Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2013 Work SessionMINUTES 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). 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. hi 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 LUBAjudges. 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 die 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 STEP 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 I1, 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 Span ish- 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 Donis 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 leaming 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 be 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:OOpm 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. L ndber Mayor Attest: City Record r