HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 04 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/6/2014
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) October 21, 2013 – Regular Meeting b) October 28, 2013 – Work Session
c) November 4, 2013 – JEO Work Session d) November 4, 2013 – JEO Public Hearing e) November 4, 2013 – Regular Meeting
f) November 18, 2013 – Work Session g) November 18, 2013 – JEO Public Hearing h) November 18, 2013 – Regular Meeting
i) November 25, 2013 – Work Session j) November 25, 2013 – Special Regular Meeting
k) December 2, 2013 – Work Session
l) December 2, 2013 – JEO Regular Meeting m) December 2, 2013 – Regular Meeting
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 21, 2013 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Extra Mile Day Proclamation.
Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation proclaiming November 1, 2013 as “Extra Mile Day” and
encouraged each individual in our community to take time on that day to not only “go the extra mile”
in his or her own life, but to also acknowledge all those around who are inspirational in their efforts and commitment to make their organizations, families, community, country, or world a better place.
2. Housing America Month Proclamation.
Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation proclaiming October as Housing America Month and encouraged all citizens to recommit themselves to meeting the affordable housing and community development needs of the community.
Larry Abel from Housing and Community Services Agency (HACSA) of Lane County was present to accept the proclamation.
Mayor Lundberg thanked Mr. Abel for his work and the efforts to address housing in our community.
There was an event on Tuesday in which he would take the proclamation to present.
3. Recognition of Thurston High School Class Building Conestoga Huts.
Mayor Lundberg recognized the class of LuAnne Johnson who had been building Conestoga Huts in their Career and Technical Education (CTE) Program at Thurston High School. A letter from the
Mayor was presented to Ms. Johnson and her students who were in attendance. She thanked the students and their teachers for their hard work in helping people in the community.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2013 Page 2
4. Recognition of Rosalia Marquez for El Grito.
Mayor Lundberg recognized Rosalia Marquez for her hard work in helping to organize Springfield’s first El Grito Celebration held on Sunday, September 15, 2013. She thanked Ms. Marquez for giving the City the opportunity to share in a new cultural tradition in our community. It was Ms. Marquez’s
vision and persistence that made this event a reality. She presented Ms. Marquez with a letter of appreciation.
Ms. Marquez said the Minister of Foreign Relations extended his regards to the community of Springfield and the Mayor and Council for accepting this project and carrying on the tradition of their
culture.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
a. September 2013, Disbursements for Approval 2. Minutes
a. September 16, 2013 – Work Session b. September 16, 2013 – Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6301 – 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
b. ORDINANCE NO. 6302 – 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
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Transportation System Systems Development Charge (SDC) Citizen Advisory Committee
(CAC) Appointments. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 REGULAR MEETING REFLECTING COUNCILOR WOODROW AS PROVIDING THE SECOND ON ALL MOTION, AND WITH
CHECKS #123834 AND #123999 OF THE SEPTEMBER 2013 DISBURSEMENTS REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2013 Page 3
ITEMS REMOVED
1.a. Checks #123834 and #123999 of the September 2013 Disbursements.
Councilor VanGordon recused himself from this item and declared a conflict of interest as these checks were made out to his employer, United Parcel Service (UPS).
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE CHECKS #123834 AND #123999 OF THE SEPTEMBER 2013
DISBURSEMENTS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSTENTION – VANGORDON).
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not
yield their time to others.
1. Master Fee and Charges Schedule – Fall 2013 Update.
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-15 – A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING A MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE FOR
FEES, CHARGES, RATES, PERMITS AND LICENSES AS ESTABLISHED BY THE
SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. Each year, Council and staff reviewed existing fees and charges for appropriateness of rates for meeting cost recovery targets as well as reviewing for areas where new or additional fees should be considered. The last significant
review along with the re-formatting of the master fee schedule was completed in the spring of 2013. This fall of 2013 review would focus on updates and omissions while the future spring of 2014 update,
as directed by Council last spring, would concentrate more on the annual impacts of inflation.
Mr. Duey reviewed the few changes to the Master Fee Schedule and the other changes in language to
line up fees in the appropriate departments.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-15. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Supplemental Budget Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-16 – A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING RESOURCES AND
REQUIREMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING FUNDS: GENERAL, STREET, JAIL OPERATIONS, SPECIAL REVENUE, TRANSIENT ROOM TAX, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
BUILDING CODE, FIRE LOCAL OPTION LEVY, POLICE LOCAL OPTION LEVY,
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2013 Page 4
BANCROFT REDEMPTION, BOND SINKING, SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL, REGIONAL
WASTEWATER REVENUE BOND CAPITAL PROJECT, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CAPITAL, DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, STORM DRAINAGE CAPITAL, POLICE
BUILDING BOND CAPITAL PROJECT, REGIONAL WASTEWATER CAPITAL, STREET CAPITAL, STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT SDC, STORM DRAINAGE REIMBURSEMENT SDC, SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT SDC, SANITARY
SEWER IMPROVEMENT SDC, SDC REGIONAL WASTEWATER REIMBURSEMENT, SDC REGIONAL WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT, SDC TRANSPORTATION
REIMBURSEMENT, SDC TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT, SANITARY SEWER
OPERATIONS, REGIONAL WASTEWATER, AMBULANCE, STORM DRAINAGE OPERATIONS, BOOTH-KELLY, REGIONAL FIBER CONSORTIUM, INSURANCE,
VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT, AND SDC ADMINISTRATION FUNDS.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. At various times during the fiscal
year the Council was requested to make adjustments to the annual budget to reflect needed changes in
planned activities, to recognize new revenues, or to make other required changes. These adjustments to resources and requirements changed the current budget and were processed through supplemental
budget requests scheduled by the Finance Department on an annual basis.
This was the first of three scheduled FY14 supplemental budget requests to come before Council. The supplemental budget being presented included adjusting resources and requirements in: General, Street, Jail Operations, Special Revenue, Transient Room Tax, Community Development, Building
Code, Fire Local Option Levy, Police Local Option Levy, Bancroft Redemption, Bond Sinking, Sanitary Sewer Capital, Regional Wastewater Revenue Bond Capital Project, Development
Assessment Capital, Development Projects, Storm Drainage Capital, Police Building Bond Capital
Project, Regional Wastewater Capital, Street Capital, Storm Drainage Improvement SDC, Storm Drainage Reimbursement SDC, Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement SDC, Sanitary Sewer Improvement
SDC, SDC Regional Wastewater Reimbursement, SDC Regional Wastewater Improvement, SDC
Transportation Reimbursement, SDC Transportation Improvement, Sanitary Sewer Operations, Regional Wastewater, Ambulance, Storm Drainage Operations, Booth-Kelly, Regional Fiber
Consortium, Insurance, Vehicle & Equipment, and SDC Administration Funds. The City Council was asked to approve the attached Supplemental Budget Resolution.
The overall financial impact of the Supplemental Budget Resolution was to increase Operating
Expenditures of $613,652, increase in Capital Projects $109,504, change in Reserves $8,473,273 and
increase in Un-appropriated Ending Fund Balance $28,012. These were offset by beginning cash adjustments of $8,174,713, carry forwards of current grants of $764,206, and new revenue of
$285,522.
Mr. Duey explained the reasons for the beginning cash adjustments. He also noted that since the
budget was adopted in the spring, the State legislature had changed the PERS rate to a lower amount
and sent those rates out to jurisdictions to reflect in their budget. Those funds were currently being left in reserves for each department until the City determined what they would do with those funds. Most
of the other adjustments were capital projects. He reviewed several of those projects.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2013 Page 5
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-16. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
3. Proposed Updates to the Municipal Code Sections 2.702, 2.703, 2.706, 2.708 and 2.709 Regarding
Public Contracting.
ORDINANCE NO. 3 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2.702, 2.706, 2.708, AND
2.709 OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PUBLIC CONTRACTING
ORDINANCE NO. 4 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2.703, 2.706, 2.708, AND
2.710 OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PUBLIC CONTRACTING
Procurement Office Jayne McMahan presented the staff report on this item. These amendments arose
after a review of the City Attorney’s Office and public contracting laws subsequent to the 2013 Oregon Legislative session. The first ordinance change was required to incorporate housekeeping changes to the Qualified Based Selection (QBS) process, clarifying definitions of QBS personnel and
Springfield Municipal Code and ORS recitations. The second ordinance change increasing the ceiling requirement for exemption from competitive bidding and request for proposals from $5,000 to $10,000 was a legislative change for State agencies but was optional for local governments. The
amendments assured that the Springfield Municipal Code with reference to public contracts was correct and accurate and consistent with the State of Oregon Public Contracting Law.
Currently for the Small Informal Bid process for the City – up to $5,000 – the City staff gathered quotes from a minimum of three qualified suppliers via telephone, email or web services. The City
documented the quotes and the bid was awarded to the lowest bidder. Following the State Statue
increase to up to $10,000 would not only be a process improvement, but also came with cost savings in terms of time. Informality would not dispense with the requirements for documentation and
accountability. Ms. McMahan said she checked with other entities and found that many others did plan
on raising their small threshold from $5,000 to $10,000 to align with State statute.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
NO WAS ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2013 Page 6
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments
a. Budget Committee Appointments.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. The Budget Committee currently had 2 vacancies due to resignations and would have 2 additional vacancies due to terms
that expired on December 31, 2013. The City advertised for potential candidates from all four
Wards during September 2013. The City received applications from the incumbents Terry Buck Ward 1 and Chris Stole Ward 2. The Council was being asked to re-appoint one applicant to each
of the two positions. The appointee for both Ward 1 and Ward 2 would serve a three year term
that would expire on December 31, 2016. Staff would re-advertise for Wards 3 and 4 after the first of the year.
During September the City also sought applicants for Ward 3 and Ward 4 left vacant due to incumbents changing residences and no longer eligible to serve on the Budget Committee. No
applications were received for either Ward 3 or Ward 4 at this time. Staff would re-advertise for these two positions after the first of the year in January 2014 and schedule time with the Council for interviews.
The City’s charge for the Budget Committee stated as a qualifier 6 members from the Council and
6 citizens by Ward (Citizen members may not be officers, agents or employees of the City, per
ORS 294.336(4).
The Council was requested to appoint citizens to each of the two current vacancies on the Budget
Committee with both terms to expire on December 31, 2016.
Councilor Wylie thanked Chris Stole for her service on the Budget Committee over the last four
years and her willingness to continue to serve.
Councilor Ralston thanked Ms. Stole for also serving on the Human Services Commission as the Springfield Budget Committee representative.
Councilor Brew asked why these were approved by motion and the Transportation System SDC CAC was approved through the Consent Calendar.
Mr. Duey noted that this was his usual practice so he had put the Budget Committee appointments on under Business from the Council.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO RE-APPOINT TERRY BUCK TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR WARD 2 WITH A TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2016. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2013 Page 7
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO RE-APPOINT CHRIS STOLE TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR WARD 1 WITH A TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2016. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Moore reported that she attended the Lane Workforce Partnership Executive Committee last Tuesday. Executive Director Chuck Forester was retiring and they
expected to have his replacement by December of 2013. There was a system redesign for
the workforce which meant contracting out the services.
She reported that she also attended the Section 8 Advisory Committee for Housing and Community Services Agency (HACSA) on Wednesday. During the meeting, they looked at the possibility of eliminating 125-150 vouchers. There was good discussion, but no
consensus so they would meet again on October 31. She attended SPROUT’s one-year anniversary celebration and had a great time.
She attended the Human Services Commission meeting earlier in the day. That commission was also being revamped. There was a new poverty and homeless board that
would be renamed the Poverty and Homelessness Board.
2. Councilor Woodrow noted the Quartz Park opening in her ward last week. This park was
in advance of a school that would be located in that area. Councilors Woodrow, Moore and VanGordon all attended. It was visible from Bob Straub Parkway and was an
attractive park. The innovations and up-to-date equipment would make this a park that
was useful for many years. This allowed the neighborhood to utilize a park without having to cross Bob Straub Parkway.
She attended the Public Safety Fair at the Gateway Mall last Saturday. Tomorrow night in the Council Chambers a self-protection seminar would be presented which she felt would
be very worthwhile. The week before last, she had the opportunity to attend the Chinook Institute Pacific
Leadership, a week-long class. It was phenomenal and she came back with a lot of information and connections with many others in Oregon. It was fifty-five hours of intense classroom atmosphere and interaction with other members of the civic leadership
community. It was well worth attending.
3. Councilor Moore said the Middle Fork Path was opening on Friday, October 25 at noon.
4. Councilor Wylie said representing the Lane ACT as Vice-Chair, she attended a two-day
meeting of the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) at the Oregon Gardens on
behalf of Lane ACT Chair Mayor Kitty Piercy. An evaluation of the process used for Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds had been done and that
process was being reviewed. The OTC asked for other participants to provide information.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2013 Page 8
The process was very complex and took a long time. It was an interesting meeting and she
appreciated the opportunity to attend.
5. Councilor Brew said he was in Washington DC for work last week so missed the Council work session.
6. Councilor Ralston said the Stand Down Event would be held all day on Friday, October 25 at the Willamalane Center instead of the Springfield Armory. During the event,
clothing, backpacks, sleeping bags, food and other services were provided to veterans. He
attended every year. This year, as a member of the Oregon State Defense Force, he would be in uniform and providing security and information. In the past, he had attended as a
concerned veteran. It was a great event, especially for homeless veterans.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:35 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 28, 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 28, 2013 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith and Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Police Planning Task Force Interviews.
Mike Harman, Senior Management Analyst for the Police Department presented this item. The Police Planning Task Force had one At-Large position available from the resignation of Pat Mahoney. One
other At-Large had recently come open due to the resignation of Fred Simmons, who verbally advised
Chief Lewis of his resignation effective Monday, October 21st. There were two available candidates for the two open positions.
Pat Mahoney resigned from her At-Large position due to moving away from the area. At a work session in September, Council asked to interview the two applicants recommended for the position by
a subcommittee of the Police Planning Task Force, Carol Ford and Isa Aviad. Since that time, Fred Simmons had verbally resigned from his At-Large position, leaving two
applicants and two open positions. Mayor Lundberg said since there were now two openings, they could perhaps just meet with the two
applicants and ask them why they would like to serve on the PPTF.
Mayor Lundberg welcomed Carol Ford. The councilors introduced themselves to Ms. Ford.
Mayor Lundberg asked Ms. Ford why she wanted to serve on the PPTF.
Ms. Ford noted she was a recent graduate from the Springfield Citizen Police Academy and found it very enlightening. She was retired and was interested in serving the Springfield Police Department.
She was very proud of the Springfield Police Department. She would like to bridge the gap between citizens and the Police Department. She also volunteered at Guy Lee Elementary School and saw a need to bridge the gap between that community and the Police Department.
Councilor Wylie referred to a note on Ms. Ford’s application about her concern regarding the homeless.
Ms. Ford said she was impressed with the Egan Warming Center and hoped to volunteer this winter.
Council thanked Ms. Ford for applying and her willingness to serve.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 28, 2013 Page 2
Mayor Lundberg welcomed Isa Aviad. The councilors introduced themselves to Ms. Aviad.
Mayor Lundberg asked Ms. Aviad why she wanted to serve on the PPTF. Ms. Aviad said she used to work in 9-1-1 in Lane County and special communications. During that
time, she worked with the Police and detectives and served as a Spanish interpreter for Junction City’s Municipal Courts for three years. She had seen how District Attorneys and officers worked, and was
very impressed and pleased with the Springfield Police Department, from the dispatchers who were
very skilled and polite to the command staff. She commended the K9 program and every aspect of the Springfield Police Department, and said she wanted to serve.
Councilor Woodrow asked if she saw any issues connected with language and the Police Department.
Ms. Aviad said she would like to see more written outreach and follow-up for those speaking another
language who find themselves in situations involving the Police. She provided an example of a situation when a non-English speaking janitor accidentally tripped an alarm and the distress it caused
him. It would have been helpful to have someone follow-up and explain things to him. Councilor Moore asked when she went through the Citizen Police Academy.
Ms. Aviad said she had gone through the Springfield Citizen Academy last year. She was also a Disaster Preparedness Trainer through CERTs (Community Emergency Response Team).
Springfield’s Emergency Management staff, Ken Vogeney, had asked Ms. Aviad and other CERT trainers to go back east for a training in order to be FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
certified to help the City of Springfield get ready. She would like to bring more focus on Springfield
for the CERTs training and extend the training to the Hispanic population.
Mayor Lundberg thanked Ms. Aviad for applying. She said Mr. Harman would be contacting both
candidates about their appointments.
The Council was pleased with the two candidates. 2. Street System Communication Update and Revenue Options.
Brian Conlon, DPW Operations Manager and Rhonda Rice, Senior Management Analyst with the Development and Public Works Department presented this item. For several years City staff and the
Council had struggled with the problem that the City’s Street Operating Fund was not generating sufficient revenue to support desired levels of street system operations and preservation. Staff now estimated a $3.5M to $4.5M annual unfunded need to effectively satisfy the City’s transportation
system operations and preservation objectives, in addition to a backlog of important preservation and rehabilitation that approached $22 million. At the May 13, 2013 Council Work Session, the Council
recommended that staff continue doing public outreach to educate citizens of the important role that
the street system played in their daily lives. The Council also directed staff to bring this issue back in the Fall to provide a public feedback update and discuss revenue options.
The City’s street system decline continued to steepen considerably year to year and had reached an unfunded backlog exceeding $22M. Without adequate funding the city was resigned to operating and
preserving it at less than optimal levels. In essence, the consequence of deferring preservation
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 28, 2013 Page 3
furthered the downward spiral and huge rehabilitation costs in the near term could be expected.
Recognizing the importance to communicate this issue more effectively to our citizens, in 2012 the Council directed staff to develop a Street System Communication Plan to deliver a three tiered
message; the street system was a valuable asset for the entire community, actively preserving the system was more cost effective than rehabilitating at a later date, and revenues were no longer keeping pace with preservation needs. The plan outlined consistent and simple messaging and encouraged open
dialogue with community members.
The Street System Communication Plan, which included a video made with the assistance of
Community Relations Manager Niel Laudati, had been successful in increasing awareness among
citizens about the street system operations and preservation requirements. Moreover, the presentations had been effective in engaging citizens in the problem. Now that some members of the Springfield
community were actively engaged it was important to maintain that link. It was also timely to
consider an exploration of the ideas that the citizens had suggested to address the funding problem through debt financing or a pay-as-you-go approach, as well as other opportunities that either Council
or staff might consider reasonable solutions.
Mr. Conlon noted that City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith and Public Information and Education
Analyst Rachael Chilton had also provided assistance in this outreach program. Mr. Conlon referred to Attachment 5 of the agenda packet, the document from the Association of Oregon Cities (AOC) and
the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) which showed that all cities were facing the same issues. He spoke
regarding the difference between preservation and maintenance. With the current revenue shortfall, staff was not addressing the street maintenance and preservation the way they would like. Streetlights
and bringing sidewalks to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards were just a couple of
issues the City was not able to address. He referred to additional charts from Attachment 5 and the information outlined in Attachment 6 of the agenda packet.
Mr. Conlon reviewed the outreach that had been done to date. The biggest value from the outreach at the community events was connecting with people. Staff was encouraged that the citizens they talked
with understood the difference between maintaining the streets and replacing them. He discussed the current shortfall in the street fund and the need for reserves to address the work needed on the bridges and street lighting.
Mr. Conlon said if the City started rehabilitation, there were new regulations that needed to be considered. They were all good, but more costly.
Ms. Rice said the Streets Condition report (Attachment 6 of the agenda packet) was published by the
City in 2012, but was built on data from 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012. The street crew went out and
analyzed all of the street segments and provided a conditions rating. Staff was working on updating the charts with 2012 information. Attachment 6, page 1 showed the Street Conditions by all
categories: locals; collectors; and minor arterials. They had combined those into lane miles and
category types and rated them. Those falling into the level of poor had grown in all categories over the last six years. Staff was trying to stay ahead of that downward trend as much as possible until they
could turn things around. Local streets were suffering the most as far as their condition. Staff did a
wonderful job with the resources available to keep the streets from declining more.
Mr. Conlon said most streets had a design life of about 25 years, but we had extended the wear life to about 50 years or more. Some of the streets downtown were starting to fail. The local streets had less traffic so other options were considered for those types of streets. Ideally, the City would do
preservation when the street was in good condition, not poor.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 28, 2013 Page 4
Councilor Brew said it sounded like there were two problems: the ongoing issue which was about a $3.5M or $4.5M annual gap; and a backlog of about $20M - $25M. There could be two separate
solutions to address the problems. Mr. Conlon said staff was looking at ways to generate the revenue at $3.5M or $4.5M per year and
then chip away at the backlog. An example was 21st Street which they had managed to make minor repairs to over the years. There had been discussion several years ago about a combination of funding
that would bring in enough for the backlog as well.
Councilor Moore said there was a huge difference between 2008 and 2010. She asked if it was normal
for it to take a dramatic drop like that after a certain amount of time.
Ms. Rice said when they were not able to preserve the streets, they did quickly deteriorate.
Mr. Conlon said the streets did decline at a fast rate to a point where the street was in need of rehabilitation.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the change in petroleum costs had been a factor in the funding gap.
Mr. Conlon said the increase in petroleum costs caused people to drive less, which meant less revenue. Also, employee costs had risen and materials costs had risen significantly.
Ms. Rice said the majority of the street fund revenue was gas tax revenue, which had dropped as people drove less.
Councilor Ralston said he didn’t see the two as separate issues. It was a huge problem and he wasn’t sure how the City could come up with $3.5M a year to take care of things along the way. A bond
could address the larger amount, but it wouldn’t solve the annual deficit.
Mr. Conlon said bonding was very popular now because it provided immediate funds, but there was a
debt service on those funds. The City was just about to pay off the 1995/96 General Obligation Bond.
Councilor Ralston said he was on a fixed income and was shocked when he received his taxes this
year. He wasn’t sure how successful they would be in getting a measure passed. Councilor Brew said even if they had $3.5M per year to put towards keeping up the streets, that
wouldn’t be enough to take care of the backlog. Mr. Conlon said it would take about seven to ten years of chipping away at the backlog. They would
need to prioritize their needs and it would be challenging. He referenced the chart from the LOC and noted there hadn’t been too many local fuel tax increases over the last few years. If they were to
consider increasing the local fuel tax, they would likely get a challenge from the petroleum companies.
A Transportation Utility Fee was a ‘pay-as-you-go’ type of fee.
Councilor Moore asked about a utility fee that had been passed in another city and how much it
generated.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 28, 2013 Page 5
Councilor VanGordon asked how soon a transportation utility fee would generate enough revenue to
start on preservation.
Mr. Conlon said it would depend on how much was charged and how fast the reserve could be built. With the fuel tax in 2003, projects were started within about six months.
Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said when they last looked at the Transportation Fee in 2008, a $1.75 residential fee and a scaled fee for businesses would have
generated about $1.8M a year. If they were looking to generate $3.5M a year, they would most likely
be looking at a residential fee of about $3.50 a month with an appropriate commercial fee. That would generate enough funds to begin getting out on the street about three months after implementation.
Councilor VanGordon asked what kind of fee would be charged for businesses.
Mr. Goodwin said in 2008, they capped the business fee at $1100 a month for something large like a
WalMart or Jerry’s. Most businesses in Springfield were relatively small, and would pay about $25-$30 month. In order to generate about $3.5M annually, the business fee would range between $40 and
$2000 a month. Councilor VanGordon said if we went with a local gas tax, how soon before we were back having this
discussion. Mr. Goodwin said as of July 1, 2014, the City could adopt another gas tax. At the current rate, each
penny of a local gas tax would generate about $350,000 for local purposes. If they increased the gas tax .05 for a total of .08 per gallon, that would generate about $1.8M annually. Those funds would be
collected by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) within two months of adoption, with
projects started within three to six months. With new techniques, there could be a way to do things less expensively. As an example, the cost of concrete was now almost the same as asphalt and the
maintenance cost of concrete was significantly less.
Councilor VanGordon said these figures were based on the assumption that an arrangement was made
with Springfield Utility Board (SUB) to collect the fee. Mr. Conlon said the Transportation Utility Fee could be on residents only. Because some entities had
been challenged by businesses, they had charged the fee only to residents, increasing the cost per household.
Councilor Van Gordon said he would like to see what the Transportation Utility Fee was for other cities. He would also like to know more about a hybrid for a revenue bond and a fee.
Mr. Conlon said before polling the citizens, they could package some options to present to the Council at a future work session.
Mayor Lundberg said that would be a good idea. Councilor Moore asked how much money Springfield generated from the trucking industry fees
towards street preservation.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 28, 2013 Page 6
Mr. Goodwin said the trucking industry paid a substantial amount in weight/mile fees to the State. Part
of the fuel tax distribution the City received included our share of those weight/mile fees.
Councilor Moore said there were a lot of trucks traveling along 28th Street and it was deteriorating rapidly. She asked how much damage studded tires did to street surfaces and asked if there was a way to get funding from the sale of studded tires.
Mr. Conlon said it was easier to quantify that on a freeway or highway system versus our local system.
The City was preparing to do a project on 19th Street soon and it appeared that part of the damage was
due to aggressive turning and approach to Marcola Road, perhaps by studded tires. It was very difficult to quantify.
Councilor Brew said when the gas tax was implemented in 2003, they thought it would solve the problem, but it only helped for a few years. If they did a Transportation Utility Fee, he hoped they
made it adequate to get things done so they didn’t have to come back in a few years. He proposed that
they look at dedicating the funds to contract labor only for construction projects for certain streets. He asked Mr. Goodwin if there had been further discussion about implementing a higher car registration
fee in Lane County. Mr. Goodwin said he had talked with the County. The last report he received from Lane County was
that individual conversations with Commission members suggested it would be prudent for them to bring the proposal forward at this time.
Councilor Brew asked if that could be a solution.
Mr. Goodwin said under the statute, the cities would be entitled to at least 40% of the revenue
collected from the vehicle registration fee. If the County imposed a registration fee that equaled that of the State, which was the maximum allowed, Springfield’s share would be about $2.2M per year. He
also noted that under the law, Springfield was prohibited from using force labor for anything over
$50,000 and were required to use outside contractors.
Councilor Woodrow said the community response had been positive and they recognized they were
part of the solution. She asked what they would be asking if they polled the citizens.
Mr. Conlon said they would likely ask if they would support a ‘pay-as-you-go’ fee or a bond or a combination. People understood the Transportation Fee and bonding, but that didn’t mean they were willing to pay. Polling the citizens would be valuable.
Councilor Woodrow asked if non-residents were a consideration for revenue.
Mr. Conlon said they would pay through a fuel tax if they fueled up in Springfield.
Councilor Woodrow said people in our community were accepting of a proactive approach. When they
went out with the poll, they could also ask for ideas from the citizens. The idea of approaching them with positive results and where we could be was more productive. It helped when people could
visualize.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 28, 2013 Page 7
Mr. Conlon said they had been trying to present it in that way for the last seven years. He had talked
with the Public Works Director in Eugene about how they had gotten their message out to the public. Staff would try to put some packages together in a positive way.
Councilor Woodrow said she also felt they should use a two-pronged approach of working on the immediate needs and chipping away at the backlog.
Councilor VanGordon asked if they had taken their message to the Hawks Business Group and the
Springfield Chamber. Yes. He asked how much the current gas tax generated.
Ms. Rice said about $1M annually. The State generated a little over $2.5M for a total of $3.5M.
Mr. Conlon said staff did a great job of maintaining facilities and balancing their priorities.
Councilor VanGordon said that was extremely important.
Councilor Wylie said she liked the idea of the increase in Lane County of the car registration. Voters
were feeling the pinch so they needed to be thoughtful in how they moved forward. She said she would suggest the car registration be based on the value of the vehicle. She also thought it would be fun to couple the registration increase with the UO Duck vanity license plate cover.
Councilor Brew said the reason Springfield residents would pay for this was because they used the streets every day, but those in the unincorporated areas also benefited and used the streets. He asked if
they could have the Transportation System User Fee apply to them as well.
Mr. Goodwin said they couldn’t impose a fee inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) and he wasn’t
sure the County could impose a fee for just those within Springfield’s UGB.
Mayor Lundberg said when they first passed a gas tax, they did not go out to the voters because it was
not required to go to the voters. Anything that was done could be challenged as there were special interest groups for everything. The question tonight was whether or not they wanted to have a poll.
She would prefer to have some Council preferences before there was a poll. She had never supported a Transportation User Fee because SUB had never agreed to collect it so the City would need to come up with a way to collect. They needed to see the options clearly and what each would mean. She was
supportive of the increased registration fee, but would prefer it if the State did that so it was statewide. She would like to see a studded tire fee at the State level. Those were options that were related to use of vehicles on the road. Priority Based Budgeting would be coming to Council soon to help the
Council determine how to prioritize. The State was still a leader in the per mile charge, but technology could change how that was collected. She was looking out ten years in the future and how to look at what could be done before fuel systems changed. She asked who got the revenue from the
charging stations and felt the City should be charging people to use those. Many groups would have a vested interest in the City not collecting more money at their expense. She would like to see more
concrete numbers before polling.
Councilor Woodrow said they also needed to know what each option would generate.
Mr. Conlon said staff could come back with those numbers and how to present to the citizens.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 28, 2013 Page 8
Mayor Lundberg said how things were worded was important and they needed to be careful in how
they polled.
Councilor Moore said she would like information on Washington and California’s state registration fee and how it was ranked.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:41 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, THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2013
A joint elected officials’ work session with the City of Springfield, City of Eugene and Lane County
was held in the Springfield Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday,
November 4, 2013 at 6:00 pm with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Lundberg welcomed everyone to Springfield City Hall and opened the meeting of the
Springfield City Council.
Mayor Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council.
Commissioner Leiken opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present.
Present from Eugene were Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilors Brown, Zelenka, Poling, Clark, Evans,
Syrett and Pryor. Councilor Taylor was absent. Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz and other Eugene staff
were also present.
Present from Lane County were Board Chair Leiken and Commissioners Farr, Sorenson and Stewart.
Commissioner Bozievich was absent (excused). Planning Manager Matt Laird and other Lane County staff were also present.
1. Amendments to Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).
City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. He introduced Keir Miller from Lane County and Alissa Hansen from the City of Eugene. He also introduced Lauren King from the
Springfield City Attorney’s office. The planning staffs and legal counsel for Eugene, Springfield and Lane County had worked together for a long time and had prepared amendments to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan for the purpose of implementing ORS 197.304. The proposed amendments clarified each
jurisdiction’s role in future Metro Plan amendments and amendments to related documents.
ORS 197.304 (HB 3337) established separate Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) for Eugene and
Springfield and was the impetus for the Springfield 2030 Plan and the Envision Eugene planning initiatives. As these planning efforts were readied for adoption, amendments to Chapter IV were
needed to clarify which governing bodies would participate in decision making given the
establishment of separate UGBs. The most significant changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan were:
• Three types of Metro Plan amendments are established: Type I which may be enacted by the home city alone; Type II which requires the participation of the home city and Lane County; and Type III
amendments requires the participation of all three jurisdictions.
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 2 of 7
• The proposed amendments remove references to Metro Plan amendments with “regional impact.”
Removal of the regional impact language does not change similar language found in Chapter VI of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) which
provides for multi-jurisdictional review of public facility projects which have a significant impact
on serving more than one jurisdiction.
• When governing bodies do not reach consensus on a Metro Plan amendment, the proposed amendments would send unresolved decisions to the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners
and one or both of the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield for resolution, depending on how many
governing bodies are participating in the decision.
The Springfield Planning Commission conducted a joint public hearing on the Chapter IV
amendments with Eugene and Lane County on October 15, 2013. Each of the Commissions voted to recommend approval of the amendments with certain recommended changes. These changes were
incorporated in to the Proposed Chapter IV Amendments. Staff noted, with respect to the recommendation to include timelines, that: (1) there was no statutory timeline for comprehensive plan amendments; (2) a timeframe might unnecessarily restrict the process of the decision makers; and (3)
there was really no enforcement mechanism for the existing timelines. Eugene staff had not recommended the inclusion of such timelines. Council was being presented two draft ordinances for
consideration: one including the timeline language and one without. It may be necessary to reconcile
the two ordinances before final action.
Mayor Piercy said she would like to point out that each jurisdiction had three documents they were
working on for this topic, although each had commonalities.
Mr. Metzger said on October 15, the respective Planning Commissions met and considered the same changes. Each Planning Commission met individually, deliberated and made recommendations to their staffs and elected officials about the changes they would like to see in the draft document. Staff took
most of the recommended changes and integrated them into the draft ordinances being presented. One
key change staff did not initially put in related to timelines for processing Metro Plan amendments. Staff had recommended removing references to timelines from Chapter IV. The Planning
Commissions from Eugene and Springfield recommended restoring some form of timelines. Two ordinances were put together for Springfield: one with the timelines and one without timelines. He read the two sentences that made the difference. During tonight’s work session, they hoped to come to
an agreement about whether or not to reference timelines in the Chapter IV amendments. Other than that one difference, the ordinances were substantively identical.
Mayor Lundberg noted that Springfield was the only entity with two ordinances on the table.
It was noted that the Eugene packet was printed before the revised ordinance from Springfield was
complete. Staff had provided both options at their places this evening. Eugene’s original packet had the pre-Planning Commission version due to Charter requirements for noticing.
Mr. Miller said the updated packet in front of the Eugene City Council showed the recommendation from the Eugene Planning Commission which did not include the timelines.
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 3 of 7
Mayor Lundberg said before going into the public hearing, it would be beneficial to have only one version of the ordinance.
Mr. Metzger said that was the goal. In the existing Development Code, the criteria was for the three jurisdictions to adopt a substantively identical ordinance for a Metro Plan amendment to be approved.
Other than the section of the timelines, the rest of the ordinance was the same. Staff hoped that at the end of the work session and public hearing, they would have an identical ordinance for adoption. Doing this would prepare the way to move forward on other things. Chapter IV described the
amendment process for the Metro Plan, Refinement Plan, Functional Plans, and other important regional and community documents. The changes proposed this evening would not affect the Public
Services and Facilities Plan as it had its own chapter on how to amend that particular document.
Mr. Metzger said they were moving from a difficult classification system for types of plan
amendments which just included Types I and II, to a system with Type I, II and III. Type I would
allow one jurisdiction to make a decision alone, Type II would require two jurisdictions to make a decision and Type III would require all three jurisdictions to make a decision. The new classification
was more of a common sense approach. The proposal was that all three governing bodies would approve amendments to the common urban growth boundary (UGB) that was shared along I-5, or for a UGB or Metro Plan Boundary that crossed I-5. The home city and Lane County would participate in
UGB or Plan boundary amendments east of I-5 (Springfield) or west of I-5 (Eugene). He explained further. He referred to a map showing the three areas that were within each city’s limits, outside city limits and UGBs, and within Metro Plan boundary. The different areas determined in part who would
be involved in the decision making process. Mr. Metzger spoke regarding amendments to a regional transportation system plan or a regional public
facilities plan and the criteria for those amendments and who would be involved. He provided an example. The first step would be to classify the type of amendment, then move forward in the decision
making process. He discussed ‘regional impact’ and said there was language in the Public Facilities
Plan that covered water, wastewater, sewer and other basic utilities, and protection of services. As an example, there could be an instance where something in Springfield might have an impact on
stormwater facilities that also served Eugene. In that type of instance, the amendment would be
subject to joint review by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. He spoke regarding conflict resolution. In the current language, if there was a conflict within the decision making process the
conflict would be taken to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). The proposal was to change the language so the Mayors and Board Chair would work together to try to resolve disputes. If there was no consensus, the Mayors and Board Chair would meet with staff to work out the solution.
Commissioner Farr asked if there had been a conflict.
Board Chair Leiken said the last conflict was regarding Delta Sand and Gravel. In that situation, Springfield did choose to opt out leaving it to just Eugene and Lane County. Conflicts were not commonplace.
Mr. Metzger said the intent was to simplify conflict resolution and put it in the hands of the parties
directly involved. He spoke regarding timelines and the current language which had a timeline, and the
new language that did not have timelines. The Eugene and Springfield Planning Commissions recommended restoring some timeline language. Eugene had removed the timeline language from
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 4 of 7
their ordinance and Springfield had added it back into the ordinance. Before the public hearing, that needed to be resolved so they were coming forward with a common ordinance.
Councilor Ralston said he understood the timeline aspect. Without a timeline, something could go on indefinitely. Developers needed some certainty so that was a good reason for having it in there.
Councilor Brown asked why staff had chosen originally to remove the timelines.
Mr. Metzger said there was no statutory requirement for timelines as there were for other planning processes. In those other planning processes, the developer did have the right to know. In the context
of Comprehensive Plan amendments, the State had left it open. Timeframes might unnecessarily
restrict the ability of the cities and elected officials to process things thoroughly. Many of the legislative plan amendments initiated over the last several years had gone beyond six months.
Sometimes, it was unavoidable due to scheduling the jurisdictions to meet. Currently, there was no
enforcement mechanism regarding the timelines in the Metro Plan.
Councilor Brown said it made sense (not to have timelines) especially when they had complex changes which could take longer than six months in order to do a good job.
Mr. Metzger said they would not remove the 120 days developers needed to get a decision and move ahead on projects.
Councilor Brew said in some land use decisions, there were consequences for not making a decision in a timely manner. He asked if there were consequences in this situation.
Mr. Metzger said there were no consequences in the current Metro Plan language for these type of amendments. There was no statutory step to enforce a timeline since there was no requirement for a
timeline. When a community made a policy, they tried to keep those timelines in good faith. If the
Councils and Commissions were committed to act in good faith and doing the job right, there was no need for a timeline.
Councilor Brew asked if including timelines in the Metro Plan could open it up for legal action.
Mr. Metzger said in the current development codes, there was permission to modify the timeline or process by agreement of the participating jurisdictions. In the future, if they saw they weren’t going to meet a certain timeline, they could meet as joint officials to modify the timeline. They would not
likely be exposed legally. Mr. Miller said because there was no State provision, there was no grounds of legal action so it was
not likely an issue. Each jurisdiction had land use codes that included language specific to the timeline waivers for government issued plan amendments only, but not for citizen initiated amendments. One of the reasons the Lane County Planning Commission didn’t recommend the timelines was that the
majority of Metro Plan amendments were initiated by the jurisdictions.
Board Chair Leiken said that explained it well. Today, they were looking to amend Chapter IV, which
was not site specific. If looking at an amendment that was site specific, it would fall under the code section of 120 days. He recommended they leave out the timelines. Because the cities and County
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 5 of 7
were required to follow SB100, it was impossible to meet a timeline for certain actions. If each city wanted to have them, they would need to create a separate Comp Plan. Timelines would cause more
harm in the short term for these types of amendments. Anything that had to go through the Department of Land and Conservation Development (DLCD) would not get done within a timeline.
Mr. Metzger said there could be amendments that could be site specific. He explained. In those cases, they could be processed in a timeline. Legislative amendments generally took more time.
Councilor Poling asked if there was any thought of adding language about a mutually agreed upon extension of those dates for complex issues.
Mr. Metzger referred to the wording being proposed. There was policy in each jurisdiction’s development code that allowed timelines or processes to be modified for government initiated
amendments.
Councilor Pryor said there were potentially two problems. The first was that a timeline could be too
short because of the complexity. The other problem was an amendment that went into limbo and never got resolved. The more likely problem was that the amendments couldn’t get done in time rather than things going into limbo. Instead of having a timeline to prevent that, they could include language that
staff would get back to the elected bodies to provide a status report. He would prefer removing the timelines, but including language for a check-back.
Councilor Syrett said she felt that any Metro Plan amendment initiated by the jurisdiction wouldn’t go into limbo as they would like to see it completed. With three jurisdictions working on something, it could extend for a long time and having a timeline could help move things along; however, since they
were separating those things out it wasn’t as much of an issue. She would worry more about keeping in timelines that weren’t required and had no enforcement mechanism. That could provide an
opportunity for confusion and interference in a process that served no purpose. She liked the idea of a
check-in process, but not a strict timeline.
Mr. Goodwin said with government initiated amendments, there would always be a government
initiator who would be more than happy to continue to progress to an agreement by keeping in touch with the other parties involved.
Councilor Moore asked if there was anything in the agreement that said the jurisdictions would work together in good faith. She could see one jurisdiction wanting something to go forward and another
that didn’t and holding up the process. Mr. Metzger said there was nothing in the Plan at this time, but language could be added that “Metro
Plan amendments would be processed by each jurisdiction in good faith”. Councilor Moore said that could be helpful for future elected bodies.
Councilor Clark said these were government initiated, but many things relied on getting things done
efficiently. They were now in the seventh year of their new urban growth boundary (UGB) in Eugene
and it was still not completed. He would be in favor of a set timeline.
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 6 of 7
Board Chair Leiken noted an amendment in the past that involved a lot of conflict. Since then, there hadn’t been an issue where one jurisdiction tried to stop another jurisdiction from moving forward, in
part because of some language changes made at that time. He noted the time it took to get changes made in order to get PeaceHealth RiverBend in Springfield as an example. He felt they didn’t want to put themselves in a bind, plus there was no enforcement.
Commissioner Farr said the nature of some people was to drag things out in hopes it would go away. He was concerned about the possibility of a third party lawsuit that could halt a project. He asked if
there was a possibility of a project going away if it didn’t meet the timeline.
Mr. Metzger said they currently had timelines with no enforcement and some things did get delayed.
Commissioner Farr said a timeline was great if there was enforcement.
Mr. Metzger said it was helpful to hear objections from the other party in the beginning in order to address those from the start. There was always a possibility of failure of an amendment if no
agreement could be reached, with or without a timeline. Commissioner Farr said in the future it could be issue.
Councilor Ralston said he was satisfied with the explanation and was fine removing timeline.
Commissioner Stewart said most recently Lane County initiated a Metro Plan amendment regarding the co-terminous boundary with Springfield’s UGB. That process took in excess of two years and not due to any one jurisdiction dragging their feet. If there was a 120-day timeline, it could have signaled
that process had gone past that date. This was a very complicated process and a lot of work was done between the City of Springfield, Springfield Utility Board and the County. He was hesitant to put in
timelines because these amendments were often very complicated. He said in the nine years he had
served, they had tried to move things along the best they could. They had limited staff who worked very hard.
Mayor Piercy said perhaps a 120-day check-in would be more appropriate than a timeline. That didn’t put a limit on when something had to be completed.
Councilor Brew said he felt that if they included the extension process in their individual documents, they should have it in the shared Metro Plan as well.
Mayor Lundberg said no one initiated something in a frivolous manner, but with a goal and purpose in mind. She was fine with check-in points as long as it was not burdensome on staff. Sometimes
constituents did ask about the process. She didn’t want to include specific timelines. She referred to the process they went through for the co-terminous boundary and the time it took.
Mr. Metzger asked if there was consensus of setting a 120-day check-in and leaving off the timeline.
Board Chair Leiken asked if the check-in would be done administratively or if it needed to be with the
joint elected officials. He felt it should just be done administratively among staff.
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 7 of 7
Councilor Pryor said a simple communication memo to the elected officials could suffice.
Councilor Brown noted that if anyone saw a problem after receiving the memo, a work session could be called.
Mayor Piercy said 180 days would be more reasonable for a check-in. Mr. Metzger asked if they could take care of this administratively. Yes.
Consensus was to go forward with the ordinance without timelines. The check-in of 180 days could
be included into the implementing development codes with all three jurisdictions adopting identical
language in their respective codes.
Mayor Lundberg confirmed that the ordinance with no timelines would be coming forward for the
public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 6:58 pm.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene City Council at 6:58 pm.
Commissioner Leiken adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 6:58 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,
THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2013
A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield, City of Eugene and Lane County was
held in the Springfield Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 4, 2013 at 7:00pm with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Present from Springfield were
Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present.
Mayor Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. Present from Eugene were Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilors Brown, Zelenka, Poling, Clark, Evans, Syrett and Pryor. Councilor Taylor was
absent. Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz and other Eugene 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, Sorenson and Stewart. Commissioner
Bozievich was absent (excused). Planning Manager Matt Laird and other Lane County staff were also present.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Amendments to Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).
Commissioner Leiken opened the public hearing for Lane County and noted this was their second reading. He read the ordinance title for Lane County: ORDINANCE NO. PA1300 IN THE MATTER
OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN
TEXT, CHAPTER IV; ADOPTING A SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Lundberg said this was a first reading for the City of Springfield. The second reading would take place on November 18.
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery read the ordinance title for the City of Springfield: ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER IV; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
Board Chair Leiken closed the public hearing. He asked for a motion.
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing
City of Springfield City of Eugene
Lane County
Springfield City Council Regular Meeting
Page 2 of 2
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SORENSON TO MOVE THE SECOND READING AND SETTING THE
THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE PA1300 TO NOVEMBER 19, 2013 AT NO TIME CERTAIN. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – BOZIEVICH).
Discussion was held regarding keeping the record and hearing open.
Ms. King said they would need to close the record and then the hearing.
Mayor Lundberg re-opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to keep the public record
open. She noted the options available.
Commissioner Stewart suggested that since there was no public comment, they go ahead and close the record and hearing.
It was noted that the City of Eugene was scheduled to take action on the ordinance on November 18. Mayor Piercy closed the public record and public hearing for the City of Eugene.
Board Chair Leiken closed the public record and public hearing for Lane County
Mayor Lundberg closed the public record and public hearing for the City of Springfield after hearing no objections from the Springfield City Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lundberg called for a recess of the Springfield City Council at 7:05 pm.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene City Council at 7:05 pm.
Commissioner Leiken adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 7:05 pm.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest: ____________________
City Recorder
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 4, 2013 at 7:15 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith and Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
7:15 pm. Mayor Lundberg reconvened the Springfield City Council’s regular meeting from the joint
elected officials meeting.
ORDINANCES
1. 2012 Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan.
ORDINANCE NO. 6303 – 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 Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. 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 Council conducted a public hearing on October 17, 2013. No testimony was received in
opposition to the proposed 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.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6303. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
November 4, 2013
Springfield City Council Regular Meeting
Page 2 of 3
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. Parking of Recreational Vehicles.
ORDINANCE NO. 2 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNCIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, MOTOR VEHICLES, BY AMENDING
SECTION 6.050(2) TO CLARIFY LIMITED TIME FOR PARKING OF VEHICLES ON CITY STREETS
Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. Currently, Municipal Codes Section 6.050(2) limited parking of an RV to no more than 2 hours
between midnight and 7 a.m. This limitation prevented residents from moving their RV out of storage
the night before a trip so that they may prepare for a trip to begin the next morning (unless they had sufficient space on their property for off-street parking). There were safety reasons to restrict RV on-
street parking, including reduced visibility. However, as Springfield attempted to increase urban
residential density this limit would increasingly present challenges to RV owners. Staff recommended that the limit be changed to a maximum of 12 hours within any 72 hour period. This would permit RV
owners whose lot size did not permit off-street parking to park the vehicles on-street once before a trip
and once at the end of a trip without violating the code. Both Transportation staff and the Police Department believed this was a more reasonable limit and recommended that the Council adopt this
ordinance following the second reading. Councilor Woodrow asked how the determination of hours was made. She noted that the hours were
listed differently in two places and asked for clarification. Mr. Goodwin said the proposal was 12 of 72 hours. It was determined by calculating time needed for
someone going away in their RV over the weekend. He explained.
Councilor Woodrow said with a 12 hour limit, if someone got off work on Thursday evening and
brought their RV home at that time, they would need to be out by 5 a.m. the next morning. She would like that period of time extended to 24 hours, but would settle for 16 hours.
Councilor Ralston said 16 hours made more sense if they moved forward with the amendment. He asked what kept people from living in their RV and just moving it around. He had seen that happen.
Mr. Goodwin said if someone repeatedly did that, the City could use other parts of Chapter 5 that were nuisance codes.
Councilor Ralston said it would be difficult to catch them.
Councilor Moore said a way to deal with that could be to stipulate that the RV had to belong to the residence, or connected somehow with the residence.
Councilor Ralston said he could support that additional language and the change to 16 hours.
Councilor Brew asked if this was complaint driven. Yes. He didn’t realize there was a restriction on
parking of RVs and noted that it was often done in his neighborhood when relatives visited.
November 4, 2013
Springfield City Council Regular Meeting
Page 3 of 3
Mr. Goodwin said the current code allowed parking for 2 hours between 12:00am-7:30am.
Councilor Woodrow said this was generated by several complaints. In looking at the code, it seemed they needed more leeway for people packing up their RV to go away for a long weekend. There wasn’t always room in the driveway. It gave people an opportunity to do something without going against an
ordinance. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
Councilor Ralston suggested staff bring this back with language to address their concerns.
Mr. Goodwin said language would be added that limited this to RVs parked adjacent to the applicable
residence, and to change the hours from 12 to 16.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:25 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, NOVEMBER 18, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 18, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also
present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused).
1. Lane Regional Air Protection Authority (LRAPA) – City’s Participation.
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery presented the staff report on this item. The City of Springfield
had been a member of LRAPA since its creation. In the past few years, there had been discussions
about participation and funding at the Council and Budget Committee. If the Council wanted to terminate participation, it must do so by providing written notice no later than January 1 of the year in
which participation was to end.
LRAPA was created in 1968 to achieve and maintain clean air in Lane County with the support of its
member entities (Lane County, Eugene, Springfield, Cottage Grove and Oakridge) through a combination of regulatory and non-regulatory programs and activities. The City of Springfield paid annual dues of $21,220 and that amount was expected to stay the same for next year. If the City
terminated its participation, there would be no Springfield member of the LRAPA Board and LRAPA would continue to provide services in Springfield unless either Lane County or the City of Eugene terminated participation. There was no indication that either Lane County or the City of Eugene had
plans to terminate participation at this time. If either were to terminate, DEQ would take over enforcement responsibilities and any non-regulatory programs provided by LRAPA would cease. Mr.
Towery outlined some of those responsibilities. LRAPA had provided estimated costs to implement
local ordinances if LRAPA did not exist. For Springfield they suggested a range of $54,345 to $92,279 depending on whether monitoring & reporting were included. That analysis appeared to be
the result of prorating LRAPA’s costs to all the member entities. City staff and the City Attorney had
concluded that the City was not obligated to enforce an LRAPA type program and the language in the state statutes about cities taking on this responsibility was permissive.
Mr. Towery noted that Councilor Ralston served on the LRAPA Board as the Springfield representative. LRAPA Executive Director Merlin Hough was in the audience and available to answer
any questions. Councilor Brew said he had served on the LRAPA Budget Committee for the past three years and
asked to have this work session in order for LRAPA to know about funding before going into their budget process.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 18, 2013 Page 2
Councilor Moore said she would be interested in seeing LRAPA’s budget. She also noted the
reduction in dues over the last few years from Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County and asked how that affected LRAPA’s services. She had recently read that the City of Eugene was looking at their
budget and may be considering their dues to LRAPA. She asked if there were other regional areas that had agencies similar to LRAPA.
Mr. Towery invited Mr. Hough to come forward to help answer those questions. He said if the Council was concerned about the dues amount for Springfield, staff had the ability to negotiate a lower dues
amount. Even if the City of Springfield reduced their dues significantly, Springfield would still have a
place on the Board, unless they actually terminated the IGA.
Mr. Hough said LRAPA’s overall budget varied depending on pass-through dollars. Their core budget
was just under $2M per year. About 2/3 of the budget was from permit fees from the industries they regulated and the other 1/3 was a combination of Local funding, State funding and Federal air grant
funding. When LRAPA was first formed in 1968, it was all general funded by Local, State and
Federal. Over time, under the Federal Clean Air act, there had been pressure that permit programs be self-supporting. That explained why the majority of their funding was now from permit fees. The
original philosophy of forming LRAPA was that it would be a more effective way to handle regional air issues and that had proven true. At one time, all of Willamette Valley was covered by three local air districts. LRAPA was the only one that had survived. All of Washington was covered by local air
agencies and most of California. The partnership with LRAPA had been very effective and efficient. The core budget was mostly spent on personnel. Staffing had been reduced from 23 FTE in 2008 to 16 FTE currently. They were able to maintain the 16 FTE, in part due to the recent funding from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). LRAPA focused on making sure they got the most important work done, but there were some things they were no longer able to do with the reduced
staff. The letter from LRAPA regarding the EPA funding was distributed. Overall LRAPA had been
very successful in receiving other grants as pass-through funds. He explained the wood stove replacement program which was funded by a grant that had been focused in Oakridge, but also had
served many Springfield businesses. Mr. Hough said the funds from the permit fees went primarily to
staff for administering those grant programs. Permit fees were also required to cover their share of the administrative costs of the agency and the air monitoring. There were some capital expenses for
replacing monitoring equipment. Councilor Woodrow asked about the relationship between the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) and LRAPA, and if most of the time was spent reaching federal standards. Mr. Hough said most of their efforts were in solving local problems while remaining aware of federal
standards. LRAPA coordinated closely with DEQ to match their requirements. They found that by maximizing compliance of the industries they worked with they were able to further reduce emissions into the atmosphere, and also protect the industries from federal oversight. That had been very rare in
Lane County and his only recollection of that occurring was when a business had chosen not to work with LRAPA.
Councilor Woodrow said because they were set up to do that, they were able to do it more efficiently than cities doing it on their own.
Mr. Hough said that was correct. LRAPA had a good relationship with the DEQ and the EPA. That made it easier for LRAPA to focus on the issues rather than discourse. DEQ spoke during the work
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 18, 2013 Page 3
session with the Lane County Board of Commissioners and was very supportive of LRAPA. It was
also useful in that there were two voices for Oregon when addressing national issues.
Councilor Moore asked if permit fees would go to the DEQ if LRAPA no longer existed. Mr. Hough said that was correct and it would remain self-supporting. Where it would hurt was in the
implementation of the local programs, such as the wood stove program, that were key in meeting the air quality health standards. All of those programs were critical in meeting standards which was
important for public health and economic development.
Councilor Woodrow said there were times DEQ wasn’t timely in expressing their standards. She
asked if he saw a credibility factor for LRAPA as a buffer between the DEQ and local business.
Mr. Hough said he admired the DEQ, but noted that the more local the government the better.
LRAPA was able to work leaner and provide a quicker response time to the local community.
Councilor Moore said if Springfield and other jurisdictions didn’t contribute, it would mean
dismantling of LRAPA. She asked if it would be possible to bring it back if that occurred. Mr. Hough said it would be very difficult. There was leveraging in their funding which was why
LRAPA was able to provide more services locally than the cities or county. LRAPA had to at least match the State general fund and they were able to do that even now with a reduced fee. They also had to have a 40/60 match with the Federal grant, but more importantly needed to meet a maintenance
of effort requirement or get an exception. He explained. When State funding got cut and local funding got cut, there was no way to meet that maintenance requirement so LRAPA filed the exception letter.
That was what the EPA letter addressed. What helped them to receive the exception was having
everyone in and supportive of the request. At their current reduced staffing, this reduced maintenance of effort was sustainable as long as all of the partners could stay at that level.
Councilor Moore asked if the Federal funding was calculated like Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding.
Mr. Hough said maintenance of effort should be the same as last year. That was to prevent someone from taking their Federal Air Grant as a way to reduce their share of the commitment. The Federal Air
Grants were very restrictive in that way. Mayor Lundberg said there were two decisions: the first was whether or not to support the local air
protection agency; and the other was the funding piece. She was not a big fan of duplicating services, and interactions with her former employer and LRAPA was not positive. During the last Budget Committee meeting, one of the members had a poor experience with LRAPA. On the other hand,
Eugene, Lane County and Springfield were still participants of LRAPA. Several years ago, all three were considering withdrawing, yet had gone back and forth since then. The City budget was not yet
known so they couldn’t make the funding decision at this time. She knew it was difficult for LRAPA
when jurisdictions were constantly going back and forth.
Mr. Grimaldi said there was no indication the other partners would be pulling out of LRAPA. In terms
of Springfield’s budget, they continued to struggle. This time of year, there was typically a deficit and that was the case this year, although not as bad as it was one year ago. It would be interesting for
Council to go through the priority of services process to narrow it down to citywide or funding outside
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 18, 2013 Page 4
agencies. If Council pulled out, the organization would still exist, but without a Springfield
representative which was something to consider. There were a number of filters Council could use to determine which way they wanted to go. They could also wait and make it part of the Budget process.
They needed to plan for budgeting one way or another out of respect for LRAPA. When jurisdictions had reduced or foregone funding in the past, it was temporary and had been resumed. There was an advantage to citizens of being able to go to a local board or director rather than someone at a State
level.
Mr. Hough responded to the concern raised during the Budget Committee meeting. He had followed
up with the member who had complained and was able to provide information about the follow-up that had been done. She was pleased with the actual follow-up and what had been done. He commented on
the duplication of services. Permitting was done by LRAPA, but funds went to LRAPA and would go
to State if done by the State so there was not a duplication of services. The key to local programs was that the State didn’t have the insight into local issues. He noted the services being done in Klamath
County compared to those done here. Mr. Hough said he would be interested in knowing which
businesses had issues with LRAPA and the specifics so he could have a chance to follow-up.
Councilor Ralston said as long as LRAPA existed we needed to have a Springfield representative. He didn’t like duplication of services, but understood that LRAPA would continue to exist if Springfield dropped out, as long as Eugene and Lane County stayed in. The real question was whether or not to
continue to pay dues. LRAPA would survive without our funding and Springfield would still have a seat on the board. He asked what it would cost the City to provide what was required by the State if LRAPA went away. The City was not obligated to enforce an LRAPA type program, but there could
be other things required. He asked what services would have to be provided and which they could choose not to enforce. He felt $21,000 was a good deal and it was not likely the City could do as well
at that cost.
Mayor Lundberg said it was good to ask what the City was required to do. She referred to Lane
Council of Governments (LCOG) and how the dues were calculated. In regard to LCOG, smaller
communities needed more help than larger communities because they didn’t have staff for many things. Similarly, Oakridge needed more help from LRAPA due to their air quality. She asked if there
was a way to look at the dues in terms of the need and use of each community. Mr. Towery said the City was not required to provide any services if LRAPA didn’t exist. The State
statute was permissive. Springfield could establish programs like LRAPA locally and pursue those with our own staff or contract with another agency. That was not likely the question today since it was not likely LRAPA would go away. If they did go away, the City would have at least six months’
notice. If Springfield took over programs exactly like LRAPA with staffing and funding, there would be a cost. Staff hadn’t done those types of analyses at this time.
Councilor Ralston said he didn’t feel we would be required to do anything so our costs would be zero. Klamath County had a different problem and was required to monitor.
Mr. Hough said there were commitments this area had made as part of the State implementation plan. That legal question was worth looking into further. The advice LRAPA received was that the area was
required through EPA approval or the area would be subject to federal sanctions if they didn’t follow
through on those commitments.
Councilor Ralston said he would like to have that answered.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 18, 2013 Page 5
Councilor Brew said those he knew that had worked with both LRAPA and DEQ, preferred to work with LRAPA. They preferred to be regulated and work with LRAPA. He would be interested to hear
from others in the business community who had dealt with both LRAPA and DEQ. The City was interested in creating a good business environment and if LRAPA improved services here, it could be worth the investment.
Councilor Woodrow said she felt working with a local agency could be a buffer for businesses. She
was more comfortable with that, especially for the limited cost.
Councilor Wylie said LRAPA was a benefit to local businesses and developers. They needed to weigh
how that affected our total community in making it friendlier for our businesses. Part of the City’s
responsibility was to think about how it affected our business community and neighbors.
Mr. Hough said their Citizens Advisory Committee had done surveys compiling results from
businesses they had worked with and had found those results to be favorable with an extremely high service rating. Those results had been provided to Community Development Manager John
Tamulonis. The Chambers of Commerce in both Eugene and Springfield had polled their members and provided strong letters of support to LRAPA. There were likely mixed results, but overall the ratings were favorable.
Mayor Lundberg asked to get those reports in a future Communication Packet.
Councilor Moore spoke regarding vehicle emissions. She asked if there was a connection between the standards for emissions and LRAPA monitoring air quality.
Mr. Towery said the issue of auto emissions was not a driver in the work of LRAPA or the DEQ. Auto emissions did contribute to some of the CO2 monitoring done by LRAPA, but that was not the crux of
regulation LRAPA monitored.
Councilor Moore asked how emissions were being monitored.
Mr. Towery said the expectation was that reducing vehicle miles traveled reduced the level of emissions. No one was actually monitoring the emissions.
Councilor Moore noted that she had asthma and there were days in Springfield when they did have poor air quality.
Mr. Hough said the Department of Motor Vehicles was a significant part of the air pollution picture. Cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels had brought about improvements in emissions. They had never
reached a level where they needed inspections as in some of the larger cities.
Councilor Woodrow said having a local agency such as LRAPA could be a selling point for industry
in these times of continued interest in air quality and quality of life.
Mayor Lundberg said for the most part, general consensus was for Springfield to continue to
participate with LRAPA. There would be further discussions regarding the budgetary question.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 18, 2013 Page 6
Mr. Grimaldi confirmed that staff would provide additional information, but would not schedule
another work session on this topic. They would not look to withdraw from LRAPA. Correct.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:56 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________ Amy Sowa
City Recorder
MINUTES OF THE
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 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 Monday, November 18, 2013 at 7:00pm with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Board Vice-Chair Bozievich opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Ralston,
Woodrow and Brew. Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused). Springfield City Manager Gino
Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present.
Present from Lane County were Board Vice-Chair Bozievich and Commissioners Farr, Sorenson and
Stewart. Board Chair Leiken was absent (excused). Lane County Planning Manager Matt Laird and other Lane County staff were also present.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Glenwood Phase 1 Update (Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00005 & TYP411-00007, Lane County File No. PA 11-5489).
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery read the Springfield ordinance title into the record: ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND (2012-077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF SPRINGFIELD FILE
NUMBERS TYP411-00005 AND TYP411-00007 AND LANE COUNTY FILE
NUMBER PA 11-5489, AND AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Commissioner Bozievich read the Lane County ordinance title into the record. ORDINANCE NO. PA 1308 - AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH LAND USE
BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND (2012-077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF SPRINGFIELD FILE
NUMBERS TYP411-00005 AND TYP411-00007 AND LANE COUNTY FILE
NUMBER PA 11-5489, AND AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND
ADOPTING A SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 2 of 7
City Planner Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. Tonight’s meeting was to discuss Glenwood Phase 1, the approximately 275 acres along the Franklin and McVay riverfronts in
the Glenwood area of Springfield. Beginning in 2008, staff worked collaboratively with citizens and our partner agencies to develop an updated Glenwood Refinement Plan that articulated the community’s vision for a vibrant, dense and multimodal riverfront that enhanced access to and
appreciation of the Willamette River. The public hearing phase of that adoption process was initiated before the joint Planning Commissions in October 2011. Later that year, the joint Planning Commissions unanimously recommended adoption of a package of amendments for Glenwood Phase
1, including Metro Plan, Refinement Plan, Development Code, and Zoning Map amendments. With modifications made to the proposed amendments as they were reviewed by the Planning Commissions
and elected officials, the City Council unanimously adopted Glenwood Phase 1 in June of 2012. The
Board of County Commissioners unanimously co-adopted Glenwood Phase 1 in September 2012. Later that month, attorney Bill Kloos filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal on behalf of his client,
Shamrock Homes. Since then, staff had been working through the state’s land use appeals process
with the assistance of legal counsel.
In July of this year, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) issued its final decision which remanded portions of four of the nine alleged assignments of error. The purpose of tonight’s public hearing was to receive testimony on the amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Springfield Development
Code, and findings of compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals that were proposed to address the Remand. Notice was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on September 11, 2013 and notice was also mailed to property owners and those participating in the
proceedings to date on October 4, 2013. Notice of this public hearing was also published in the Register Guard on October 4, 2013.
As documented in the minutes in Attachment 2 of the agenda packet, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this package of amendments on October 15th. Without making any modifications, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Council and Board adopt the
amendments as documented by the Final Order in Attachment 3 of the agenda packet. Staff then presented the proposed amendments to the Council and Board at the October 17th work session, the
minutes of which constituted Attachment 4 of the agenda packet. Attachment 1 of the agenda packet
contained the proposed Ordinance and Exhibits. Exhibit A of the Ordinance was the staff report addressing the Remand. The remaining, very lengthy exhibits were comprised largely of studies that
aided in substantiating the findings in Exhibit A.
In summary, staff proposed amending findings in Exhibit A of the Ordinance such that they justified
policy choices in the updated Refinement Plan consistent with the City’s legally acknowledged Economic Opportunities Analysis. They also proposed amending the findings in Exhibit A of the Ordinance to provide a more adequate explanation for why policy choices in the updated Refinement
Plan were consistent with the Metro Plan’s housing policies. In addition, staff proposed designating
the Glenwood Riverfront a Multimodal Mixed-Use area, a designation that captured the essence of the dense, highly connected mixed-use and multimodal environment that the Glenwood Phase 1 policies
and regulations aimed to facilitate and support. This was a statewide designation that did not exist when the Plan was originally adopted but was included in laws that went into effect this year, laws under which LUBA based its assessment of the appeal. Additionally, staff proposed amending the
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 3 of 7
findings in Exhibit A of the Ordinance to explain and find support for the original congestion calculations.
Finally, staff proposed amending the establishment of a standardized 75-foot Greenway Setback Line to one that would be established on a case-by-case basis as development occurred and would be based
on an inventory of natural resources. On this topic, she emphasized that at this time, staff was not proposing to establish a new Greenway setback line. Since the standardized setback line was intended to streamline the development review process and was based on staff’s knowledge of the riverfront’s
natural resources at that time, the City had undertaken the key task associated with establishing a setback line for property owners and would offer it free of charge to applicants to cite in their
individual application. Property owners could, if they chose, conduct their own inventories to justify
the setback line they requested to establish at the time of development.
In closing, adoption of the amendments summarized was the next step towards seeking
acknowledgement of the Phase 1 Glenwood Refinement Plan and would bring the City of Springfield one step closer to providing certainty to developers and the public regarding what was planned for the
Glenwood Riverfront. Following tonight’s public hearing, a joint meeting had been scheduled for December 2nd for the Council’s second reading, the Board’s third reading, and the opportunity to adopt the amendments.
Councilor Brew asked if the adopted amendments, if approved, would go back to LUBA to determine if they were sufficient.
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said if the changes were adopted, they could be appealed to LUBA, but would not otherwise go to LUBA for review.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing for the Springfield City Council.
Board Vice-Chair Bozievich opened the public hearing for the Lane County Commissioners.
1. Gregory James, Springfield, OR. Mr. James said the Planning Commissions, City Council
and Board of Commissioners thoroughly examined this plan through the public hearing process during 2011 and 2012 and it was well vetted throughout the community. What was
before the Council and Board were amendments that addressed items which LUBA issued
remand on and represented reasonable modifications to the Plan necessary to bring the Plan into compliance with all legal technicalities of statewide planning goals. On October 15, 2013,
the Springfield Planning Commission unanimously recommended the elected officials adopt the amendments. Adopting these amendments to address the LUBA remand was imperative to providing certainty to the development community and ensuring the vision of establishing the
Glenwood Refinement Plan could be achieved. He appreciated the elected officials taking the
time to hear the public comment as it was extremely important for this community.
2. Steve Moe, Glenwood, Eugene, OR. Mr. Moe said after the interstate bypassed Glenwood, the area took a downward spiral and became a place to be avoided. Glenwood eventually became part of the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB) and the City quickly took notice
of the potential redevelopment in existing areas and potential new development in
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 4 of 7
undeveloped areas. State land use laws and the Metro Plan stated that a Refinement Plan in Glenwood would be created. Springfield began to meet with citizens and property owners to
get ideas of how they envisioned the future of Glenwood. Outside studies, application of State land use laws, and input from area residents, business owners, and property owners provided factors to consider. Every idea was considered and molded into the Glenwood Refinement
Plan before the Council and Board tonight. The City put together some visions and met with the public to get more comments and thoughts. The Glenwood Refinement Plan was created in that process and submitted to Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions.
All Planning Commissioners approved the Plan and forwarded it to the City Councils and County Commissioners. At that time, one landowner stepped forward and wanted a zone
change to accommodate his particular property. That would have meant that the entire public
process would need to be repeated, but it was too late. The Plan was submitted to the City Councils and Commissioners in public hearings and was approved. Now Glenwood could
move forward and attract builders and developers to shape our community, but the property
owner appealed the Glenwood Refinement Plan to LUBA making it unusable for a year and a half. LUBA recommended changes and the City made those changes. The elected officials
now had the revised Glenwood Refinement Plan and it should be approved, although the unhappy property owner was still not pleased. He hoped that further appeals and legal issues didn’t happen. When the Refinement Plan was under an appeal, even for a small issue, there
were those that believed the entire Plan could be challenged. Some developers may see that as a problem and look elsewhere to develop. They had worked many years to get Glenwood to where it was now; an attractive community respected by the surrounding cities. He asked them
to please pass the amendments and ask those that were not entirely pleased to join in and make Glenwood a place they all could be proud of.
3. Rick Satre, Springfield, OR Mr. Satre distributed a copy of his testimony to the elected officials. Tonight he was speaking as a twenty-plus year small business owner, thirty-plus year Springfield resident, with nearly forty years of experience as a land use planner. He was
speaking in favor of the proposed amendments. The Glenwood Refinement Plan was an excellent example of community planning. Development of the Plan involved three years of
extensive public involvement. The Planning Commissions, City Council and Board of
Commissioners thoroughly examined the Plan through a public hearing process throughout 2011 and 2012. Since adoption of the Plan in September 2012, momentum had continued to
build in the Glenwood Refinement Plan area. Since then, Council had annexed Franklin
Boulevard, including NEPA and initial designs. A capital improvement project was underway extending sanitary sewer service along McVay Highway and private sector property owners
were stepping forward. There had been one private property annexation completed since adoption of the Plan, and there were three others in process in the riverfront area. The development community had noticed the Plan, liked the Plan and was beginning to invest their
hard-earned dollars to help implement this community vision. No plan was perfect and all
plans were at risk of legal challenges. The appeal before them represented an individual property owners’ point of view. That property owner had a right to that point of view. While
development of the Plan represented the perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders, everyone needed to have their due opportunity. In his opinion, the appeal was a hiccup in the road to acknowledgement. The package of amendments addressed the items upon which
LUBA issued its remand. These proposed amendments represented reasonable modifications
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 5 of 7
to the Plan that were necessary to bring the Plan into compliance with the complexity of Oregon land use law and statewide planning goals. Adoption of the amendments would bring
the Plan one step closer to acknowledgement. In the end, it was all about success, finding balance, and bringing certainty to the development community, property owners, business owners and the City. He was in favor of the proposal before the elected officials.
4. Bill Kloos, Eugene, OR. Mr. Kloos distributed a ten-page letter to the elected officials. He was representing Shamrock Mobile Home Park and Yoon Shin. A year ago his client asked to
be left out of the Plan, but was told no. They identified in a letter to the City the shortcomings of the Plan and filed an appeal. Ten issues came back from LUBA and city staff had addressed
each of them in a systematic fashion. The letter being provided was the initial take of he and
his client of the legal shortcomings in the City’s response. They didn’t have time to prepare this letter for the Planning Commission due to a short turn-around time. They did ask for
more time, but were again told no. He also provided a CD with a study that staff was relying
on, but was not in the record. The ten issues were laid out in the letter. Mr. Kloos referred to a comment from Mr. Moe and said his client didn’t ask for a change, but asked to be left alone.
His client had an 11-acre mobile home park fully built out. Under the original scheme, his
property was split-zoned between medium density residential and commercial. His long-term plan was to recycle that mobile home park and develop some retirement housing. Under the
old zoning, he could do that; under the new designation of mixed-use employment, his site was destined to remain what it was for decades because his client believed there wouldn’t be a market for the kind of uses allowed in mixed-employment for decades at that location. That
meant he would not be able to redevelop and that his existing use would stay. That was counter to the City’s objectives. The City wanted to see that site renovated into something more functional for the City. If his client’s property were left alone, that would likely happen.
Mayor Lundberg asked the Council if they wanted to keep the record open. They did not.
Commissioner Sorenson asked if the documents submitted would be part of the County record. Yes.
Vice-Chair Bozievich asked the Commission if they wanted to keep the record open. They did not.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing for the City of Springfield.
Vice-Chair Bozievich closed the public hearing for Lane County. He asked Mr. Laird to explain why a third and fourth reading was needed for this item due to a minor change in a County ordinance.
Mr. Laird said they needed to have a third reading to announce a fourth reading on December 17, 2013, due to another ordinance that was needed to amend Chapter 10 which referenced the Glenwood
Refinement Plan. That was not in the original packet, so would be added on December 3, and again on
December 17.
County Counsel said what was in front of the Board of Commissioners was an ordinance which amended the Refinement Plan. They recently found that they were missing the ordinance that amended the Lane Code in Chapter 10 which referenced the City of Springfield Code. That needed to be
referenced in Chapter 10 so a separate ordinance was needed. The first reading on the new ordinance
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 6 of 7
would be December 3, with a hearing and adoption on December 17. This didn’t affect the substance of anything, but was needed to allow the decision on both to be done at the same time.
Discussion was held regarding the readings and adoption dates of the current and new ordinances.
Vice-Chair Bozievich clarified that tonight they needed a motion to accept the second reading, setting a third reading for the December 2 joint meeting, knowing that the County would need a fourth reading for final action on December 17. Separate from that, the County would need a first reading of
a separate ordinance on December 3, and set the second reading for December 17.
Commissioner Sorenson asked about the Board schedule and an Executive Session. It was noted that
the notice for that meeting had gone out today.
Commissioner Stewart asked if City staff had a chance to review the letter provided by Mr. Kloos. No.
After staff reviewed the letter, he would like to have information brought back for the next reading. If there were substantive changes from that information, additional readings could be required.
Councilor Ralston asked about information that was handed out by Mr. Kloos. He asked what the difference was between leaving Mr. Kloos’ clients’ land zoned the way it was and changing it with the
new Plan. Ms. Markarian said it was being re-designated to employment mixed-use, which was similar to the
campus industrial zoning in Gateway. That was a use that would permit light manufacturing and also offices compatible to light manufacturing. There could also be support commercial services.
Councilor Ralston asked if no one had talked to the owners during this process.
Mr. Grimaldi said there was an extensive process of public hearings and opportunities to comment and
notices over three years.
Councilor Ralston said the property owner had the opportunity. The unfortunate thing was that it had
caused this delay and could cause another delay.
Councilor Moore asked a question about a comment in the letter. Mayor Lundberg said the record was closed. The letter would be responded to by staff once they had a
chance to review the letter. Mr. Laird said they were not required to hold a joint meeting on December 2 since the record was
closed. They could meet individually if they chose. Commissioner Stewart said because Springfield would bring back information regarding the letter, he
would prefer a joint meeting to have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and hear their responses.
November 18, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 7 of 7
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FARR TO MOVE THE SECOND READING AND SETTING A THIRD READING FOR ORDINANCE PA 1308 TO A JOINT MEETING ON DECEMBER 2, 2013 7:00PM AT SPRINGFIELD CITY HALL. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – LEIKEN) ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at7:35 pm.
Commissioner Leiken adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 7:38 pm.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
City Recorder
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor Attest:
____________________
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in special regular session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 18, 2013 reconvened at 7: 42p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also
present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused).
ORDINANCES
1. Amendments to Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan).
ORDINANCE NO. 6304 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER IV; ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City Planner Mark Metzger said the Council, along with the City of Eugene Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, heard the report on this issue on November 4. There was general consensus about the content of the Chapter IV amendments. Tonight was the second reading and consideration
for adoption. The adopting ordinance and staff report with findings were before the Council this evening.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6304. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:44 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, NOVEMBER 25, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 25, 2013 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) Applicant Interviews.
Members from the Springfield High School Marching Band entered the meeting. The bandleader said they had been asked by an anonymous source to play the University of Oregon fight song.
Mayor Lundberg thanked the band on behalf of the Council. She noted that she was a Springfield Millers graduate.
Housing Program Analyst Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. The CDAC consisted of
six at-large positions from the community, one representative from the City Council and one
representative from the Planning Commission. The CDAC advised the City Council on all matters related to the City’s housing and community development activities which were funded annually by
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and HOME Investment Partnerships Program
(HOME) funds received from HUD. CDAC applications were encouraged from lower-income citizens and residents of lower income neighborhoods, racial and ethnic minorities, senior citizens,
disabled individuals and female heads of households. All CDAC applicants must live within the city limits or the urban growth boundary of Springfield.
The positions available were the result of upcoming term expirations of Michael Heckard and Hadee Sabzalian, and the appointment of Tim Vos (former at-large member) as the Planning Commission representative. The notice of available positions was posted on September 25, 2013 and applications
were accepted through November 1, 2013. Three applications were received. Incumbent Michael Heckard is seeking reappointment to the CDAC.
The Mayor and Council introduced themselves and then interviewed the following candidates: Chris Stole, Shirley Glover, and Mike Heckard.
The following questions were asked of each applicant:
1. Why are you interested in serving on the Community Development Advisory Committee?
(Mayor Lundberg) 2. What skills or experience do you have that may be beneficial to the Committee? (Councilor
Ralston) 3. Because the resources are so limited, some worthwhile projects may not get funded. How would you decide which projects receive funding and which do not? (Councilor Moore)
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 2
4. What do you see as Springfield’s greatest community challenge? (Councilor Brew)
Mr. Ko described the funds and the different types of projects that received funding.
Following the interviews, the Council discussed the qualifications of the applicants. It was agreed upon by the Council that the three candidates would all be appointed to the CDAC during the January
6, 2014 Council meeting.
2. Downtown Demonstration Project.
Traffic Supervisor Brian Barnett presented the staff report on this item. Lighting needs in downtown
had been identified as a top priority by Council, citizens, and consultants responsible for the Downtown Circulation Study. Department staff in consultation with City Manager’s Office developed a phasing plan for street lights and enhanced crosswalk treatments in the downtown area from South A
Street to B Street and the Willamette River to 10th Street. The proposed plan broadly outlined the
priority order of installation along various streets, subject to available funding.
The projects being considered in this phasing plan included pedestrian scale lighting similar to the lighting installed on A Street from Mill Street to 5th Street in the Summer of 2013, and the addition of a thermoplastic brick pattern between crosswalk stripes. Project phasing with anticipated costs were:
• Phase 1 = Main Street, Pioneer Parkway East to 5th Street $270,000
• Phase 2 = Main Street, from 5th to 7th St. and 5th Street from S. A St. to Main Street and 6th Street from Main Street to City Hall $415,000
• Phase 3 = 5th St., from Main Street to B Street and City Hall Fountain Plaza $380,000
• Phase 4 = Main Street from Mill to Pioneer Parkway East and from 7th St. to 10th St. $465,000
• Phase 5 = Pioneer Parkway East from S. A Street to B Street and 7th Street from S. A Street to B St. and A Street from City Hall to 7th Street $780,000
• Phase 6 = All Streets not included in Phases 1-5 and Phase 7 west of 7th Street from S. A Street to B Street $2,200,000
• Phase 7 = Mill Street from S. A Street to B Street and Mill Plaza $620,000
• All streets east of 7th Street to 10th St. from S. A Street to B Street and S. A Street from Willamette
River to 7th Street not included in Phases 1 – 7 $3,000,000 (these streets should be improved as
developed under a land use decision)
• Completed Phase = Street lights and bike markings on A Street from Mill Street to 5th St.
completed in 2013.
Phases 1 through 5 could occur one each year if a consistent funding source was identified. About
$500,000 in Urban Renewal funds were available over the course of a three year period. Funding was reserved for other anticipated urban renewal projects including the Façade Improvement Program,
Downtown Manager Funding, Initial Way-finding Signage Placement, Parking Enforcement Contract
(possibly shifting to other agency) or Bike Parking. Urban Renewal funds should allow completion of Phase 1 and a portion of Phase 2. The Mill Street portion of Phase 7 was anticipated to be funded by
Federal STP-U and would occur upon funding. Mr. Barnett described some of the projects and the possible funding for those. He discussed the
luminaries along A Street. The phasing on the map was flexible and dependent on funding. They planned to include receptacles on the lights for holiday decorations. He also discussed crosswalk marking and some possible aesthetic treatments for those areas. He asked about the holiday lighting
and if it was the Council’s interest to have those on all of the time or only when the street lights were
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 3
on. He asked if they were satisfied with phasing and if they were satisfied with the A Street
improvements.
Councilor Ralston said they could do the phases in-order or out-of-order depending on funding. Mr. Barnett said the projects were listed by importance and where they could get the most out of their
funds and timing.
Councilor Ralston said the only one that could be done now without running out of money was Phase
4. It was on Main Street and would be visible, giving people a chance to see how it looked. Since the City didn’t have the funds, he asked where the Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA)
could get involved.
Mr. Barnett said SEDA was the entity that was providing the first $500,000 allowing Phase 1 and a
portion of Phase 2 to be done. There was already empty conduit available along Main Street, so that
project could come in under the estimate.
Councilor Woodrow said she would like to have the holiday lighting on all of the time. She had been asked about the lighting and phasing and what was going to happen on Main Street. She understood Councilor Ralston’s reasoning for Phase 4, but would prefer not to go with that recommendation. The
biggest areas of growth and energy were in the first two phases. She would like to stay with Phase 1 and 2 in that order. As more funds came in, they could look at the other phases. It would enhance improvements already made.
Councilor Moore said she had a sensor that turned the lights on when it got too dark and asked if
something like that could work for the holiday lights. Otherwise she would prefer they come on earlier
than street lights and through the night. She asked about funding for the City Hall plaza update and if any of those funds could be used for lighting. She loved the lights on A Street and thought the
additional lights around the plaza could really light up the front of City Hall.
Mr. Barnett said Phase 3 on the map included the City Hall plaza. A count of fixtures was included in
that phase. They wouldn’t be able to use street funds for any of the plaza work since it was not part of the street system. If the plaza was done sooner, that project could be done sooner.
Councilor Brew asked about the additional cost of leaving the lights on all the time in terms of wiring. Mr. Barnett said it depended on how they controlled the street lights. If they used a central control
scheme, they would have to pay extra for receptacles on the same pole. If they used independent controls and put a photo cell on each fixture for the street light, they would need to choose the type of receptacle depending on whether the lights came on with the photocell with the street light or was on
all the time. Because there was conduit already in place downtown along Main Street, there were more options. The more sophisticated the choices, the more costly to build although they could be less
costly to operate. The holiday lighting was a very small amount relative to the overall cost.
Councilor Brew asked if SEDA could lend more than $500,000 to the City.
Mr. Barnett said there were a number of other SEDA projects planned with SEDA funding.
Mr. Tamulonis said SEDA had a current agreement with the City to borrow up to $1.5M for the urban renewal areas in Glenwood and Downtown. Glenwood had seen a good increase in tax increment so it
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 4
could fund its own projects now. SEDA already borrowed funds for other things so there was a finite
amount of funds still available. SEDA would need to borrow some funds to do these projects which would bring the amount close to the maximum. If SEDA wanted to borrow more funds, the City
would need to look at increasing that maximum amount. Mr. Grimaldi said if the Council was interested in doing more around this project, staff could come
back with some other options.
Councilor Brew said Phase 1 and 2 made sense to him. He asked if there were any energy credits or
other funding programs available for these lighting projects.
Mr. Barnett said the City did contact SUB regarding incentives and pass through credits with a
participating partner. They were not sure if it would be allowed for these projects. If they were doing a one-for-one fixture replacement, that would be eligible for an incentive. He was not certain how they
would view that when the City would be installing additional poles and fixtures.
Councilor VanGordon said he liked the order and Phases 1 and 2. He agreed that if they got one done
below budget, he would like to see options for finishing Phase 2. It seemed like Phase 6 was broken up and included everything around City Hall and a little piece of South 6th Street.
Mr. Barnett said he wasn’t satisfied with that outcome, but Phase 2 was getting too big. Main Street was the first and second priority, and Phase 3 was trying to connect A Street and City Hall and the Plaza to Main Street. The next step would be to try to get good pedestrian connections north and south
and into the neighborhoods. Councilor VanGordon said Phase 3 seemed expensive.
Mr. Barnett said some of that cost was in the plaza.
Councilor VanGordon liked the phases and felt it kept the momentum going in downtown.
Mr. Barnett referred to the SEDA funding and Phases 1 and 2. If they were more cost effective in the
initial phases, they would continue to extend. As long as he could get SEDA funds, he would keep doing projects.
Councilor VanGordon said sometimes they had opportunities to do more due to market conditions.
Councilor Woodrow asked how long it would take to do each phase. Mr. Barnett said after tonight’s discussion he would have clarity of Phase 1 and could have something
going into the ground by May. Each phase would be about the same cycle of six months. An option would be to bid alternates in the projects along with the original bid. There were generally four phases for each project: 1) design; 2) bid advertisements and award; 3) waiting for materials to arrive; and 4)
construction.
Councilor Ralston said he was fine doing Phase 1 and 2 in order because Main Street was the most
important, but he felt Phase 4 was more important than Phase 3. He wanted it to be more visible.
Councilor Brew asked if it could be a cost savings if they ordered all of the materials at once.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 5
Mr. Barnett said material cost relative to the installation cost would be about 30-40% of the contract.
There was enough quantity in each phase to get a reasonable price. He wasn’t sure we would benefit much by ordering extra quantity, but would check into it further.
Councilor Wylie said she understood Councilor Ralston’s thinking, but felt there had been a lot of thought that had gone into the phasing. They were anxious to get the City Hall Fountain plaza going,
too so she didn’t want to move Phase 3. Phases 1-4 were very important. They wanted to see downtown illuminated as it made people feel safe and welcome.
Mayor Lundberg said lighting in downtown came to be a forefront project after hearing from the Main Street businesses. The businesses could do some things such as the façade program, but the lighting
was up to the City. She was very supportive of these projects and liked the phasing the way it was
outlined. Moving things to A Street was beneficial. Downtown wasn’t just Main Street. There were a lot of activities going on along A Street and there was a lot of potential. She liked having the holiday
lights on all the time because it made downtown seem friendlier. The new lighting brightened up A
Street and she would like everything else to look like that. She felt a discussion was needed regarding uses for the SEDA funds.
Mr. Tamulonis noted there was a list on the bottom of the AIS of where SESDA funds were being used. Staff would be back to discuss priorities with Council.
Mayor Lundberg said the responses to Mr. Barnett’s questions were:
• Keep the phasing the same – Yes
• Holiday lighting on all the time – Yes
• Liked the look of the lighting on A Street – Yes
3. City of Springfield Voters’ Guide or Pamphlet.
City Recorder Amy Sowa presented the staff report on this item. During the December 10, 2012
Council Goal Setting, the following was suggested as a two-year goal:
• Explore the viability of a voter’s guide for Springfield.
This topic was brought up again during the February 4, 2013 Council Work Session and Council asked for a separate work session to discuss this topic further.
Council expressed a desire for the City to prepare a voters’ guide or pamphlet for local candidates and measures that could be more affordable to candidates and political action committees than the State
Voters’ Pamphlet, and would provide important information to Springfield residents.
ORS Chapter 521, which governed voters’ pamphlets and the requirements for both state and county
distribution of voters’ pamphlets, was silent as to the production of a municipal voters’ pamphlet. Currently, Eugene and Beaverton were the only two cities in Oregon who produced their own voters’ pamphlet. The City of Cottage Grove did not normally create a voters’ pamphlet, but did produce one
for the March 13, 2012 Special Election. In checking with those cities, we learned that producing a paper voters’ pamphlet that was mailed to residents required considerable staff time and could cost anywhere from $12,000- $15,000 (printing and mailing costs) for a city our size.
Another option would be to create an online voters’ pamphlet. This would reduce the cost of printing and mailing, while still providing a venue for citizens to access information on local candidates and
measures. It was suggested that a postcard be mailed to every postal address in the Springfield
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 6
jurisdiction with directions to access the online guide or pamphlet to ensure equal access to all
citizens. The cost of such a mailing would be approximately $5,900.
Ms. Sowa noted that the recommendation from the State and the City Attorney’s office was that if we chose to produce a voters’ guide that we have a specific process that followed the same guidelines as the State Voters’ Pamphlet to keep it consistent. They also suggested engaging stakeholders to get
input on the Guide, and titling it differently to distinguish it from the State Voters’ Pamphlet. Another suggestion from the City Attorney if an online voters’ guide was created was to mail out a postcard to
every citizen in Springfield with the link to the guide and information about where paper copies could
be found. This would ensure the guide was accessible to everyone.
Ms. Sowa said there would be some initial staff time in creating the process and developing criteria.
Council would need to adopt an ordinance for any code changes. The rest of staff time involved would be during each election period and would involve accepting information, reviewing it and formatting
the webpage. She reviewed the costs for mailing printed pamphlets or an online pamphlet.
Councilor Brew asked about the potential of having a TEAM Springfield website since Springfield
Utility Board, Willamalane Parks and Recreation and the School District would all have elections. In doing so, the costs could be shared with a larger portion paid by the School or Willamalane since their boundaries are larger than City limits.
Ms. Sowa noted that Councilor VanGordon had discussed using the TEAM Springfield newsletter to provide the information. That publication normally went out in the spring and fall close to election
times.
Councilor Ralston said he didn’t care what other big cities were doing. He didn’t see an existing
problem and felt our citizens were already well informed. There was the State pamphlet for candidates to pay to post their information. It should be the candidates cost and not a cost to the citizens of
Springfield. He felt it was a bad idea.
Councilor Moore said she was thinking of candidates for Willamalane, SUB and the School District
and agreed it should be a TEAM Springfield effort. It was nice to have a local publication for local issues that came before the voters. She asked if the City paid to have something put in the State Voters’ Pamphlet. No, only the committees that were for or against paid to include information. She
also noted that it was difficult to get information on other positions such as Judges. She was in favor of putting together something locally.
Ms. Sowa said the cities that did put together a Voters’ Pamphlet did charge the candidates or committees, but at a reduced cost from the State.
Councilor Brew said as a new candidate running for the first time, he was very unclear about the state process and how to get into the pamphlet. His opponent had said the same thing. Having something
controlled locally could make it easier for those trying to file. It wasn’t unreasonable to charge for the
service, but it could be a mininal amount. Anything that supported democracy was good and informed democracy was even better.
Councilor VanGordon said he was supportive. During the last major election, there was a high level of participation which showed growth in the community’s commitment to get involved, but only about
half of the candidates were in the State Voters’ Pamphlet because it was $750 which was cost prohibitive for city council candidates. He felt there was not adequate information on candidates for
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 7
the School Board, SUB Board and Willamalane Board for citizens to make an informed decision. This
idea would really help the citizens and get more information out about the candidates. What the candidates or committees would be charged would need to be discussed further to make sure it helped
offset the cost. He was in favor of discussing this with TEAM Springfield. Moving it in line with the State requirements and timeline would make sense. He would prefer it to be online, but suggested potentially removing the TEAM Springfield newsletter to offset the cost.
Mr. Grimaldi clarified that he was suggesting not putting out a newsletter in exchange for the cost of
mailing a postcard. Yes.
Councilor VanGordon said this could be open to all candidates that would normally be on the
Springfield ballot.
Mr. Grimaldi said if they included positions such as County Commissioner, the boundaries wouldn’t
line up.
Councilor VanGordon said perhaps it could just be open to TEAM Springfield partners only. He felt it
was outlined well and he would be in favor of doing it for the 2014 Election and only once a year during the Primary in the even and odd years to capture city and district elections.
Councilor Ralston said a pamphlet would cost $15,000, and he felt candidates should be able to figure out how to use the State Voters’ Pamphlet. If it was done, it should be sustainable on its own, but he felt it would be cost prohibitive if only a few candidates were running. It would end up costing the
citizens of Springfield and he didn’t feel the City was responsible for the district elections. The system had worked and he didn’t feel the City should have to pay for something that was not needed.
If they chose to move forward, he would prefer the online ballot and the least expensive way to mail
out the postcard.
Councilor Wylie felt we could do a better job of informing the citizens and getting more people out to
vote. Information was always helpful in making good decisions. Voters were asked to elect people into important positions yet they didn’t have information on those candidates. It was something we
needed to continue to look into and was a good idea. The costs could be mediated if necessary. Councilor Woodrow said it could benefit our community. She liked the online version with the
postcard and limited paper copies made available. She also liked providing more information to the community for the elections. She would like to have the conversation with TEAM Springfield prior to going any further to hear their thoughts.
Councilor Moore said the Lane County safety measure affected the citizens of Springfield. She didn’t know how to include the County boundary, but there were issues in the County that did affect the City.
She would like to look into how we could get information out about County issues, rather than County candidates.
Mayor Lundberg said she was supportive of any type of pamphlet. Her first choice would be an online guide and noted that many people could access that from the Library if they didn’t have a computer at
home. She asked if citizens in all four district boundaries received the TEAM Springfield newsletter.
Yes. She would like to look at how to do that cost effectively by including an insert rather than mailing a postcard. She agreed that there were many candidates on the ballot that people didn’t know
anything about. She noted the judges on the ballot and the importance of those positions.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 8
Mr. Grimaldi asked if they wanted the judge positions to be included in the City’s pamphlet. Their
jurisdiction for those positions was the same as that for County since they were for Circuit Court.
Lauren King from the City Attorneys’ Office said if Springfield created a voters’ pamphlet, everyone would still have the ability to participate in the State Voters’ Pamphlet.
Mr. Grimaldi said based on the discussion and the amount of work to explore, it would likely be the next fiscal or calendar year before this could be ready rather than the 2014 Primary.
Councilor Wylie said perhaps staff could look into asking that candidates whose names appear in the City of Springfield ballot include a biographical statement.
Councilor Ralston said that would mean someone would need to find out who those candidates were.
Ms. King said the recommendation of staff was to be very thorough in looking at statutes and
requirements and determining what should or should not be included.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 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, NOVEMBER 25, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in special regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Recognition of Brian Hambright – Hall of Honor Inductee.
Mayor Lundberg said for the last several years she had the honor of attending the 162nd Infantry Hall
of Honor ceremonies. There were very few that received this honor and Mr. Hambright was one of the inductees this year. Mr. Hambright also worked for the City of Springfield and Mayor Lundberg
wanted to honor him here before the Council. She asked him to tell the audience about his service and this award.
Mr. Hambright said the 162nd Infantry Hall of Honor included members that had been part of the unit
for a long time and had distinguished themselves and were nominated. He worked in Operations for the City for the last fifteen years.
Mayor Lundberg said this was such an honor for those inducted.
2. Recognition of Committed Partners for Youth – Nick Symmonds 800M Donation.
Mayor Lundberg presented this item. On September 13, 2013 the 2nd Annual Symmonds Straight
800M Race was held in Springfield. This race was the world’s only sanctioned 800 meter road race and is named for 5-time 800 meter U.S. Champion, 2-time Olympian and Springfield resident Nick
Symmonds. This fun and family-friendly road race provided opportunities for walkers and runners of
all ages to participate.
Nick Symmonds has long been a supporter and participant in the Big Brothers Big Sisters Program through Committed Partners for Youth. To honor that agency, proceeds from the race were donated to Committed Partners for Youth. Jay Baughman, Executive Director, was present to receive the check in
the amount of $1000.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 2
3. Recognition of Acting Chief Rick Lewis.
Gino Grimaldi presented this item. Captain Richard ‘Rick’ Lewis was appointed as Interim Police
Chief on March 30, 2013. Acting Chief Lewis had been with the Springfield Police Department since September 12, 1983. Over
the past eight months, Acting Chief Lewis had continued the excellent work of the department during some very challenging times.
Mr. Grimaldi said it had been a pleasure working with Chief Lewis. He was a remarkable individual with amazing character and leadership qualities, and was committed to the department and this
community. The department was an excellent department and he had made it better during his term as
interim Chief. He presented Acting Chief Lewis with a plaque. He thanked him for his time as interim Chief, and said he looked forward to working with him in the future.
Mayor Lundberg spoke on behalf of the Council and said how much they appreciated Officer Lewis stepping in during this time. The issue was feeling safe in the community and having our citizens
protected, knowing our Police Department was doing a job they could be proud of and could support. Acting Chief Lewis had exemplified that and he was a fine officer.
Chief Lewis said it had been a great experience and was easier than he thought it would be due to the hard work of the employees in the Police Department. It had been an honor to serve as Acting Chief during this time. He thanked the Mayor and Council for their service as volunteers. He appreciated all
they did and had come to realize the effort and care they put into their jobs.
Councilor Woodrow said as a member of the Police Planning Task Force, they appreciated all he did
for them this year.
4. Proclamation Honoring Oregon City, Oregon Reserve Officer Robert Lipke.
Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation honoring Oregon City reserve officer Robert Lipke who
was killed recently in the line of duty. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
a. Approval of the October 2013, Disbursements for Approval.
2. 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
3. Resolutions
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 3
a. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-17 – A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD COMPETITIVE BIDS, REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS, OTHER PERSONAL
SERVICES CONTRACTS EXEMPT FROM BIDDING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PURCHASING REGULATIONS, AND APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC CONTRACTS IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS DURING THE PERIOD COMMENCING DECEMBER 3, 2013 AND CONTINUING THROUGH JANUARY 5, 2014 WHILE THE
COMMON COUNCIL IS IN RECESS.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-18 – A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CITY PROJECT P20353;
JASPER TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PHASE 1
4. Ordinances
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6305 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2.702, 2.706, 2.708, AND 2.709 OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PUBLIC
CONTRACTING. b. ORDINANCE NO. 6306 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2.703, 2.706, 2.708,
AND 2.710 OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PUBLIC
CONTRACTING.
c. ORDINANCE NO. 6307 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNCIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, MOTOR VEHICLES, BY AMENDING SECTION 6.050(2) TO CLARIFY LIMITED TIME FOR PARKING OF
VEHICLES ON CITY STREETS
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Willamette Community Health
Solutions DBA Cascade Health Solutions to Provide Inmate Medical and Dental Services to
the Springfield Municipal Jail.
b. Authorize City Manager to Enter an Agreement with Washington State Correctional Industries to Provide Springfield Municipal Jail Inmate Meal Services.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
ITEMS REMOVED
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not
yield their time to others.
1. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield – Annex a 0.18 Acre Parcel with an Existing
Single Family Dwelling Located at 1891 Hayden Bridge Road.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 4
ORDINANCE NO. 6308 – AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, AND WILLAMALANE PARK
AND RECREATION DISTRICT; AND WITHDRAWING THE SAME TERRITORY FROM THE RAINBOW WATER AND FIRE DISTRICT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. A request for annexation to the City of Springfield had been received from Randy and Jessica Fackler, owners of property municipally
addressed as 1891 Hayden Bridge Road. The subject annexation territory was a residential parcel with
an existing single family dwelling that had a failed septic system. The property was less than 300 feet from the nearest City sanitary sewer line, and in accordance with OAR 340-071-0160(4)(A) a new
septic system could not be installed on the site and it must be connected to the sanitary sewer. The
property owners were requesting annexation to enable a connection of the dwelling to City sanitary sewer to be in compliance with SDC 5.7-100 et seq. Mr. Limbird referred to a map showing the
location of the property.
The City Council was authorized by ORS Chapter 222 and SDC Article 5.7-100 to act on annexation
requests. In accordance with SDC 5.7-155 and ORS 222.040, 222.180 and 222.465, if approved the annexation would become effective upon signature by the Mayor and acknowledgement by the State.
The subject property was currently zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) with an Urbanizable Fringe
Overlay (UF-10) and was located inside the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB). Urban services were available at the frontage of the subject site, or could be extended to serve the property. According to the most recent Lane County Assessment and Taxation records (Tax Year 2013) the
subject property had an assessed value of $104,606.
The subject property was within an established neighborhood with an existing suite of urban services.
A sanitary sewer lateral was previously stubbed into the property frontage when a public sewer project
was extended along Hayden Bridge Road. Consistent with Council direction regarding single lot annexation due to a failed septic system, the applicant was allowed to connect to City sanitary sewer
immediately upon payment of required fees in order to alleviate the potential health hazard situation.
The annexation area was contiguous to the City limits and could be served with the minimum level of key urban facilities and services as required in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan. The staff report confirmed the annexation request met the criteria established in SDC Section
5.7-100. Staff was recommending concurrently annexing an approximately 250-foot long segment of Hayden Bridge Road right-of-way west of 19th Street to fill in a gap in the city limits and provide
contiguity for the subject property.
Staff recommended the City Council (a) approve the annexation of territory and public road right-of-way to the City of Springfield and Willamalane Park and Recreation District; and (b) withdraw the
same territory from the Rainbow Water and Fire District. Councilor Brew asked if either 19th Street or Hayden Bridge Road were annexed to the City of
Springfield. Mr. Limbird said they were not. There were segments of 19th Street that were in City limits. He also noted that at the time the packet was being prepared, staff learned that the water district should be
listed as Rainbow Water District, rather than Rainbow Fire and Water District. The corrected ordinance was in the agenda packet.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 5
Councilor Ralston said the map in the agenda packet showed this was an island parcel. That could be
an issue in the future for others in that area that had septic tanks and were nowhere near a connection.
Mr. Limbird said that was correct. This was the fourth in a series of health hazard annexations for this vintage of home in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The typical life span of a septic system was around fifty years if well maintained. There were large expanses of similarly aged houses that were not contiguous
to the City limits which could present a challenge to both the City and property owner. Staff was trying to incrementally annex right-of-way adjacent to these properties to help fill in the gaps. Council
policy was to approve annexations upon request.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6308. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Leslie Weaver, 605 ScottsGlen Drive, Springfield, OR. Mr. Weaver said more than two years
ago two flowering plum trees along his front parking strip were weakening and damaged by a wind storm. He cut one of them back severely with the intent of removing and replacing both. Before he could get to the second tree, he was visited by City staff and felt he was threatened
and received appropriate notice of ordinance violation which included detailed responsibility instruction and timing for removal and replacement of the two trees. A second copy, a planting
requirement, was mailed to him but had a conflict with the document that was hand delivered.
He was fortunate to have the City remove the trunks and branches, but for the next several weeks he was under continual observation by the City to obey the two-week timing ordinance.
The parking strip was unworkable due to rain and therefore he could not satisfy the City with
their frequent drive-by inspections. He had two replacement trees out front in large pots and provided the City with the name and phone of the City approved license stump remover that
was in queue as soon as the soil conditions would permit. Under the watchful eye of the City, the stumps were removed and the new trees planted, although he violated the City’s very specific threat of a two-week time requirement. He didn’t argue the City’s right to the
ordinance, but felt the City should assure they did not hand out conflicting instructions to
satisfy an ordinance. He also noted that since that time two years ago, the City had removed a multitude of damaged or aged trees along his street to stump level, but not one other citizen
had replaced them per the ordinance that was so strictly applied to him. He doubted any other homeowner had been delivered or mailed the tree replacement ordinance. He asked if the City emulated the Federal Department of Justice by selectively applying laws to only certain
citizens and ignoring law enforcement to the favored.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
Mr. Grimaldi said the department director could speak to Mr. Weaver this evening and once they
found a determination, staff could report back to Council.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 6
Mayor Lundberg told Mr. Weaver that Len Goodwin, Development and Public Works Director, would follow him out and speak with him about his concerns.
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Craig Enberg, Springfield, Oregon, Regarding the Springfield Police Chief Recruitment.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BIDS
ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments
a. Police Planning Task Force (PPTF) Appointments.
Police Senior Management Analyst Mike Harman presented the staff report on this item. The Police Planning Task Force had two At-Large positions available from the resignations of Pat Mahoney and Fred Simmons. The two available candidates, Carol Ford and Isa Aviad, were
interviewed at the October 28, 2013 Council Work Session for the two vacant At-Large positions. Staff recommended both be appointed.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPOINT CAROL FORD AND ISA AVIAD TO THE POLICE PLANNING TASK FORCE
WITH TERMS EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2017.THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Woodrow reported that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC) had received an Innovation and Sustainability Award from the Portland Business Journal and Sustainable Business in Oregon. The award was received for the poplar farm harvest. The MWMC was the only government agency to win an award for
sustainability. The MWMC had gone out of their way to be innovative and creative with some of the challenges they faced and she had been impressed with what they had done
during her time on the commission. Environmental Services Division Manager Matt
Stouder, went to Portland to receive the award. 2. Councilor Moore said she had attended the Regional Economic Summit on November 14
and 15. Many City staff members were part of that process and it was extremely
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 25, 2013 Page 7
informative. It was good to see so many people from the region coming together. The
discussion about the industrial cluster was very interesting.
Councilor Moore also attended the retirement reception for Chuck Forster, who served for twenty-two years as the Executive Director of the Lane Workforce Partnership.
Councilor Moore said she attended a Health and All Policies workshop on November 21 as part of the Lane Livability Consortium from Lane County Health. The workshop was
how to think about health in all of the policies made by elected officials. She would
provide the information from that workshop to the Mayor.
3. Councilor Woodrow referred to the economic summit and said she followed the story of
the wool from Eastern Oregon to Pennsylvania that would be made into 650 uniforms for the Olympics. It was amazing to follow that route and realize that wool from sheep in our
state would be part of the uniforms in Russia. Ralph Lauren was making the uniforms.
4. Mayor Lundberg thanked staff for their work on the regional summit. There were
representatives from the federal government that heard from the local folks about economic development. Staff had worked very hard in a partnership with the City of Springfield, City of Eugene and Lane County. She also thanked Mary Cronin from Smith
Dawson and Andrews for her help. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
Mr. Grimaldi noted that there would be a Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) meeting next. He recommended they stay in the Council Chambers for that meeting.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:29 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, DECEMBER 2, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, December 2, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also
present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused).
1. Downtown Plaza(s) and Library Design and Impacts.
Senior Management Analyst Courtney Griesel and Project Manager Jim Polston presented the staff
report on this item. Staff were currently working on several key projects in the Downtown area;
Acquisition and development of Mill Plaza, research into the development of a new library facility, and design and upgrades to the City Hall Plaza and entryway area. Additionally, during the April 22nd
Council Work Session, Council asked staff to consider the addition of an open space park or plaza on
the site of the current Carter Building.
Tonight’s discussion would attempt to assemble information specific to Mill Plaza, Library design needs, a Carter Building area plaza and parking lot upgrades, and the City Hall Plaza and entry upgrades including. Information will include discussions on:
• Possible Carter Building Parking Lot Upgrades to Create Flexible Open Space
• Principles of a Successful Plaza & Mill Plaza
• Library Design & Timing
• Exploration of a Carter Building Area Plaza; Timing & Costs; and
• Designs and Timing of City Hall Plaza & Entry Upgrades
Ms. Griesel provided a power point giving an overview of the different plaza ideas. Mill Plaza, Carter Building Plaza, Library Design, Carter Building Parking Lot Upgrades, and City Hall Plaza would all
be discussed. Downtown plazas, as noted in the Downtown Urban Design Plan, were important as a
place for the community and helped create a family friendly downtown. A plaza was also a way to identify opportunities for retail and entertainment uses. She discussed what made a successful plaza
including being located in the center of the city or urban area, being surrounded by buildings with active ground floor retail uses, usable by people of all ages, with large paved areas for holding public events, and simple and elegant designs.
Ms. Griesel spoke regarding the Mill Plaza. The purpose was to have a plaza in the center of the city or urban area and at a crossroads for retail pedestrians, auto and transit. It would be surrounded by
buildings with active ground floor retail uses and would be a place for people of all ages, all seasons and all hours of the day. The Mill Plaza could fit those criteria.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
December 2, 2013 Page 2
Ms. Griesel said Council had discussed the possibility of using the Carter Building area for a Plaza so
staff looked into some possible options. The parameters staff kept within were that it needed to be temporary or able to flex into the new library design. There could be costs involved including
demolition of the current building. The total to build a temporary facility ranged from $400,000-$600,000. To fund that level of a plaza at that location would mean reprioritizing urban renewal funds. Some concerns included determining the main use for this plaza area and the development of a
potential library on that site in the future. Designs had been created by University of Oregon students through the Sustainable City Year project over the last couple of years and staff would be bringing
some options to Council for a possible new library. Not knowing the specifics of the design of a new
library made it difficult to determine how to create the open space of a plaza at this location. She referred to a chart showing the project timing of the City Hall Plaza & Entry, Carter Area Plaza,
Library Development and Mill Plaza. Earlier this year, Mr. Polston had come to Council with designs
for upgrading the current City Hall plaza and entry. Funds were available for that project and it was ready to go once Council provided direction to move forward. Once directed to move forward, this
project could be completed by summer of 2014.
Ms. Griesel said when looking at the Carter Plaza concept, they took note of the empty parking space
adjacent to the building. That site could be improved for other uses such as food carts and other gatherings and events. Some low-cost options could include places to hang lights and banners, a slurry seal and some landscaping. It was possible to use urban renewal funds for those improvements
as well, but again projects may need to be reprioritized. Councilor Woodrow said she didn’t remember that they had talked about demolishing the Carter
Building, but only using the parking lot to make it more of a gathering place with park benches or other things that could easily be removed if the Library were built. Since the parking lot on the other
side became paid parking, it had limited the amount of free parking available for people in that area.
That could limit the use of the Carter parking lot because it was an option for free parking. She would like to see the parking lot upgraded for food carts, benches and landscaping so it was more usable, but
could also be easily taken down. She noted the City Hall plaza entry design. She had a concern about
the information boards on the entrance and that they might impede people gathering at that location or affect access.
Mr. Polston pointed out the location of the information signs and that they were meant to be out of the way, but at a location where people could stop to look at them. One of Council’s ideas was to expand
the area and create a slightly elevated area to allow the existing wall to provide a variety of displays. Further discussion was held about the location of the information boards and if they would cause an
obstruction for access and gathering. It was noted that perhaps next time the Council met on this subject, they could go out to the entryway and look at it more closely.
Councilor Wylie said when the Farmer’s Market was in the Museum Parking lot, no improvements had been made yet it provided a good gathering spot for that use. That’s what she had been thinking
about for the Carter parking lot. It could just be a place that was suitable for functions without going
to a lot of expense. The goal was not to spend a lot of money or demolish the building, just to clean it up so it was more suitable. If they upgraded the City Hall Plaza, it would fit naturally for people to
move across the street to the parking lot for activities.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if the alternative of sprucing up the parking lot fit their need.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
December 2, 2013 Page 3
Councilor Wylie said they could start by just cleaning up the parking lot to allow gatherings, then look
at other amenities that might be added.
Councilor Moore said she didn’t envision the building being demolished, but asked if the City could paint the Carter building to make it look a little nicer. She did like the idea of doing something to the parking lot. She asked if they had already agreed on the aesthetics of the City Hall Plaza and referred
to the turf.
Mr. Polston said he had presented two concepts to the Council and had gotten direction to decrease the
amount of concrete. The goal was to make the plaza as large and usable as possible, while not pushing people out onto the sidewalks or street.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if Councilor Moore wanted further adjustments to the turf.
Councilor Moore said she did not care for turf and had seen turf that looked worn. She asked what the
advantages were in having turf and if there could be an alternative, such as a groundcover.
Mr. Polston said in order to provide green to the area, the turf was the best option. There were paver blocks and stamped concrete that could also be used. A groundcover would require long term maintenance and was less usable. The newer turf had been much improved and was of a better quality.
Ms. Griesel said the turf would be easy to replace if it was not working or wearing well. It had been an innovative idea they had considered.
Councilor Moore said another option could be pavers with something planted in between that could
absorb water. She asked if they would be cutting down some trees.
Mr. Polston said some of the trees planted around the City Hall Plaza had reached their end of life and
would need to be removed or replaced. The idea was to create larger areas for the trees to give them a
better chance of surviving longer. He pointed out the existing trees on the diagram and where they would be cutting out space.
Councilor Ralston said he wasn’t in favor of doing anything. He didn’t see a need to spend a lot of money on composite lumber or turf and was not excited about any upgrades.
Councilor Wylie asked about the life of the artificial turf and how it was maintained.
Mr. Polston said probably about 10 years with moderate use, conservatively speaking. Water filtered through like real grass, although staff would need to clean it if trash or other substances got on the turf.
Councilor Woodrow said she liked the idea of dressing up the entrance to City Hall. She felt it added class and exposure for downtown and went along with the other improvements for downtown.
Mayor Lundberg said she liked the concept of upgrading the City Hall Plaza, but didn’t like the artificial turf. She preferred the pavers with a ground cover growing between which would make them
pervious. She was more supportive of living landscaping.
Mr. Polston noted that adding live plants would be difficult for staff to maintain.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
December 2, 2013 Page 4
Mayor Lundberg asked staff to explore alternatives other than turf. Regarding the Carter parking lot,
she only wanted to clean the parking lot not tear down the building. There was a natural progression from the Fountain Plaza across the street and then over to NEDCO. There were opportunities to use
that parking lot in the summer. Ms. Griesel noted that NEDCO wasn’t looking for more outdoor space.
Mayor Lundberg asked about the purpose of the Mill Plaza.
Ms. Griesel said it would be used for community events and park activities.
Mayor Lundberg said they could use the Carter parking lot for those types of activities as well. If they
could use the Carter space to give a sense of community and a gathering place, then they had accomplished what was supposed to be done with the Mill Plaza.
Ms. Griesel said this could be an expansion of what NEDCO was doing and would be complimentary.
Mr. Grimaldi asked the Council if they had a cost limit for the modest improvements to the parking lot.
Mayor Lundberg asked Councilor Brew if he would like to weigh in first. Councilor Brew said no one wanted to take down the Carter Building, and he felt staff should consider
the Council’s opinion. He had no opinion on the turf for the City Hall Plaza, but wanted to make sure that whenever there was a change in surface, that it was not a tripping hazard.
Mr. Grimaldi apologized for any miscommunication. Staff’s recommendation in the agenda packet was the low-cost option, but they wanted to present all ideas to the Council.
Councilor Wylie said to determine a cost limit, it would be helpful if staff could provide a list of different treatments and associated costs. Some of the treatments could include electrical outlets for
use during concerts or for vendors, benches, crack seal or slurry seal and paint for the outside of the Carter Building.
Councilor Moore said it could be helpful to look at ten different things they could do in the plaza, such as concrete tables with checkerboards on them. They could put together ideas of what could be done at a low cost that would draw people to the City Hall Plaza area.
Councilor Brew said he would be hesitant to block the City Hall Plaza area since it was often used as an amphitheater. He understood Councilor Ralston didn’t want to spend any money, but felt some
improvements to the Carter parking lot would be positive and would show that the City was taking care of the property they owned.
Mayor Lundberg noted that the architect that had designed City Hall, Don Lutes, had meant for the steps to be an amphitheater. It was a great space for performances and adding activities across the
street would be a wonderful draw for people. They would have the gathering place they were looking
for and could possibly promote the concept of a new Library. It was also close to NEDCO.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
December 2, 2013 Page 5
Mr. Grimaldi said staff would bring back a menu of low-cost options for the Carter parking lot, look at
alternatives besides turf for the City Hall Plaza that would provide some cushioning for young children playing in that area, and would include a field trip to the City Hall Plaza area.
Mayor Lundberg said she wanted to make sure there was an area for honoring community members.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:51 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor Attest:
____________________ Amy Sowa
City Recorder
MINUTES OF THE
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 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 Monday, December 2,
2013 at 7:00pm with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council.
Board Chair Leiken opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Ralston,
Woodrow and Brew. Councilor VanGordon 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 Farr and Sorenson. Commissioners Stewart and Bozievich were absent (excused). Lane County Planning Manager Matt Laird and other Lane County staff were also present.
ORDINANCES
1. Glenwood Phase 1 Update (Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00005 & TYP411-00007, Lane County File No. PA 11-5489).
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery read the Springfield ordinance title into the record: ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH LAND USE BOARD
OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND (2012-077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF SPRINGFIELD FILE
NUMBERS TYP411-00005 AND TYP411-00007 AND LANE COUNTY FILE NUMBER PA 11-5489, AND AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Board Chair Leiken read the Lane County ordinance title into the record. ORDINANCE NO. PA 1308 - AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH LAND USE
BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND (2012-077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF SPRINGFIELD FILE
NUMBERS TYP411-00005 AND TYP411-00007 AND LANE COUNTY FILE NUMBER PA 11-5489, AND AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN
DIAGRAM AND TEXT AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND
ADOPTING A SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Mayor Lundberg noted that this evening staff would address the letter that was received from Bill Kloos during the November 18, 2013 joint public hearing. This was the second reading for Springfield
and the third reading for Lane County.
December 2, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 2 of 2
City Planner Molly Markarian reported that on November 18, 2013 the joint elected officials held a
public hearing to receive testimony on proposed modifications to the Glenwood Phase 1 amendment package co-adopted in 2012 to address the items that the City was remanded on in July. At that hearing, Bill Kloos, representing his client Shamrock Homes LLC and Yoon Shin, submitted a letter
into the record. Staff had produced a response to that letter which was included in the agenda packet. Given the significance of the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the Glenwood Riverfront Development in Springfield, staff felt it would be in everyone’s best interest to take more time to ensure the
response was full and complete. Staff recommended the elected officials deliberate on the amended Glenwood Phase 1 ordinance, but reserve their decision to adopt or not adopt until they returned from
the winter recess. At that time, staff would provide a comprehensive presentation in response to the
letter.
Mayor Lundberg noted that the City would move this ordinance out to a date following the Council’s
winter recess for a 3rd Reading.
Board Chair Leiken asked for a motion for a fourth reading for a January 28.
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SORENSON WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FARR TO MOVE THE THIRD READING AND SET A FOURTH READING FOR ORDINANCE PA 1308 TO JANUARY 28, 2014. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT). Mayor Lundberg thanked the Commissioners for coming to the meeting and noted that the Springfield City Council would continue their regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lundberg called for a recess of the Springfield City Council at 7:05 p.m.
Commissioner Leiken adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 7:05 p.m.
Minutes Recorder
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest: ____________________
City Recorder
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, December 2, 2013 at 7:05 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew.
Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith and Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
7:05 pm. Mayor Lundberg reconvened the Springfield City Council’s regular meeting from the joint elected officials meeting.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Tom Draggoo, Springfield, OR. Mr. Draggoo provided an update of the Main Street Program.
Working with Senior Management Analyst Courtney Griesel, the Main Street Committee was looking to hire a qualified and experienced manager for the Main Street Program. A couple of
interns had worked for them, but were not the right fit. The Art Walk was still going on the
second Friday of each month. It was well attended and nearly a dozen businesses participated. They also held specialty workshops, technical assistance, and training for downtown business
owners through the Hatch Incubator Program. He explained some of the topics in the incubator
program. They had social media including FaceBook and Twitter postings. The storefront resource center and extensive Library on Main Street training tools and business assistance had
continued to grow. The center had been upgraded to be more accessible and comfortable. The Economic Restructuring Committee conducted a survey which was distributed to the Council. He noted that 100% of the respondents commented on food and beverage, 93% of the respondents
wanted something to do with health and wellness and 43% of the respondents commented on housing.
Councilor Ralston asked if they had asked about housing downtown in the survey. Mr. Draggoo said the questions were related to downtown. They continued to track business
vacancies and the Springfield Renaissance Development Corporation (SRDC) purchased 331, 333 and 335 Main Street and was looking for their next project. The SRDC had started work
parties and were fixing up the building, which was the old H&R Block business. The Main Street
Program had included several grants for NEDCO’s programs. Mixers had been postponed until someone had been hired for the manager position. There were four major committees as part of
the Main Street – Organization Committee, Promotion Committee, Design Committee and
Economic Restructuring Committee. The Economic Restructuring Committee had been very active. The Design Committee had developed the façade improvement program which was active
and included a grant/loan program through NEDCO. The Promotion Committee primarily organized the Art Walk. The toughest was the Organization Committee which brought all of the players to the table. It had been difficult so they would be more proactive in getting people to
attend.
Mayor Lundberg said Council had just met regarding lighting downtown. She wanted to make
sure everyone knew the City was moving forward with that as quickly as they could. It could be
done in about six months. She asked the Downtown Committee to let businesses know.
Mr. Draggoo said he would be happy to relay that information. There weren’t many people that
understood the timelines for these things, but they applauded Council’s efforts to move forward with that project.
Councilor Moore said the Council had similar expectations about the Main Street Program and appreciated him providing an update. Communication was key in any program being successful.
Councilor Wylie said she was so excited about downtown growing. She was pleased to see people working together to make it happen.
Mr. Draggoo said they were all doing the best they could and they appreciated the support of the City Council. They would be coming back quarterly to provide a report to the Council.
It was noted that the City Christmas lights should be put up this week.
Mayor Lundberg noted there was another citizen that had requested to speak before the Council this evening, but had not yet arrived. She asked City Manager Gino Grimaldi if the citizen needed to speak to
the Council.
Mr. Grimaldi said the citizen was going to appeal the Historic Commission decision regarding placement
of a house in the Washburne Historic District. The appeal would go to the Planning Commission and needed to be filed by December 10, 2013. The purpose of him coming tonight was to let the Council know of his intentions.
Councilor Woodrow reminded the Council of the parade scheduled for Saturday, December 7 at 1:00pm.
Mayor Lundberg adjourned the meeting at7:20 pm.
Minutes Recorder
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest:
____________________
City Recorder