Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/3/2014 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) February 3, 2014 – Work Session b) February 3, 2014 – Regular Meeting DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2014 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 3, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Wylie was absent (excused) 1. Sewer Assessment Alternatives – Franklin/McVay Sanitary Sewer Extension Project #P21080. City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. The Sewer in Lieu of Assessment Fee was authorized under Chapter 3.356 of the Springfield Municipal Code and the rate was established through Council adoption of the Master Fees and Charges Schedule. This fee provided a mechanism for the City to assess a share of the cost to provide sewers from properties that did not participate in the construction of the sewer mains adjacent to their property. The existing fee formula provided in Chapter 3.356 (3) would result in collecting significantly more funds from developed parcels adjacent to the proposed McVay trunk line than necessary to pay for the line when this project was completed. This may discourage these properties from annexing to the City and connecting to the public sewer service in a timely manner and could hamper redevelopment in the McVay Highway corridor in the future. Staff provided three options for Council to consider if they desired to assess property owners along McVay Highway differently than the current fee formula and rate provided. Staff recommended Alternative 3, establishing a separate rate structure for Sewer in Lieu of Assessment Fee on the Franklin/McVay Sanitary Sewer Extension Project that would collect an equitable share of the cost to provide wastewater service to the benefitted properties. Mr. Vogeney said the Franklin/McVay Sanitary Sewer Extension Project would construct a trunk sewer that was both larger and deeper than the minimum needed to serve any one property, since the intent was to serve a large portion of the eastern half of Glenwood. Typically, direct connections from a property to a trunk sewer had not been allowed. Instead, connections were made to local wastewater mains (typically 8-inch pipes) located in side streets which then connected to the trunk sewer. When these local mains were constructed and paid for through redevelopment, the property owners would have met their obligation to construct their portion of the public system and thus would not be charged a Sewer in Lieu of Assessment Fee. Along McVay Highway, however, the properties were not currently configured in a way that would allow for the logical extension of wastewater mains to serve the properties. The existing properties City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 2 were a mixture of large and small lots with very few side streets branching off of McVay Highway for sewers to be installed in the future. As a result, most of the properties along McVay Highway could be connected directly into the trunk sewer with their individual lateral lines, and thus would not have met their obligation to construct their portion of the public system. These properties would then be subject to the Sewer in Lieu of Assessment Fee as authorized under Municipal Code Chapter 3.356(3). Mr. Vogeney noted the three options being presented and discussed the pros and cons: 1. Do not assess for this specific sewer construction project 2. Amend Municipal Code Chapter 3.356(3) to provide for more options for assessing fees 3. Adopt a resolution to set fees specific to this project that more equitably distribute costs 4. Apply the current formula to this project Councilor Brew asked if the $600,000 was the cost to place an 8” line all along McVay. Mr. Vogeney said it would not be the full length. He referred to a map showing the stretch of road that would be subject to assessment and noted that many of the properties would not be subject to the fee as they were already annexed into the City. Councilor Brew asked if the trunk sewer was on the list of system development charge (SDC) projects. Yes. He asked about how the full project was to be funded. Mr. Vogeney said the project to be constructed was slightly different than the project on the SDC project list. This project had over 6000 feet of pipe, some 8” and some 15”. All of the cost would be deducted from the SDC calculation. Councilor Brew asked if the property owners could get a credit if the full amount of $1.4M was charged when the property was redeveloped. Mr. Vogeney said the SDC credit would apply if that developer built the pipe to a larger size. Since the City was building the pipe and having it in place ready for connections, there would be no credit. The property owners would be paying full SDC charges with any of the options presented. The question was whether or not they would be charged an assessment and at what rate. Mr. Vogeney continued by explaining the highlights of Options #2 through #4. With Option #4, property owners could determine that they were being overcharged. Councilor Woodrow said she would suggest adopting Option #3 for the current situation and have staff bring back Option #2 to look at for future scenarios. Councilor Ralston said he supported Option #3 which was specific for this project. We wanted to be fair and this was fair. Councilor Moore said she agreed a modified fee was appropriate for this situation. She asked if it would be less expensive for them to connect while the line was being installed. To encourage annexation, perhaps we could provide a 12 or 18 month time frame where they could connect at a lower amount. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Vogeney said staff could bring back some options for a lower rate as part of the incentive. If the Council wanted to do that, he would suggest a longer time frame than 18 months, such as five years because the annexation process, which would be required, was lengthy and expensive. Councilor Moore said she agreed to coming back later to amend the Code for future issues. She asked if Franklin Boulevard had already been covered by this type of situation. Mr. Vogeney said Franklin Boulevard was configured more normally and would fit better with the usual formula. Councilor Moore asked if there would be more cost for Franklin Boulevard property owners to connect. Mr. Vogeney said the properties along Franklin Boulevard wouldn’t have the sewer in lieu of assessment, but had an obligation to construct additional public pipe to connect. Some along McVay Highway may need to construct additional public pipe, but most did not. Councilor Moore said she was concerned that they were treating Glenwood property owners fairly. Councilor Ralston referred to the time line mentioned by Councilor Moore and said there was no way to predict a time limit that would make sense. Just coming up with a more fair method was the way to go. A time frame could complicate things. Councilor Brew said in the meantime Springfield ratepayers were fronting that money, and some property owners may never annex. They only paid if they connected. Mr. Vogeney said the fee was in the Master Fee Schedule that would be presented later in the work session, with the cost of living adjustments (COLA) included. The fee formula was based on square footage not taking into account the land use. It was based on providing local sewers to residential properties so didn’t work well with larger parcels. Councilor Brew said there wasn’t really a fair way to do this, but he was fine with Option #3 as presented. He could see Councilor Moore’s point on discounts as an incentive and also the other side of the City funding. He also agreed with bringing back Option #2. Councilor Ralston asked how 8” pipe worked for some parcels like the mobile home park where there were a number of units. Mr. Vogeney said the 8” pipe was the obligation to individual properties. An 8” pipe could easily serve 100 houses. Mayor Lundberg agreed with Option # 3 for this project and to look at Option #2 for future circumstances. There would be people that would come forward to offer other suggestions for future cases. Mr. Vogeney said staff would work on rates to bring back in the future. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 4 2. Master Fees and Charges Schedule. 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 with minor adjustment in fall of 2013. This spring of 2014 review would focus on updates for annual impacts of inflation, new fees and omissions as directed by Council. Mr. Duey discussed the need for fees and charges in order to provide the services for the City due to the fact that property taxes didn’t cover all services. The plan was to come back with a public hearing near the first of March. Some fees could be brought to Council in a resolution, others must be changed through an Ordinance, and building fees had to go to the State for approval before Council approved. Mr. Duey reviewed Section 1 which had only seven changes; two minor language changes and five increases for certain business licenses in an amount greater than the consumer price index (CPI). He explained why those five were being increased more than the CPI. The rest of the increases were based on the CPI. Councilor Moore said there was a statement at the beginning of the document that the City Manager could waive the fee or allow a variance. She asked if that was on the website. Mr. Duey said it was page one and was posted on the website. He referred to Section 2 – Fire and Life Safety. He discussed the changes. Ambulance fees had not been increased since 2009 and Fire Med since 2010. Eugene was looking at the same fee increases in order to keep them consistent, although they had the ability to change their fees administratively. Councilor Woodrow asked about reimbursement for ambulance services. Mr. Duey said they would bill out the new fee, but Medicare and Medicaid would only cover a set amount. This increase would only apply to those without insurance or not covered by Medicaid. Councilor Brew asked about the benefit of waiting 3-5 years for the increase in ambulance fees. Mr. Duey said he was not sure. Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery said the last time we had a fee increase for ambulances it was a fairly substantial increase and had been a while. At that time, the fee was at the top of the market so they chose not to increase that fee for the last several years until it met market level. Councilor Brew said this Council would prefer to see small increases more regularly. Mr. Grimaldi said staff could bring it back every year with a potential CPI. Council concurred with that approach. Mr. Duey said it was sometimes more difficult to make annual changes on some of the small fees, so they may skip over those on occasion. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 5 Councilor Ralston said for the most part the increases were minimal and followed the CPI. It was fine to update each year, but it was also a lot of work for staff. Mr. Duey said it may take several cycles before they got all of the fee changes to line up in terms of timing. Mayor Lundberg asked if they would be kept up to date on which fees worked well. Mr. Duey said they would. There were only minor language changes in Section 3 (Library). Section 4 (Municipal Court) had three fees – Conviction Fee; Court Appointed Attorney Fee; and Payment Agreement Fee – that had been tried on a sliding scale for several years. Administratively, the sliding scale didn’t work well so staff was recommending putting those three fees back to a flat fee. That made it easier to explain and there was less chance of error. The flat fee was set at the level that most people were already paying. Councilor Woodrow said it came out as an average of the three fees. Mr. Duey said that was correct. He discussed the Court Appointed Attorney fee. Many people that chose a Court Appointed Attorney were not charged because of their income level. This fee was for those that chose a Court Appointed Attorney and had resources to pay. It would not apply to indigent clients. He discussed the DUII fee, which followed State statute. The phone notification fee was new because of the new software system for calls. He explained that this was for people that missed their court dates and had a history of missing court dates. Councilor Moore asked if they could be charged up to 10 calls. She asked how often they called. Mr. Duey said the first time they would only get one call, but that number could increase if they continued not to show. They were trying to find a way to remind them to come in for their Court date. Mayor Lundberg asked if the diversion fee stayed with the City. Mr. Duey said it all went to the State. Mr. Duey said Section 5 (Police) had two changes in the dog and pig licenses. The changes matched the fee to Eugene and Lane County to help generate some additional funds for the program. Councilor Woodrow asked if there was a compelling reason to match Eugene and Lane County. Mr. Duey said they felt it made sense and would help to generate funds for the program, which was heavily subsidized. Councilor Woodrow understood the need for the increase, but felt it was too much. She noted that the department was much more efficient than in years past. She had an issue of raising the fee for the senior citizen’s unaltered dog license and would prefer it was just raised to $25. She also felt the commercial kennel fee went too high. She couldn’t find the definition of commercial kennel or watch dog. She asked if those warranted such a large increase. Mr. Duey said he would get those definitions from Police. Mr. Grimaldi asked if she wanted those fees lowered. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 6 Councilor Brew said he didn’t have a compelling reason not to have the unaltered dog license fee for a senior as high as the unaltered dog license for other people because the same problems existed. Councilor Moore said if they kept the fee for unaltered dogs the same for all people, there was no need to have them separated. Only those with an altered dog would get a break. Mr. Duey asked if they wanted to talk about this topic further in another work session. Mayor Lundberg said that would be a good idea, as well as information and definitions for commercial kennels and watch dogs. They also needed to talk about why this program was so subsidized. Councilor Brew asked if they could also look at what it would cost if we got out of the business and had Lane County take over. Mr. Duey said there were no suggested changes in Section 6 (Building Safety Fees) other than CPI increases and some language cleanup. Those fees needed to go to the State for review before Council could approve. There was only one change in Section 7 (Engineering) which was the Over the Street Banner fee. This had been discussed with Council on several occasions. Currently, based on Council direction from last Fall, staff came up with a $150 fee to cover most of the cost of staff time and labor to put them up and take them down. Current costs to the City were $170 per banner. Councilor Woodrow said she didn’t want to discourage someone from promoting their event or program because of the high fee. Those banners were positive for the community and gave groups an opportunity for people to see what was going to happen in Springfield. The banners were already expensive. She suggested a charge of $75. She asked how many of these banners they had per year. Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said about 18 per year. Council Moore said she only saw them on Mohawk. It was noted that they were also put up on Main Street. She said the City Manager did have the discretion to lower the cost. She asked if they were for non-profit or for-profit agencies. All were for non-profit. She would also like to see the fee lowered a bit. Councilor Brew said he would rather raise the fee and regularly reduce it, because there were costs. They should have some amount listed. Councilor Ralston said it involved City equipment and manpower so there was a cost. He suggested a fee of $100. Councilor Woodrow said there were a lot of people that would see the high fee, but would not ask to have it waived. Mayor Lundberg said the banners cost money and the City should try to recover part of the time and materials. Councilor Brew asked if the funds for this went into the General Fund or Street Fund since the work being done was likely paid for through the Street Fund. General Fund. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 7 Mr. Duey said under Section 8 (Planning Services), there was a new fee from Willamette Greenway, to match the other two existing greenway fees. Staff would bring those items back for discussion next week during the work session, and then move forward with the adoption process. Councilor Woodrow asked when the Thurston High School pedestrian crossing would be started. Mr. Goodwin said it would be started in the Spring. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 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, FEBRUARY 3, 2014 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 3, 2014 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors 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. Councilors Wylie and VanGordon were absent (excused). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Mayor’s Recognition a. Recognition of Mary Davidson with Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance (SSRA) Mayor Lundberg introduced Mary Davidson, one of the founding members of the Springfield Shelter Rights Alliances (SSRA) and presented her with a letter thanking her for her work and dedication in promoting housing options, including the Conestoga Huts, for the unhoused in the City of Springfield. Although, Ms. Davidson had moved to Portland, she still came back to Springfield, stayed involved and got others to participate in this important work. 2. Other a. Employee Recognition: Paula Guthrie, 30 Years of Service. City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented this item. He introduced Paula Guthrie and noted her many accomplishments in the Information Technology Department of the City over the past thirty years. Ms. Guthrie had been and continued to be an asset to the City and was well liked and respected by her colleagues. Ms. Guthrie had been instrumental in the changes and improvements in IT and had also served as the SEIU President for 10 years. Ms. Guthrie introduced her family members in the audience. Ms. Guthrie thanked the Council for their support of the Information Technology (IT) Department. There had been a number of changes over the past 30 years. She said she loved working for the City of Springfield and also as a member of the Historic Commission. She had no plans of retiring soon. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 2 2. Minutes a. January 13, 2014 – Work Session b. January 21, 2014 – Work Session c. January 21, 2014 – Regular Meeting 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances a. ORDINANCE NO. 6309 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE “UTILITIES” “GARBAGE AND REFUSE” TO CLARIFY AREA OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE SOLID WASTE HAULER, AMENDING ECTION 4.404 “HAULING” AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE 5. Other Routine Matters a. Accept the Springfield 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. b. Authorize City Manager to Sign a Contract with Motorola Solutions, Inc. for Procurement of Portable Radio Equipment. c. Allow Construction Activities Outside of the Hours of 7 am and 6 pm with Conditions as Described in Attachments 2 and 3 (Permits PW2012-00237 and PW2014-0003), in Order to Complete Federally Mandated Pipeline Inspections on Existing Transmission Pipelines. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BREW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – WYLIE AND VANGORDON). 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 1.35 Acre Property Located at 249 North Brooklyn Street and 4224 Franklin Boulevard in Glenwood. ORDINANCE NO. 2 – AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, AND WILLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT; AND WITHDRAWING THE SAME TERRITORY FROM THE GLENWOOD WATER DISTRICT (FIRST READING). City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. He distributed the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the applicant that was just finalized after the agenda packet was distributed. A request for annexation to the City of Springfield had been received from Dale Foster, FPS Investments LLC, owner of property on the north side of Franklin Boulevard just west of the intersection with McVay Highway in Glenwood. The 1.35-acre site requested for annexation was inside the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and was contiguous with the City limits. The property owner was requesting annexation. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 3 The City Council was authorized by ORS Chapter 222 and SDC Article 5.7-100 to act on annexation requests. In accordance with SDC 5.7-155 and ORS 222.040, 222.180 and 222.465, if approved the annexation would become effective 30 days after signature by the Mayor or upon acknowledgement by the State – whichever date was later. The subject site was contiguous to the City limits along the south boundary. The site was currently developed and had an aggregate assessed value of $277,985. Public utility extensions and other infrastructure would be required in order to facilitate site redevelopment, a signed Memorandum of Understanding for Annexation was pending and was expected to be executed prior to the public hearing for this annexation. Upon annexation, utility extensions and street improvements required to serve the proposed development site would be subject to the Site Plan Review process. The property requested for annexation was zoned Residential Mixed-Use with an Urbanizable Fringe Overlay (UF-10) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the recently adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan. Upon annexation, the UF-10 overlay would be removed. As outlined in the staff report, the annexation area could be served with the minimum level of key urban facilities and services as required in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. The staff report also confirmed the annexation request met the criteria established in Section 5.7-100 of the Springfield Development Code. Staff recommended the City Council approve the annexation of territory to the City of Springfield and Willamalane Park and Recreation District, and withdraw the same territory from the Glenwood Water District. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Richard Herman, Executive Director of Metro Affordable Housing. Mr. Herman said he was representing Housing and Community Services Agency (HACSA) of Lane County. He was pleased to be at this stage in a long process. This was a time to celebrate. He expressed deep appreciation for City staff and the Council for their support in making this possible. Staff had been extraordinary in working together between departments and other agencies including Willamalane Parks and Recreation. They had a deadline with the State and staff worked hard to make this happen. Staff was also working on two other developers that had plans in this area so an agreement and master plan were put together. They looked forward to moving forward. He said he appreciated Councilor Moore for her service on the Housing Policy Board and Mayor Lundberg for her support and making this a regional priority. 2. Colin McArthur, Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture and Planning, Eugene, OR. Mr. McArthur said he was here representing the applicant. The annexation request involved six tax lots under the same ownership and the property was contiguous to the City of Springfield along the south boundary. During the last eighteen months, he had worked closely with HACSA and Metro in preparation of the annexation request. HACSA and Metro were partnering to plan, design and construct the first major new residential development in Glenwood. Consistent with HACSA and Metro’s shared vision, mission and core values, the project was planned to provide for workforce housing. Annexation was the first step in the planning process. Springfield shared a similar vision for this type of development in Glenwood. The subject property was designated Mixed-Use Nodal Development by the Metro Plan, Residential Mixed-Use by the Glenwood Refinement Plan, and would be designated City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 4 Residential Mixed-Use by the Springfield Development Code upon annexation. The need for high-quality, affordable housing for working families, seniors and those with disabilities persisted throughout Lane County. A strong link existed between this request, the existing and projected population needs in the area and comprehensive goals at the Statewide, local and regional levels. The request implemented the vision of the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Springfield’s 2030 Refinement Plan, TransPlan and several Oregon Statewide planning goals by way of the proposed future use. Springfield Ordinance #6268 stated that to meet Springfield’s identified density multi-family housing needs, the City shall redesignate at least 28 additional gross buildable acres in Glenwood Refinement Plan Subarea 8 to Residential Mixed-Use by December 31, 2012. This property was within Subarea 8 of the Glenwood Refinement Plan and would be rezoned upon annexation. As documented in the staff report, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the request. The application and staff report detailed compliance with all applicable approval criteria. The applicant concurred with staff’s recommendation and urged the Council to approve this request. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. Councilor Brew said that under the agreement that was just distributed, the Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) would be paying the system development charges (SDCs) on behalf of Glenwood Place. He asked if they would be paying the City SDCs as well as those to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) and Willamalane. He asked if they knew the total amount. Mr. Towery said the SEDA Board and City Council had put in place a program for SEDA to pay the cost of local SDCs only, not those assessed by MWMC or Willamalane. Mr. Limbird said the SDCs would be based on certain aspects of the development and detailed design. The local SDCs would include transportation and the City’s share of sanitary sewer and stormwater. There were different ways these could be addressed before the final costs were calculated. Planning Supervisor Jim Donovan said he and Mr. Tamulonis had worked on the Memorandum of Understanding that was distributed. Based on 2012 calculations, the SDCs would be approximately $475,000. Because it would be another funding cycle before the design was ready, staff chose to leave those figures out of the agreement. NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. Julie Daniel, BRING, Glenwood. - Ms. Daniels said she was here on behalf of BRING Recycling to express their concerns about the impact of the McVay Highway sanitary sewer scheduled for construction later this summer. She provided her testimony to the City Recorder (attached to these minutes). They recognized that the project was very necessary and they were supportive; however, they were deeply concerned about vehicle access and traffic diversion. BRING’s business was completely dependent on vehicle access and they only had one access point on Franklin Boulevard. The road in front of and adjacent to their facility and under the railroad trestle past 19th Street was the most constricted section of the chosen route for the sewer. They didn’t believe construction could be done without a loss of beneficial use to BRING. She explained why vehicle access was important to their business and that strong summer sales helped them to build reserves to carry them through the winter. If this project City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 5 was done in the summer, it would severely affect their summer business and their ability to remain solvent. As one of Springfield’s loyal community partners, they were asking the City to work with them to find a winning solution to a very challenging situation. They valued their relationship with the City and the hard working staff and were committed to a successful outcome for all. 2. Carole Knapel, 1201 Oak St, Eugene. Ms. Knapel said she formerly worked for the City of Springfield as project manager for the RiverBend project, the Springfield Justice Center and Fire Station #16. She had been a member of the Board for BRING for about six years and had served as Chair of the Site Committee, responsible for moving BRING to its current site in Glenwood and for the renovations. As a former city employee she understood the importance of the project. As a member of the BRING board, she would ask them to look at their Council Goal of ‘Encouraging Economic Development and Revitalization through our Partnerships’. BRING was concerned about the impact construction would have to their revenues if access to the site was restricted or stopped. They were currently completing a construction project which they had scheduled during the winter months to have the least amount of impact. Having this project go forward in summer would mean they would be impacted twice in one year. In the past few months, they had met with staff to go over the project and had received some information on the construction schedule, but they needed to continue those discussions. She was here to ask the Council for two things: the first was for the city to explore all possible options to minimize the impact to BRING during the construction so they could continue to work as the project was formalized and bid; and for the city to take on a robust public information role in helping BRING get word out to the public when they would be open or closed during construction. COUNCIL RESPONSE Mayor Lundberg said they were scheduled to talk about this during a work session next week, but she asked staff to continue to work together with BRING before bringing this to the Council. She made a recommendation to ask staff to work with BRING to find options and/or solutions. Mr. Grimaldi said it would take some work to clarify the options available. Because it was a State highway, staff was talking to the State about doing a jurisdictional transfer. They would fine tune some options and bring them back to Council if that was acceptable. Yes. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS ORDINANCES 1. Amendments to Springfield Municipal Code Chapter 5 “Public Protections” to Match Oregon Revised Statutes. ORDINANCE NO. 3 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5, “PUBLIC PROTECTION” SECTION 5.104 “MISDEMEANORS AND VIOLATIONS – STATE STATUTES ADOPTED” OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE (SMC) TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE, OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) CHAPTER 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 181, 471, 475 AND ORS 480.110 TO 480.160 THEREBY ADOPTING STATE ORS CRIMINAL STATUTES (FIRST READING) City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 6 City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith presented the staff report on this item. Section 5.104 of the Springfield Municipal Code incorporated a number of state criminal offenses into the City’s municipal code. This ordinance would update this section of the Code to be consistent with any legislative changes that had occurred in the state criminal offenses listed in Section 5.104. A periodic update of this code section would enable the City to better prosecute criminal offenses that occurred in the community by ensuring the crimes charged were consistent with the current state of the law. Ms. Smith noted this was a housekeeping measure to adjust to match State laws. This would likely be an annual update. NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments a. Historic Commission Appointment. Managing Civil Engineer Jeff Paschall presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield Historic Commission had one vacancy as a result of Commissioner Judy Williams’ first term expiring. Ms. Williams elected not to seek a second term. It was necessary to fill the vacancy at this time. The City received one application for the one vacancy. The Council interviewed Vincent Martorello at the January 27, 2014 Work Session. At the Work Session, the Council decided to appoint Mr. Martorello to fill the vacancy. Appointments to the Historic Commission must be confirmed during a Regular Session. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPOINT VINCENT MARTORELLO TO THE HISTORIC COMMISSION WITH A TERM EXPIRING FEBRUARY 2, 2018. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – WYLIE AND VANGORDON). 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports Councilor Moore reported that she met with Catholic Community Services (CCS) during a community neighborhood meeting last week. Soaring Hope had been providing meals for the homeless at their facility on G Street, but had discontinued that service due to some concerns. Soaring Hope was looking for other places in Springfield to provide meals to the homeless on a regular basis since it was not working well in that neighborhood. The neighbors were pleased that CCS had been open to holding neighborhood meetings to hear their thoughts about the services. There was a meeting tomorrow afternoon related to this topic. Mayor Lundberg said she didn’t want the City to get in the business of locating meal services. She understood that City staff member Kevin Ko was working to get everyone together that City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 7 provided meals to make it more efficient. Mr. Ko would likely be contacted at some point. The City had done it in the past, but it was a huge amount of work. Councilor Moore thanked Soaring Hope for what they had done as they had met a need. b. Other Business BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Supplemental Budget Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-05 – A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING FUNDS: GENERAL, STREET, SPECIAL REVENUE, REGIONAL WASTEWATER REVENUE BOND CAPITAL PROJECT, REGIONAL WASTEWATER CAPITAL, STREET CAPITAL, SANITARY SEWER OPERATIONS, REGIONAL WASTEWATER, AMBULANCE, STORM DRAINAGE OPERATIONS, INSURANCE, AND VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT 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 third of four scheduled FY14 supplemental budget requests to come before Council. The supplemental budget being presented included adjusting resources and requirements in: General, Street, Special Revenue, Regional Wastewater Revenue Bond Capital Project, Regional Wastewater Capital, Street Capital, Sanitary Sewer Operations, Regional Wastewater, Ambulance, Storm Drainage Operations, Insurance, and Vehicle & Equipment Funds. He reviewed the changes in the Fire overtime which was not a surprise, but they were not sure at the time how much it would affect the budget. He also discussed the $135,000 for retirement payouts. The City wasn’t usually prepared for large payouts for retirements of long-time employees, but would normally hold positions open to absorb the costs. They were not able to hold positions open due to other factors, so they were requesting funds instead. 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 $799,467, increase in Capital Projects $390,420 and an increase in inter-fund transfers of $320,000. These were offset by decrease in reserves $722,755 and new revenue $787,132. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-05. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – WYLIE AND VANGORDON). 2. Other Business Mr. Grimaldi reminded the Council of the Joint Elected Officials meeting on Tuesday, February 4 at 6:00pm with the Lane County Board of Commissioners. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 3, 2014 Page 8 Mr. Towery noted that staff had received a number of comments from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). In an attempt to incorporate those comments and to draft supplemental findings, staff would ask that the record of that proceeding remain open. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:38 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder