 Opportunities for Active Play: This was a direct result from comments from teenagers and others wanted more opportunities for teenagers. Willamalane was completing the Willamalane Center sports fields, making improvements to the Guy Lee School/Park, and making improvements to the Bob Artz Memorial Park. Reinvestments: Survey results showed that people wanted to see care and improvements to existing facilities. Improvements would be made at Dorris Ranch, which was on the National Register for Historic Properties, to the buildings and the entrance. They would also be adding a community garden and a trail head. Rehabilitation would also be done at Meadow Park and restoration along the natural areas throughout the district. Resource Conservation: It was important to Willamalane to provide leadership in conserving natural resources, including upgrading facilities and parks with resource-efficient operating systems. Some examples included improvements at Splash! At Lively Park and Willamalane Park Swim Center, and adding irrigation systems at a variety of neighborhood parks. She described some of the improvements at these facilities. Recreation Programs: Significant recreation program recommendations were included in the Plan such as expansion of teen programming, additional nature-based programming to connect kids with nature, and innovative special events and cultural programming. Councilor Ralston asked about teen programming and the costs associated with expanding that program. He asked if the teens paid for the programs. Ms. Gershow said the cost depended on the program. Mr. Keefer said there was dedicated space at the Willamalane Center which was open from 3:00- 6:00pm each day during the school year and was free to students. Willamalane had worked with granting sources to run that program since they did need coordinators and supervisors. Not all programs were free, but drop-in programs were generally free. Specific classes, such as babysitting classes or classes on learning a skill that took direct instruction were at a cost to the participant based on the cost recovery of 65% as set by the Board. They were able to get a grant last year from Oregon Community Credit Union (OCCU) to transport middle school students to the Willamalane Center at no cost from each of the middle schools on a set day rotation. A supervisor was working to get as many of the programs as possible with coordinators and instructors to support that program. Willamalane Center was a great place for kids to come and play with the many amenities. Ms. Gershow said there was the connection between the interface programming and teen programming. Some additional rafting excursions were a fully feed program and the archery programs were subsidized by Cabella’s. Councilor Moore said it was difficult to measure the benefit to the community as it provided a place for children that might otherwise be home alone after school. She asked about scholarships available for students unable to pay for programs. Mr. Keefer said they had about $60,000 set aside each year for scholarships for people of all ages. They hoped to expand that through the work of Friends of Willamalane. Scholarships were limited to October 17, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 8 of 10 $150 per person per year. They also asked that if people had the ability to pay some of it, that they paid what they could. Commissioner Leiken said census figures for Lane County of children age 5-18 was 55,000 in 2000 and 51,000 in 2010. The largest growth rate was people 65 and older. He understood that Springfield was a younger population. Population of children age 0-4 had also dropped. He asked if they looked at those figures when looking ahead to future programs. Mr. Keefer said they looked at those trends when planning, but also listened to the community. Adults in the community wanted to invest in our children. Commissioner Leiken agreed. Ms. Gershow said the reason they may have heard about teen programs was because they were doing so well currently meeting the needs of adults so that wasn’t as much of a concern. Looking at the trends and their families, people wanted to make sure their kids had healthy activities available. Mayor Lundberg said walking was very important as well as access to the river. That was one thing we could do for the community that was less expensive. She wanted to capitalize on the natural beauty we had around our community as much as possible. Those things gave people the opportunity to go out close to home to walk and enjoy nature. That went along with the demographic of adults wanting something to do. Ms. Gershow referred to a map of overall proposed park and recreation projects. This was broken out in the Plan by type. She spoke regarding Chapter 5 which included Willamalane’s Capital Improvement Plan. The full CIP was in the Plan. She discussed some of the funded projects and unfunded projects. She reviewed the projects and cost in each category. The first phase had 48 projects at a cost of nearly $40M which would be funded through a number of sources including general funds, system development charges (SDC), grants and donations, and their General Obligation (GO) bond. Mr. Keefer said they had been fortunate in getting many grants and they would continue to push for those funds. Ms. Gershow said the second phase had 43 projects at a cost of nearly $29M. Those would also be funded by a variety of sources. Mayor Lundberg clarified that a linear park was a trail. Ms. Gershow said linear parks were off-street paths and trails. They were called linear parks because associated property around them was of value to Willamalane and often developed in a more passive way. In the second phase, they were projecting a second GO bond. Commissioner Farr asked if the second bond would pick up once the first one retired. Ms. Gershow said taxpayers would still be paying off the first GO bond which was a twenty-year bond. The projection would be to go out for the second bond in ten years. There would be some overlap. October 17, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 9 of 10 Mr. Keefer said the current bond was structured to pay more upfront during the first ten years so that when the second GO bond started it would be less of an impact. Commissioner Leiken asked if Mr. Keefer was comfortable with this in regards to maintenance. Mr. Keefer said he was for the next ten years. Many of the new parks were linear parks and were not as maintenance intensive as full service parks and facilities. They would still be spending a lot on restoration and cleanup. Ms. Gershow said they did detail the operations and maintenance costs in the Plan at the end of Chapter 5. Chapter 6 talked about the Performance Measures. The work was in implementation of the projects. They had their Plan Goals and the list of Performance Measures which were directly tied to those goals. The goals were: provide opportunities to enjoy nature; support youth development; strengthen and develop community partnerships. She discussed the performance measures that matched those goals. A public open house was held in June 2012 which had over 100 attendees. The Plan was posted online for citizens to comment and provide input, and interested parties were notified. The Willamalane Board met in a work session in July 2012, and meetings were held with key agencies and staff groups with Springfield Public Schools, Lane County and Springfield in September 2012. Mayor Lundberg asked what they would do if the second GO bond did not pass, and how that would affect this Plan. Ms. Gershow said their strategy was to update the Plan prior to that by going through the Community Needs Assessment and develop new strategies and actions, and then basing the bond measure of those priorities. The project list might ultimately change by that time as well. It was a 20 year plan, but was generally updated every ten years. Mr. Keefer said there would be other opportunities during this time period that would require some minor changes to the list. Mayor Lundberg said the bond was more flexible than a bond for a specific project, such as the Springfield Justice Center. Mr. Keefer said in the current bond measure, they didn’t identify specific projects. They had told the community what the top ten priorities were and that those would be addressed with the bond. If a decision needed to be made, the Willamalane Board could make that decision. In the future, that ten-year bond could be for something different based on the needs at that time. Ms. Gershow said based on the input received last September from the Willamalane Board and others in the community including the Springfield City Council, a few changes were made to the draft plan. Those changes included strengthening the accessibility language, adding a financial performance measure, moving the public involvement summary to Chapter 1, and making some minor administrative changes. The Plan was adopted by the Willamalane Board in October 2012. Following that, Willamalane submitted the Refinement Plan application to the City in May 2013 and met with the joint Planning Commissions in July who unanimously recommended adoption. She read from the 2012 Plan Foreword statement by Mr. Keefer, “This is a community plan where you and your neighbors have helped develop a vision for the future of parks and recreation in Springfield”. October 17, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 10 of 10 Commissioner Farr said this was very impressive. He asked if the direction was to maintain and improve existing facilities rather than acquire more land. Ms. Gershow said it was a combination of both. A good percentage of the cost was new acquisition, but there was a very long list of rehabilitation projects. The rehabilitation projects cost much less that the property acquisition. Input from 2004 and 2010 was not to go out and do new fancy things, but to make sure they preserved existing facilities. Commissioner Farr said Eugene had done a lot of land acquisition, which was also good. Councilor Moore asked when the cover was replaced on the Willamalane Swim Center. Mr. Keefer said it was about 13-14 years ago. Funding for that was from a bond specific for that purpose. Councilor Moore said as someone who lived close to and used the facility, she thought it was a fantastic facility and well maintained. She asked when the pool was built. Mr. Keefer said it was built in 1958. Mayor Lundberg said the public hearing on this topic would begin at 7:00pm ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 6:45 pm. Commissioner Leiken recessed the Lane County Commissioners at 6:45 pm. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa City Recorder ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder MINUTES OF THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2013 A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield and Lane County was held in the Springfield Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Thursday, October 17, 2013 at 7:00pm with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Commissioner Leiken reconvened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, and Woodrow. Councilor Brew was absent (excused). Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Leiken and Commissioners Bozievich, Farr, Sorenson and Stewart. Lane County Planning Manager Matt Laird and other Lane County staff were also present. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 2012 Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2012 WILLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A REFINEMENT PLAN OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) FOR APPLICATION WITHIN THE AREA OF PLANNING JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. City Manager Gino Grimaldi read the ordinance into the record. City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. The Draft 2012 Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan was presented to Council in work session on September 24, 2012. No substantive changes were requested by City Council. Submittal and adoption proceedings were delayed until this budget year and the document was now ready for formal consideration. . Minor changes to the Strategies and Actions section of the 2012 Plan had been made since Council reviewed the draft version of the plan last year. No substantive policy changes were contained in the current version of the 2012 Plan. Attachment 3 of the agenda packet included the Community Needs Assessment which formed the basis for the 2012 Plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 2012 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan on July 16, 2013, voting unanimously to recommend Council approval of the plan. Staff had evaluated the proposed 2012 Plan against the approval criteria for refinement plan amendments found in Section 5.6-115 of the Springfield Development Code. The staff report October 17, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 2 of 3 contained findings which provided the Planning Commission a substantive base for recommending Council approval of the Plan. No testimony in opposition was voiced during the Planning Commission’s public hearing. Bob Keefer, Superintendent for Willamalane Parks and Recreation District, thanked the City and County for their review of the Plan and meeting with Willamalane over the past couple of years. Willamalane looked at what Springfield wanted from their parks district, such as walking and being close to nature. They tried to look at those things and draft a Plan that fit those needs. The Plan was the vision of the community and community leaders, and that was a good way to work and bring forth what was needed. The Plan reflected the needs and desires of community and that made him proud. This was about partnerships with the City and the County. The City and Willamalane worked together about the programming as well, and it was clear the City cared about how we were serving our public. TEAM Springfield was one of our greatest assets and he often talked to others throughout the State about the collaboration and partnerships and working together for what was best for the community. They didn’t always agree, but they respected each other and continued to move ahead with what was best for Springfield. Parks and recreation were vital to the livability of any community providing access to nature, access to good recreational facilities and programs, and keeping our kids, adults and senior adults busy and helping them to socialize better. The Plan spelled out all of those things and acknowledged what the community wanted. He urged them to support the Plan. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Gary Ross, Springfield, OR. Mr. Ross said he was currently serving his fourth term on the Willamalane Board of Directors. He and his family had lived in Springfield for nearly 30 years. Last year while serving as President of the Willamalane Board, he served as one of the co-chairs on the Yes on 20-199 Connecting People, Parks and Nature campaign in support of Willamalane’s successful bond measure. Today he was here to urge the adoption of the Willamalane 2012 Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. The project list from Willamalane’s bond measure approved by voters last November was directly tied to the priority list in this Plan. With their adoption of the Plan, they would have a community-wide Plan to help achieve the vision of enhancing the quality of life in our community. The development of this Plan set the stage for important change, documented where our community was today in terms of parks and recreation, and developed a road map for where we would like to go over the next twenty years. This Plan’s findings were based on detailed analysis and more importantly to him, significant public input. He was fortunate to be the Board President during the final two years of this Plan’s development and could attest to the continuous efforts of District staff to solicit public input and priorities. They believed that community support of their bond initiative was a direct result in this community’s involvement in creating the 2012 Comprehensive Plan. They heard what the community wanted, what was important to them, and they worked to ensure these priorities were incorporated into this Plan and the bond measure. In closing, he wanted to affirm that this was not just Willamalane’s Plan, but was theirs. It was a community plan that they and their neighbors helped develop a vision for future of parks and recreation in Springfield. He thanked them for their support of the Plan. 2. Anne Ballew, Springfield, OR. Ms. Ballew said she served as the current President of the Willamalane Board. She felt this was a well written document and easy to understand for October 17, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 3 of 3 everyone. She felt they did the due diligence to get public input. The best thing about Willamalane was that the public liked what Willamalane did and supported them. They had, in return, tried to do the best job they could to meet the needs and wants of the community and that was set out in the Plan. She hoped they could support the Plan. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. This was just a first reading for the City of Springfield and a second reading for Lane County, so action would be taken at a future meeting. Commissioner Leiken closed the public hearing. He asked for a motion to direct staff to return with the ordinance for the third reading. He asked staff if a date was set for the third reading. Not at this time. He asked if the City had a date set for adoption. Mr. Metzger said the City was scheduled to meet jointly with Lane County and the City of Eugene on November 4 and had planned to vote on this item only after dismissing the City of Eugene. It could be possible for the County to also vote on this at that time. Commissioner Leiken said they would schedule it for adoption on November 5. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FARR TO MOVE THE SECOND READING AND SET A THIRD READING FOR ORDINANG PA-1301 ON NOVEMBER 5. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – BOZIEVICH AND SORENSON). ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 7:13 pm. Commissioner Leiken adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 7:13 pm. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa City Recorder ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder