HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 04 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/7/2014
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 24, 2014 – Work Session b) March 3, 2014 – Work Session
c) March 3, 2014 – Regular Meeting d) March 11, 2014 – Joint Elected Officials Meeting e) March 17, 2014 – Work Session
f) March 17, 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 24, 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 24, 2014 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused)
1. Budget Committee Interviews.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. Applicants were being sought to
represent Wards 3 and 4 where former committee members resigned. The recruitment for this vacancy opened January 28, 2014 and closed February 7, 2014. Two candidates applied for Ward 3 and one
applied for Ward 4. The appointee for both Ward 3 and Ward 4 would serve a one year term that
would expire December 31, 2014.
The Council was requested to interview three applicants. The fourth applicant, Donald Durland, was ill and not able to attend the interview. Both of the ward positions had unsuccessfully advertised for candidates previously. Applications were taken past the advertised deadline due to inclement weather.
Budget Committee appointments were scheduled to be ratified at the Regular Session Meeting on March 3, 2014.
The Mayor and Council chose the questions they would ask of each of the applicants.
1. Why are you interested in serving on the Budget Committee? (Mayor Lundberg) 2. Often times the members of the Budget Committee have different opinions on how the
citizens’ money should be spent. What is your experience with working as a member of a
diverse group and helping to ensure that all opinions are heard and considered? (Councilor Brew)
3. One of the purposes of the Budget Committee is to get the citizens of Springfield involved in setting priorities for the City. Do you have any suggestions on how the City could raise the interest of your friends or co-workers in City government? (Councilor Moore)
4. Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become a Budget Committee member. (Councilor Ralston) 5. Describe your familiarity with the City’s budget. (Councilor Woodrow)
6. What would be some of the ways you would look to control costs and still be responsive to the service expectations of our citizens? (Councilor VanGordon)
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014 Page 2
The Mayor and Council introduced themselves to each candidate and interviewed the three applicants:
Michael Herron; Jeff Thompson; and Gabrielle Guidero.
Mr. Herron wanted to let the Council know that he would be moving to Eugene for four months and would then move back into Ward 3.
The Mayor and Council discussed the qualifications of each applicant and noted that all three were well qualified. Discussion was held regarding Mr. Thompson’s seat on the Willamalane Budget
Committee and Mr. Herron’s move out of town for a period of the year. They chose to appoint Jeff
Thompson to the Ward 3 position of the Budget Committee; and Gabrielle Guidero to the Ward 4 position of the Budget Committee. Staff would make sure to let all of the applicants know this was a
one-year position and the position would be open again next year.
2. Franklin NEPA (Project) Update and Direction.
Community Development Manager Tom Boyatt, Principal Engineer Kristi Krueger and Senior Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The City’s consultant, URS Corp., had
substantially completed Phase 2 work including refined intersection design, realignment of the facility to match existing center line, and draft environmental baseline reports. Staff presented the modified single line design concept and the associated Project footprint for Council review and direction in
preparation for meeting with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to seek guidance for NEPA classification. The Project goal was to gain concurrence that the Project may proceed under the Categorical Exclusion (CE) process.
Based on the information presented in the suite of draft environmental baseline reports, as well as staff
and Lane Transit District (LTD) input, the City’s consultant had prepared a revised Project design
concept. The latest draft design iteration mitigated environmental impacts to the full extent possible without compromising the Project’s intended purpose to modernize Franklin Blvd. for all modes of
travel and to contribute to successful redevelopment of the Glenwood riverfront area.
Design concepts for Franklin Blvd. were considered in the 2002 Glenwood Specific Area Plan effort,
revised in 2008 as a result of the Franklin Blvd. Study, and incorporated into the Glenwood Refinement Plan update. More recently, staff and URS Corporation has been working through an iterative environmental impacts/design refinement process to develop a draft design to take to FHWA
in pursuit of federal concurrence for a Categorical Exclusion (CE). This latest work effort was approved by Council in April 2013, with an update provided to Council via communication packet in October 2013.
Input from the general public, businesses, property owners, and other stakeholders had been an important part of getting to this point in the Project. Most recently, City and consultant staff met face
to face with potentially impacted business and property owners within the Project Area to gather employment information and to establish personal communication between the City and these
interested parties. Additional outreach would begin in earnest following this Council check-in.
Mr. Boyatt reviewed Attachment 2 of the agenda packet which outlined the annotated history of this
project. The City had been approved for a $6M grant from the FHWA with a $3.5M match for Phase 1
construction. It was not uncommon for a large visionary project to go through these steps until the timing is right. Staff had gone through the environmental information gathering and iterations of the
sketch design to minimize environmental impacts and bring forward the kind of project that would work well for Glenwood and the City.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014 Page 3
Councilor Brew congratulated Mr. Boyatt’s team for this project and keeping their eye on the result.
Ms. Krueger distributed a map of the project area. She described the Categorical Exclusion process and how staff is trying to prove that the project was not significantly impacting everything in the area. If they were unable to prove that, they would be required to do an Environmental Assessment (EA)
and Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Staff would be meeting with the FHWA in March to determine the chances of getting a CE. It would then take about six months to finish the CE phase. If
they were not able to do the CE, they would need to proceed with the EA which could take up to a
year. If they were then required to do an EIS, staff would need to start over to determine new ideas for the design that would not significantly impact the area.
Ms. Krueger referred to the maps in the agenda packet. In the earlier design, most of the impacts were on the south side. They were told that leaving it that way would require them to do an EA since they
were not impacting everyone equally. Staff went back to even up the impacts on both sides to avoid
having to do an EA. She described each iteration and explained how each helped to lessen impacts to property and environment. This area had huge potential for development so the City didn’t want to
constrain themselves to affect development and right-of-way needs. She described the analysis details of the entire corridor. One property was known as a historic property making any impacts to that property prohibited. She discussed the final iteration. If Council approved, staff would meet with the
FHWA to see if they could go forward with CE. If not, the work staff had done could be applied to an EA.
Councilor Brew asked if there was leeway for the unexpected if this was approved.
Ms. Krueger said they did. She explained that the area noted (the ‘envelope’) was slightly bigger than
what was needed which would allow for some minor adjustments. The roundabouts, however, were noted at the right size.
Councilor Ralston asked if they would be proposing what was shown on Attachment 4 of the agenda packet.
Ms. Krueger said they would like to proceed with this ‘envelope’. The cross sections shown were preferred, but could be changed as long as they remained within the envelope.
Councilor Ralston said he liked the first iteration from 2008. He didn’t like the median down the middle with landscaping and felt it was wasted space. The option from 2008 had transit running down
the middle and was not wasted space. All the other options appeared to be 16’ wider. Ms. Krueger said they hadn’t changed the width, but had moved it slightly. Stormwater management
was needed in that area and the median spaces were good locations for stormwater facilities.
Councilor Ralston referred to the iteration dated January 2014 and asked about a street that had
originally been shown going through a property.
Ms. Krueger said the development of the riverfront would be based on development that occurred. The
City would not be putting in those streets, but the intersections were placed so they aligned with the Glenwood Refinement Plan street network.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014 Page 4
Councilor Woodrow said the roundabouts not only saved space, but helped equalize the impacts. She
asked if it was possible to set up the 16’ median to reclaim the water to use as irrigation for landscape and vegetation in the area.
Ms. Krueger said that was something staff could certainly explore.
Councilor Moore referred to the bike and pedestrian lanes and asked if those could be changed so they were not next to the traffic.
Ms. Krueger said there were different ideas of what could be done with the bike lanes. They hoped to build the riverfront path, which would keep them completely separated. They also needed commuter
bike lanes that were as straight as possible, which was what they were trying to achieve. They did
make the space wider than a normal bike lane to help protect the bike lanes from the traffic. There was enough space to provide a protective barrier. The roundabouts did reduce the speed through that area,
but allowed people to get through much quicker.
Councilor Moore said a protected bike lane would be her preference.
Councilor VanGordon asked for clarification on the bus lanes.
Ms. Krueger said staff had been working with Lane Transit District (LTD). There were stations at the roundabouts with exclusive lanes at the entrance of the roundabout. The buses were in mixed traffic between roundabouts. There was room if they needed exclusive lanes in the future. LTD was
supportive of the concept.
Councilor VanGordon asked if there was a concern about capacity in the roundabouts if there were no
traffic lights on either side of the roundabout.
Ms. Krueger said they would actually have better flow with roundabouts only rather than having
signals leading into the roundabout.
Councilor VanGordon said people would need to get used to the fact that they would be moving through Glenwood at a slower speed, but more smoothly and timely.
Mr. Boyatt said traffic studies were now analyzing travel times per corridor. Councilor VanGordon said once the ‘envelope’ was approved, the design could change slightly.
Ms. Krueger said staff had done what they could to reduce impacts and still include all of the elements wanted. Because properties were so close to the right-of-way, there would be unavoidable impacts.
The new design had reduced the impacts overall, including residential impacts.
Councilor VanGordon said the maps show the reduction in impacts.
Councilor Brew said he would like to understand the flow of bikes, cars and buses through the
roundabout.
Councilor Woodrow said the efficiency of roundabouts was discussed at a recent conference she
attended on Thursday about Connecting Communities.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014 Page 5
Councilor Ralston referred to the January 2014 map and the parking noted. Ms. Krueger noted that the
map showed incorrect parking on one side. It should show angled parking.
Discussion was held regarding the spelling of McVay Highway and if the name could be changed. Mr. Reesor said there had been many years of work put into this project to get to this point. Included
in that work, had been a lot of public outreach to date. Public outreach had also been done through other projects in Glenwood, such as the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the 2008 Franklin Boulevard
Study. City staff worked with the consultant team through Cogito to develop a public outreach plan.
The public outreach plan would be presented for approval before the Planning Commission serving as the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) in March. One of the most important objectives of this
stage of public outreach was face-to-face outreach to businesses along the corridor and project area in
order to keep people informed through each phase, including timelines and potential impacts. It was also important to relay the City’s willingness and desire to work with businesses on minimizing
impacts, and possible relocation. Mr. Reesor had the opportunity in October 2013 to work with the
consultant and go door-to-door to meet with all the business owners in the study area which included the Franklin Boulevard corridor and areas to the south. The initial point was to collect employment
data, but it also allowed them to introduce themselves to the owners and let them know how they could stay involved. An interested parties list is being maintained by staff. Those on the list would receive updates on the project. Another important component of the outreach plan was to reach Title 6
populations - seniors, disabled, lower income, etc. They would continue to use every avenue to reach all people, not just through electronic media, but also in face-to-face conversations. Open houses would also be held.
Councilor Woodrow asked how they were planning for disabled and ADA accessibility.
Mr. Reesor said currently they were just looking at the ‘envelope’ of the project. As they got more into the design, they would be working with people to discuss their needs. Part of that would include safe
crossings in the roundabouts and an adequate number of safe crossings. They wanted to incorporate a
lot of street lighting in the design. As they met with different groups, they would ask them to share their specific needs.
Councilor Woodrow asked if they could create a crossing where people could push a button that would allow them more time to cross.
Ms. Krueger said they would look at those types of things once they heard from the public. The current situation on Franklin Boulevard was very difficult for pedestrians, so they wanted to address
that in the design. Any concerns or issues that came forward would be addressed during the design. Mr. Boyatt said once staff got to that point and started developing a design, they would bring the
design phases to Council for approval.
Mayor Lundberg congratulated them in looking at the ‘envelope’. She noted that this was the first
phase. She asked if anyone had seen these drawings.
Mr. Reesor said people had seen past iteration from 2008, but staff will not present this version to the
public until they have Council approval. Starting tomorrow, staff would send letters to business and property owners and begin calling businesses that are directly impacted. They would also set up face-
to-face discussions with those affected and bring the map.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014 Page 6
Mr. Boyatt said they didn’t want to represent a concept publicly that did not have Council support.
Version 1 had been public since 2008 and the new iteration minimized impacts from that version.
Ms. Krueger said as part of the process, they had done an analysis on business displacement and a plan of what the City could do to assist businesses beyond federal requirements. Community Development Manager John Tamulonis had been a big part of that process. Some businesses may not be displaced,
but could be remodeled to accommodate the redesign. There are many possibilities. Staff wanted to be transparent with the businesses and property owners and help them from the beginning.
Mayor Lundberg said she had great faith in Springfield’s ability. There were a lot of impacts that would affect these businesses and Council will hear from a lot of people. The City needs to be
accommodating, bend over backwards to help people, and think outside the box to help people see the
vision. The Council was accepting that process and knew there would be people upset and concerned by the changes. She was counting on how staff managed this and came up with creative solutions. It is
very important that the Mayor and Council are kept very close to the information, either in person or
in Communication Packets. The City had many projects that had potential for conflict with the public. Mr. Boyatt said those values, such as how they treated people and the quality of communication, were at the top of staff’s list. If they were going to change and improve, there would be impacts. In 2007-08 when looking at the Franklin study and people saw lines over buildings and businesses, staff had
assured people that it would be at least five years before anything was done. The five years had passed, and they were still in the early stages of pulling funds together for this project. People were going to want to know how long before they were impacted. There was a lot of development interest
on the north side of Franklin in the Phase 1 construction segment. Staff had been communicating with those developers as they had put their plans together, and were doing what they could to bring project
delivery of the Franklin facility into alignment with the timeline for redevelopment.
Mayor Lundberg said the City had done many projects such as transportation and development in
Gateway, putting in two EmX routes so she had faith they could do this as well. They needed to be
extremely sensitive to those in that area. She appreciated the hard work being done. Council supported staff using the 2014 iteration for their public outreach.
3. Franklin Boulevard – McVay Highway Jurisdictional Transfer.
Community Development Manager Tom Boyatt presented the staff report on this item. ODOT had proposed to transfer Franklin Blvd. between the I-5 right of way on the west end and McVay Highway on the east end, along with McVay Highway from its intersection with Franklin Boulevard south to the
bridge going over the railroad tracks. The transfer of this approximately 1.8 miles of roadway included all existing right of way and transportation facilities within that right of way. The Springfield bridges over the Willamette would remain in ODOT ownership.
There was no set formula for what constituted a fair exchange, and generally these deals were made
based on what each side in the negotiation perceived they could afford and the particular benefits of
owning the facility. The state was motivated to transfer a state facility because of the reduction in future costs to maintain and improve the roadway in question. Springfield saw an interest in receiving
money to operate and maintain the facility, as well as a desirable benefit in terms of design flexibility
for future improvements, and/or operational flexibility that may not be allowed by the state’s policies and standards today.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014 Page 7
In this particular case ODOT was offering $3.2 million to the City to take jurisdiction of
Franklin/McVay in Glenwood as noted above. Staff had asked for $3.4 million, $1.7 million for Franklin and the same for McVay. ODOT responded with $3 million, and eventually offered to split
the difference. ODOT had also committed to lending strong support to any requests for state or federal funding to improve the corridor. Support of this kind could not be underestimated in the scramble for scarce funding, as the City recently experienced with the $6 million placed in the Draft
2015-2018 STIP. Estimated annual cost to maintain the roadways was $100,000, and once the facility was improved that cost would change with increases due to the addition of functional drainage
systems and improved landscaping and likely partial offsets from an improved travel facility. The
increase in maintenance costs would depend on what was ultimately built. Pending construction of Phase II, staff would recommend that the money be set aside in a reserve to leverage contributions to
Phase II construction costs and for extraordinary maintenance.
Following Council direction, the state and the City may finalize the transfer agreement (IGA), which
would then come back to Council in regular session for final approval.
Councilor Ralston asked if the City would use the funds from ODOT for redevelopment.
Mr. Boyatt said the proposal was to bank the money, subsidize the maintenance as little as possible, and keep the rest in reserve for a grant match for Phase 2 construction of Franklin. Another possibility
would be to use some of the banked money to complete Phase 1. The agreement had included language that ODOT would support the City’s requests for federal or state funding.
Councilor Woodrow said she thought we came to a fair deal. It was nice to have ODOT work with the City in a way that supported both the City and ODOT. We had a good relationship with ODOT.
Mr. Boyatt said it would help with several other projects as well. He would check into the possibility of changing the name of the McVay Highway.
Mayor thanked Mr. Boyatt and Mr. Goodwin for their work on this. She asked him to thank ODOT as well.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MARCH 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, March 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, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused)
1. 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program, A Community Reinvestment Plan.
Engineer Jeff Paschall presented the staff report on this item. The Draft City of Springfield 2015-2019
CIP, A Community Reinvestment Plan, was reviewed at the Planning Commission’s February 4, 2014
work session meeting. The Commission voted to recommend Council approve the plan at their February 19, 2014 meeting.
The CIP attempted to balance the use of scarce capital construction funds with the long list of infrastructure needs for our community. The CIP served as a guide for programming funds and
planning the annual workload of Development and Public Works staff. It was not a document with budget authority. The City’s capital projects were budgeted for in the annual Capital Budget, which went through the City’s normal budgeting process.
There were a few new projects proposed in the next five years of programmed funding. The City had completed several projects from previous capital plans, and staff was making significant headway on
several of the projects from last year’s plan.
Mr. Paschall presented a power point on the CIP with the first slide showing a stormwater manhole
system near the Adult Activity Center that treats a lot of the water from downtown. This project had been in the Master Plan since adoption and was just completed. He reviewed the project criteria:
1. Project addresses State or Federal laws or regulations to eliminate or reduce the potential
for environmental degradation or health hazards to address issues that affect the safety and general welfare of the community.
2. Project maintains existing assets, extends the useful life of assets, or improves or expands
infrastructure such that operations are improved. 3. Projects respond to requests from citizens, neighborhood groups, advisory committees, or
government bodies, and provides a public benefit. 4. Project is included in local and/or regional infrastructure plans.
Mr. Paschall discussed the process used to identify capital needs, and the process of review and public input. He displayed a map showing the different projects in the CIP, and a list of the most recently completed projects. Some of the projects scheduled for 2014-15 included: 10th and N Street Sewer
Phase 2; South 2nd Street Sewer Rehabilitation; Franklin/McVay Sewer Extension; Mill Race
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 3, 2014 Page 2
Stormwater Park; East 17th Avenue Sewer; and Glenwood Boulevard Overlay. Projects scheduled for
design in 2015 included: Pump Stations; Over/Under Channel; Channel Restoration Projects; and Gateway Street Overlay. He further discussed the Gateway Street overlay project.
Councilor Moore asked how much of Gateway would receive the overlay.
Mr. Paschall said they hoped to get from Harlow Road to where it would tie in with the Gateway/Beltline project, and from the other side to International Way if there are enough funds.
Mayor Lundberg asked when the bridge at Beltline would be complete.
Mr. Paschall said he could get that information to the Council, but he understood it was a two season
project as they went into Phase 4. There would be a lot of construction in that area for the next two to three years as they finished the final phases of that interchange.
Mayor Lundberg said it would be important. She had recently met with the Gateway Business Group and they expressed concerns, and would be more concerned with construction on Gateway Street.
They needed to be kept in the loop. Mr. Paschall said staff would work to coordinate the overlay project to limit impacts. They would
likely ask to have the majority of the work done during the night. Mayor Lundberg said with the Beltline project, the Gateway overlay, and Gateway Mall remodel,
there would be a lot of construction in that area. She wouldn’t want people to see this as a construction zone and avoid completely.
Councilor Moore said there was so much congestion in that area, in part because of the Beltline project. She asked if there was anything that could be done.
Mayor Lundberg said there was a complete fix for that intersection that had been developed years ago. She asked Community Development Manager Tom Boyatt to give a brief overview of that project.
Mr. Boyatt said the first project the City built in Gateway was Phase I of a complete redesign of Gateway/Beltline that turned it into a one-way couplet at Kruse and Hutton Streets. The designs in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) from 2002 showed significant demolition of buildings, such as Hop Valley, a motel and other businesses. The goal was to find another solution. They hoped to have some ideas in the next year or two that would be brought to Council.
Mayor Lundberg said when they worked on this in 1999, they came up with the interim fix.
Councilor Moore asked if the overlay would be a short-term solution, and if they would be back to do more work on the street.
Mr. Paschall said it would be several years before further work was done as they coordinate with the Gateway/Beltline project. In the meantime, the overlay was maintenance and preservation.
Mayor Lundberg noted that Hop Valley went into the building knowing it could possibly be demolished for this project. Staff would work with them to find a suitable place to relocate at that time
if needed.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 3, 2014 Page 3
Mr. Paschall reviewed other planning projects planned for 2015: Franklin NEPA; Wastewater Master
Plan Update; and Stormwater Master Plan Update. There were also a number of unfunded or underfunded high priorities for 2015-2019. Those included: Street Preservation and Reconstruction;
Wire Theft Remediation; ADA Transition Project; and Building Preservation. An intersection at 23rd Street and A Street only had one ramp. A request had come to the City from a citizen with mobility issues to update that intersection to allow them access. Fixing all four corners of that intersection
would have cost about $100,000, so transportation was working with the citizen to find a feasible route to the bus stop. If a ramp was provided to get out into the roadway, they needed to provide a ramp for
the person to get back out of the roadway. Due to utilities in many of these areas, the cost to make
these intersections ADA compliant was often very expensive.
Councilor Moore asked about wire theft remediation.
Mr. Paschall said they had tried some techniques to help avoid complete damage.
Councilor Moore said it might be a benefit to update with those techniques if it would save money in the long run.
Mr. Paschall said the project as listed was to replace wire that had already been stolen. The new techniques are employed with any new projects that are done. Some other projects identified for
2015-2019 included: Glenwood Park Blocks; Bicycle Wayfinding and Safety; and City Hall Bicycle Parking. He reviewed the capital funding outlook. The sewer rate payer revenues were much more stable than in 2009 when large increases were made to meet regulatory demands. SDC revenues were
slowly improving. There was a need to identify a stable funding source for street and transportation projects, as well as building maintenance and preservation.
2. Scenario Planning Update.
Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. Staff,
working with our regional partners, and the support of Kristin Hull of CH2M Hill as the Scenario Planning project manager, continued the work required to comply with the state’s legislative mandate
to prepare alternative scenarios for future growth to meet greenhouse reduction targets. Mr. Goodwin
introduced Ms. Hull. As Council knew, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was required to conduct this work, and the cities of Springfield, Eugene, and Coburg, and Lane County were
obliged to cooperatively select a preferred scenario. At present, there was no obligation to implement any scenario. This work was being funded by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), as required by the Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009. Staff of the MPO completed a first phase of the
work, which estimated the effect of continuing current planning assumptions (such as those contemplated by the draft Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and similar planning efforts by Eugene, Coburg and Lane County). This reference case would serve as the baseline for further
scenario planning efforts designed to create options which each jurisdiction may choose to incorporate into the cooperatively selected scenario.
Although the estimate documents a reduction in greenhouse gases, at this stage it does not appear to document a reduction large enough to permit the region to conclude that it will meet the legislative
requirement without additional action.
Mr. Goodwin said the mandate did not require that any selected scenario be implemented or meet the
target. Early in the process, ODOT and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) were obliged to come up with statewide efforts to reduce emissions. As a result, they
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 3, 2014 Page 4
projected sufficient reduction in emissions between now and 2035. That left local governments with a
responsibility to select a scenario with a target of 20% reduction. During that period of time, our current population studies projected an increase of 64,000 people in the metropolitan area. The
scenario needed to take that into consideration. This was a scenario, but did not consist of a one-size-fits-all solution adopted for the three jurisdictions. It would consist of a number of solutions that each of the local governments felt was appropriate to them. There was no obligation on the part of
Springfield to consider what Eugene was implementing, or vice versa. By coordinating, they hoped they would not be at cross purposes.
Mr. Goodwin said they would start by looking at what they would do if the current planning regime were to continue. They had just completed a reference case that assumed the Springfield 2030 Plan
would be implemented and adopted as presented, and assuming a similar plan would go into effect for
Eugene and Coburg. The result was what the reference case was designed to test. They were not suggesting that we reinvent the wheel. They were allowed and expected to rely on what each of the
jurisdictions were planning to do.
Mr. Goodwin referred to Attachment 2 of the agenda packet which included a list of assumptions in
certain areas. Within those areas, they could suggest a number of things. He provided examples of things the City was currently doing in some of those areas. Council would choose which of these things they wanted staff to look at to see what would happen if they were changed. Staff would
assemble those from each jurisdiction, review them and discuss the impacts. They would then bring that information back to Council for feedback. If Council was satisfied, staff would move forward in the process of putting them together into a scenario. If Council was not satisfied, staff would look for
other ideas. The only limit to the process was the patience of Council to review numerous alternatives. A report needs to be submitted to the legislature showing what had been accomplished by 2015.
Hopefully, this process would result in some excellent ideas that could be implemented. The exercise
was to try to envision what alternative futures could be imagined for the City of Springfield that would have an effect on our ability to create a denser, more pedestrian friendly, and economically viable
community. Springfield would be designing what they envisioned for Springfield and making choices
for Springfield.
Councilor Moore said this sounded expensive and that it took a lot of staff time. She asked if this was covered by the sustainability grant.
Mr. Goodwin said some of it was covered by the sustainability grant. They were able to use some of those funds to look at things other than emissions, such as impacts on economic development and public health. In the future, this work would be funded by ODOT as they were mandated. He would
expect there would be some City staff time spent that would not be reimbursed, but they were being very careful to document hours spent in order to be reimbursed.
Mayor Lundberg referred to the Transportation Assumptions noted on page 3 of Attachment 2 in the agenda packet, “The Metropolitan GreenSTEP model is not detailed enough to capture changes to
intersections, collector streets or pedestrian and bicycle network improvements”. Part of greenhouse
gas emissions involved sitting at intersections. If we instituted roundabouts, vehicles wouldn’t sit at intersections. She asked if there was a way to capture the reduction in emissions with roundabouts.
The document also assumed five EmX Routes would be built, which was a pretty steep assumption.
There was a 23% increase in delays for intersections, but with roundabouts there would be no delays. She asked if there was a way to count that towards our reductions. Another issue was that the
GreenSTEP model couldn’t capture that we were increasing connectivity. The map wasn’t laid out very well in terms of mixed-use areas where connectivity would come into play. It may not be adding
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 3, 2014 Page 5
bike lanes, but removing barriers to allow people to get through areas more easily. They may be able
to solve a lot of this without a great deal of expense. There were things she didn’t feel were captured well that they needed to take into consideration. It was not clear how the goal was 20%, but our
reduction was 27% without including fleet and technology, reducing it to 3%. There were so many variables that were out of the City’s control.
Mr. Goodwin said she was correct about idling time and the reduction of emissions as a result. She was also correct that the GreenSTEP model tool did not capture that so they would need to find
another model tool to use with GreenSTEP in order to capture that reduction. The five EmX routes
were included because they were included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The City was entitled to take into account those things which were in the RTP and they were taking advantage of
that tool. It would be a difficult challenge for Lane Transit District (LTD) to fund and construct all
five of the routes by 2035, but it remained in the RTP. He agreed mapping was on a gross scale and they would need to get into more refined mapping as they went through this process. Simple actions
such as taking down fences or putting in gates for access did improve connectivity, so they would also
need to find ways to show that and use it for this purpose.
Ms. Hull said the model didn’t show how they would decrease emissions or increase biking and walking, only that those changes would be made. She would work with our staff to determine strategies to achieve those changes.
Councilor VanGordon said it was interesting that the approach to the model was top-down driven. His preference for modeling was to have a discussion about what was realistic and then take a bottom-up
approach. The discussion should be about what could actually be done.
Mr. Goodwin said that was one of the pieces of feedback they wanted from Council. The Mayor’s
suggestions and others were also welcome.
Ms. Hull presented a power point. She discussed the GreenSTEP strategic assessment tool which
helped them to understand implications of policy choices, provided guidance of where they wanted to be and how to get there. One of the things to look at was marketing and incentives such as the Smart
Trips program and employee commute option programs. She discussed a program already in place in Eugene and how that type of programs could reduce GHG emissions. The information from the GreenSTEP model was based on national research and was not specific to Springfield. Parking pricing
was another effective strategy. Because there was no parking pricing in Springfield, the figures were based on Eugene. Community design for mixed-use development was something else to consider.
Councilor Brew asked for clarification on pricing parking. Ms. Hull said it is a summary cost total of paid parking. In the 2035 year, they were looking at parking
prices in Eugene and the University of Oregon since there was no pricing in Springfield at this time. The prices didn’t increase much over time and was a very complicated lever. She explained further
when parking might be increased in a certain area. That was a policy decision.
Mr. Goodwin said one thing they discovered was that minor increases in the urban growth boundary
(UGB) didn’t have a significant impact on travel, vehicle demand and vehicle miles traveled. There
wasn’t a specific analysis for UGB increases.
Ms. Hull spoke regarding transit revenue miles and noted they had determined it would be best to use what was in the RTP to give the region credit for what was in their existing plans. At this time, they
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 3, 2014 Page 6
had about a 3% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions so we are heading in the right direction.
They had a list to do to get the rest of the way. Based on assumptions the State had made about more fuel efficient vehicles, age of vehicles, etc. they hoped to see major reductions in GHG emissions over
the next 20 years. There is a lot of value in technology changes. The team would be looking at ways to make policies more effective or implementing additional strategies that were consistent with local policies or changing policies. They were not required to select a scenario.
Mayor Lundberg said there was something in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) about an
employee parking garage. She said they could create a bus pass program for employees rather than a parking garage which would reduce GHG. Also, the Council could ride EmX once a month or do something else to help. Those were things that could be considered. At some point they we would
need to pick what they wanted to consider and what they wanted to accomplish. She had worked under the assumption that the current work underway with bike lanes, transit, etc. was leading to that reduction. This was adding another layer to that work. They needed to consider everything carefully ir
order to choose a scenario with Eugene by the end of 2014 or early 2015.
Councilor Ralston said he felt none of this was achievable. He spoke regarding technology and didn’t
believe a four-wheel truck that was heavy enough to do work would be able to get 48 miles per gallon. They would also never build a motor home or trailer that would get better mileage than what was
currently made. This sounded like a lot of busy work, but it was not going to be possible.
Mr. Goodwin said it would be a difficult challenge.
Councilor Brew said he was concerned when they were told to come up with a plan that they were not going to be required to implement. They needed to carefully consider what they were committing to
as it may come to fruition that it would be a requirement in the future. Mr. Goodwin said that was a reasonable fear. He would not encourage the Council to support
anything that could be enacted as a requirement.
Councilor VanGordon said he was concerned using the EmX lines listed in the RTP since it was
unlikely they would be built during this time period. There needed to be an analysis that the percentage the state was asking for was not possible unless more weight was placed on fleet and
technology. He felt they would get more results by looking at employee programs such as
telecommuting or flexible hours. He had a lot of questions if scheduling a fleet dispatch could affect our idle time at certain intersections such as Olympic Street. He wanted to look at things that would
have a more significant impact.
Councilor Moore asked if Safe Routes to Schools was part of this plan.
Ms. Hull said those could be implementation policies and could be examined further under the Community Design lever.
Mayor Lundberg said the interest around vehicles could relate to business, but community levers could include things like connectivity and roundabouts. Council would get another report from staff as they
continued to incorporate Council’s suggestions.
Mr. Goodwin said the City of Eugene was meeting next week and the Lane County Board on March
18. Staff would get feedback from all three groups and come back with more ideas possibly in May. At that time, they would look for comments or further direction.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 3, 2014 Page 7
Mayor Lundberg said she was interested in how the State was accounting for I-5 since it ran directly in the middle of Eugene and Springfield and we had no control.
Ms. Hull said vehicle demand on I-5 and emissions generated were included in the region’s count.
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, MARCH 3, 2014
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 3, 2014 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie (by conference phone), 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.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Mayor’s Recognition a. Recognition of Service to the Springfield Christmas Parade by Wayne Kerns.
Mayor Lundberg noted that Wayne Kerns led the Springfield Christmas Parade in his 1941
Plymouth from 1977 until 2012. She presented a letter of recognition to Mr. Kerns’ widow, Aiko
Kerns. Mayor Lundberg read the letter to the audience.
Councilor Woodrow said as Board President of the Springfield Christmas Parade, she had been
honored to have Mr. Kerns lead the parade over the years. The Parade Committee will be making a donation to the K9 program in his honor.
Mayor Lundberg recognized two K9 officers and their dogs that were present.
b. Recognition of Tammy Breedlove for Volunteerism in the Police Department. Mayor Lundberg thanked Tammy Breedlove for her volunteerism in the Police Department. Ms.
Breedlove had overcome many obstacles being deaf and nearly completely blind, yet had continued to provide excellent service to the department. Ms. Breedlove was moving to Seattle next month so was no longer able to volunteer. The Mayor presented a letter of recognition to Ms.
Breedlove.
Mike Harman spoke on behalf of the Police Department and expressed their appreciation for the
work she has done. She was very intelligent and bright, and had a great sense of humor. He thanked the Oregon Commission for the Blind for their help in providing equipment to make Ms.
Breedlove’s service possible.
2. Other
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 3, 2014 Page 2
a. Employee Recognition: Shawn Krueger, 15 Years of Service.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi introduced Shawn Krueger and acknowledged his 15 years of service with the City. He described Shawn’s work over the years and his growth and advancement in the department. Shawn had a great rapport with the industries and businesses that he regulated within
the community.
Shawn introduced his two sons and friend who were in the audience. He said it had been a great
journey and he hoped to be with the City for many more years.
b. 2013 Groundwater Guardians Presentation.
Senior Planner Linda Pauly said Springfield’s Drinking Water Protection Program was a model
for other communities. Protecting our drinking water was very critical and our water was among
the finest in the world. She introduced Amy Chinitz from Springfield Utility Board (SUB).
Ms. Chinitz said this was the 17th year Springfield had received designation as a Groundwater Guardian community. National Groundwater Guardian Awareness Week was the week of March 10th so this was a good time to celebrate.
Springfield’s Groundwater Guardian team is a volunteer group made up of agency staff, businesses, non-profit organizations, educators, and private citizens working together to protect
our drinking water supply. The students at Thurston High School’s Community Water Quality Lab tested private well water samples for over 150 households. Other students working in the fields monitored water from Cedar Creek monthly. Staff from the City continued to work with local
businesses to ensure that stormwater facilities, such as bioswales, were kept in good condition so they could filter stormwater runoff which was a direct benefit to our groundwater. The Guardians
partnered with Lane County Waste Management and other agencies to sponsor the annual one-day
household hazardous waste roundup in the Middle Fork Willamette watershed, where 120 participants property disposed of about 12,000 pounds of hazardous waste.
Some of the new projects included the collaboration between the City and the School District to complete the demonstration rain garden at Brattain House. The Groundwater Guardian sign will be
placed on a new septic tank maintenance educational brochure which was produced by the City, SUB, and Rainbow Water District, and on a new sign along Willamalane’s multi-use path along the Middle Fork Willamette. They were working hard to spread the Groundwater Guardian
message. There were many other projects as well and they all had a common theme – collaboration. None of this work could happen without the effective, cooperative relationships we enjoyed in this community. Their ability to plan and implement projects as a community was a
huge asset for our drinking water. On behalf of the Groundwater Guardian team, she presented the plaque which represented national recognition of Springfield’s accomplishments in 2013. She thanked the City for helping keep Springfield a Groundwater Guardian community.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
a. Approval of the December 2013 Disbursements for Approval.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 3, 2014 Page 3
2. Minutes
a. February 3, 2014 – Work Session
b. February 3, 2014 – Regular Meeting 3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6311 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.600 “DEFINITIONS” TO ADD/AMEND DEFINITIONS
TO TELECOMMUNICATION BUSINESS LICENSE TAX, AND AMENDING SECTION
4.706 “FEES FOR USE OF PUBLIC WAYS”, SECTION 4.712 “REGULATORY FEES AND COMPENSATION NOT A TAX”, SECTION 4.714 “PENALTIES AND INTEREST
FOR LATE PAYMENT”, AND SECTION 4.716 “AUDITS”, AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 6312 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.060 BY ADDING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH PRIVATE, PUBLIC OR NON-PROFIT PARKING
ENFORCEMENT SERVICE PROVIDERS
c. ORDINANCE NO. 6313 – 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.
5. Other Routine Matters a. Allow Construction Activities Outside of the Hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., in Order to
Complete a Connection to the Existing Public Storm Drain System. b. Approve a Motion to Award the Purchase of a Sewer Cleaning Machine to Owen Equipment
for $189,110. c. Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Springfield Utility Board for the Franklin/McVay Sewer Extension Project, P20180.
d. Authorize the City Manager to Sign Contracts for the Purchase of Police Vehicles for Fiscal
Year 2014.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 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.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 3, 2014 Page 4
1. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield – Annex 4.16 Acres of Property Located off
South 5th Street and East of Central Boulevard in Willamette Heights, Springfield.
ORDINANCE NO 4 – 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
WILLAKENZIE RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (FIRST READING).
Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. 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 bisected by the existing City limits line, which ran east-west through the middle
of the property. The site was currently developed with water utility infrastructure including a steel
reservoir tank, two abandoned concrete reservoir basins, and a gravel access driveway. The tax lots requested for annexation have an aggregate assessed value of $119,792. Because the site is an existing
public utility installation and no additional urban services should be required for its continued operation, an annexation agreement is not required with this request. Upon annexation, potential transportation and utility improvements required to serve the proposed development site would be
subject to the Site Plan Review process.
The property requested for annexation is zoned Low Density Residential with an Urbanizable Fringe Overlay (UF-10) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map. Upon annexation, the UF-10
overlay will be removed.
As outlined in the attached staff report, the annexation area can be served with the minimum level of key urban facilities and services as required in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan. The attached staff report also confirms the annexation request meets the criteria established in Section 5.7-100 of the Springfield Development Code.
Staff finds the proposal complies with the annexation criteria of approval listed in SDC 5.7-140, and
Council is within its authority to approve annexation of the subject territory to the City of Springfield and Willamalane Park and Recreation District; and withdrawal of the subject territory from the
Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection District. Staff recommends the City Council schedule the ordinance
for second reading and adoption.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Rick Satre, Schirmer Satre Group, Eugene, OR. Mr. Satre said the agenda item summary and
staff report summarized this subject well. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) was seeking to
begin a redevelopment project for this long-present water resource for the community. It was common sense to have the entire facility inside the Springfield City limits. They appreciated
staff’s support through this process. He was available if Council had any questions. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 3, 2014 Page 5
2. Master Fees and Charges.
Finance Director Bob Duey said this item was being pulled to allow the Building Fees to be vetted through the State as required by law. This item would be rescheduled for April 7.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Arts Commission Appointment. Librarian Kristen Cure’ presented the staff report on this item. In response to news releases in
December 2013 and January 2014, the Arts Commission received four applications for four vacancies. The Arts Commission reviewed and met with all applicants during its February 11, 2014 meeting. On February 18, 2014, three applicants were interviewed by the Council. One was
ill and unable to attend the interview.
The Arts Commission recommends that Richard Reed and Amy Orre be appointed to the Arts
Commission to fill the two vacancies left by term expirations for full terms that expire December 31, 2017. The Arts Commission recommends that Donald Durland and Jeanette Buxton be
appointed to the Arts Commission to complete the two vacancies left by resignations for partial
terms that expire December 31, 2015. Richard Reed is a painter, sculptor, potter and author. He has worked in many communities on the restoration of historic buildings and redevelopment of
vibrant downtown areas, most notably, in St. Paul Minnesota. Amy Orre has a BA in art and is experienced in teaching elementary school children in extracurricular activities. She currently works part-time at as a youth activity leader at Willamalane. Donald Durland served for six years
on the Springfield Arts Commission from 2002-2008. He is a practicing artist and has retired from higher education, where he taught classes in the visual arts. Jeanette Buxton is a musician who has served on the Oakland (OR) library board, the Oakland Museum board, the City Parks
Commission and co-founded the Maui Youth Theater and Maui Symphony Orchestra. Following the interviews on February 18, the Council agreed to appoint all four applicants to the
Arts Commission.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO APPOINT RICHARD REED AND AMY ORRE TO THE ARTS COMMISSION WITH TERMS EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2017. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 3, 2014 Page 6
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO APPOINT DONALD DURLAND AND JEANETTE BUXTON TO THE ARTS COMMISSION WITH TERMS EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2015. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. b. Budget Committee Appointments.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. Two vacancies occurred on the
City’s Budget Committee due to the resignation of members from the Ward 3 and Ward 4
positions. Each full term of the Budget Committee is for a 3-year period, with the positions staggered to have two vacancies occur every December. Due to resignations of the two previous
members from these wards the appointments will be for one year.
After interviews on September 24th, Council members directed staff to prepare an AIS for the
appointment of Jeff Thompson to the Ward 3 position and Gabrielle Guidero to the Ward 4
position.
The City’s charge for the Budget Committee states 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).
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPOINT JEFF THOMPSON TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, WARD
3 POSITION, WITH A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2014. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPOINT GABRILLE GUIDERO TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, WARD 4 POSITION, WITH A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2014. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:25 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
City Recorder
MINUTES OF THE
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL,
AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2014
A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield and Lane County was held in the
Goodson Room, Lane County Public Works, 3040 North Delta Highway, Eugene, Oregon, on
Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 6:00pm with Board Vice-Chair Faye Stewart presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Board Vice-Chair Stewart reconvened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council.
Present from Lane County were Board Vice-Chair Stewart and Commissioners Leiken, Bozievich and
Sorenson. Lane County Planning Manager Matt Laird and other Lane County staff were also present.
Board Chair Farr was absent (excused).
Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore,
and Brew (by conference phone). Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi and other Springfield staff
were also present.
Councilors Ralston and Woodrow were absent (excused).
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Springfield 2035 TSP Adoption
Vice-Chair Stewart said this was the third reading and continued public hearing on ORDINANCE NO.
PA-1303 – IN THE MATTER OF CO-ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD 2035
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN FOR APPLICATION WITHIN THE URBANIZABLE
AREA OUTSIDE THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD LIMITS, BUT WITHIN THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY, AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND
SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi read the Springfield Ordinance, ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN
ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2035 SPRINGFIELD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TSP)
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.
Mayor Lundberg asked Springfield Senior Planner David Reesor to present the staff report.
Mr. Reesor said staff last met with the elected officials in February during a public hearing on the
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP). Both the public hearing and the public record were left
open from February 18 until tonight’s meeting. Since that time, one letter had been received from the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff. The letter was distributed to the
elected officials.
March 11, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing
City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Reesor said the letter was fairly lengthy, but the main piece was related to the Regional
Transportation System Plan (RTSP) and how it related to local TSPs. In 2008, local jurisdictions
worked with DLCD to come up with a work plan to update local TSPs as well as the RTSP, and how
they were connected. During the last public hearing, staff handed out a letter from DLCD expressing
concern about whether or not performance measures were included in our local TSP. During the TSP
planning process, the City had decided not to include the performance measures in the local TSP, but
to work on them at the regional level where they belonged, through the RTSP process. DLCD staff
requested the elected officials direct staff to work on a revised RTSP work plan before the Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in May. Tonight, they could move forward with
the adoption of the Springfield TSP with direction for staff to work with DLCD on updating that work
plan.
Mr. Reesor referred to the supplemental findings noted in red in the staff report that addressed
DLCD’s concerns regarding performance measures.
Discussion was held regarding options to move forward this evening.
Councilor Moore asked if the RTP was also a twenty-year plan.
Mr. Reesor said that was correct. The RTP was the Federally required plan, and the RTSP was the
State required plan. Once staff updates the RTSP, the dates would be in sync with the local TSP.
Commissioner Sorenson referred to the second paragraph in the letter from DLCD “In November
2007, local staff advised the department that amendments to the RTSP (locally called “TransPlan”) to
comply with the TPR would not be accomplished within one year1. In 2008, the city and region
requested, and LCDC approved, a work plan allowing the region five years – until 2013 – to update
regional and local TSPs, and to report on meeting the performance measures required by the TPR, and
adopted in the 2002 TransPlan”. He asked if that was done.
Mr. Reesor said tonight’s plan was Springfield’s local TSP, and Eugene was currently working on
updating their plan. They wanted to wait to approve a new RTSP until both local TSP’s had been
adopted. When Eugene updates their local TSP, both plans will feed into the RTSP. That was how the
original work plan was set up, but delays in timing had kept that from happening.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing for the City of Springfield.
Commissioner Stewart opened the public hearing for the Board of Commissioners.
No one appeared to speak.
The letter from DLCD that was distributed earlier in the evening was entered into the record.
Commissioner Stewart closed the public hearing and the public record for the Board of
Commissioners.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing and the public record for the City of Springfield.
March 11, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing
City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 3 of 3
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON
TO ADOPT THE 2035 SPRINGFIELD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN AND DIRECT
STAFF TO WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT TO PREPARE A REVISED WORK PLAN THAT REFLECTS THE
CURRENT PLANNING PROCESS BEING USED TO DEVELOP A NEW REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (RTSP). THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4
FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT).
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEIKEN WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BOZIEVICH TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. PA-1303 AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION
PASSED BY A CALL FOR THE VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT).
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 6:11 p.m.
Commissioner Stewart adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 6:11 p.m.
Minutes Recorder
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
______________________
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 MARCH 17, 2014
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday March 17, 2014 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also
present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused).
1. Nuisance Code Enforcement in the Urban Transition Area.
Current Development Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. Staff requests
Council direction on whether or not to evaluate the steps, costs and consequences of establishing the
City of Springfield and the Springfield Municipal Code as the jurisdictional authority for nuisance code enforcement in the Urban Transition Area (UTA). The Lane Code and Lane County government
currently have sole jurisdiction on this matter.
The topic of effective code enforcement in the UTA has been the subject of several previous Council
discussions primarily because the Springfield Municipal Court, and by extension the effective implementation of Springfield’s codes, has no jurisdiction outside the city limits. This condition has persisted ever since the County transferred UTA planning and building authority to the City in 1987.
All of the City’s efforts to date to enforce land use and building codes in the UTA have relied upon cooperative compliance or in extreme circumstances, an appearance at Circuit Court.
The City recently tried to assist a property owner in Glenwood with nuisance type violations but without success because 1) The County’s Code did not address these activities; 2) The City’s
Municipal Code, which does address these activities, is not in effect in the UTA; and 3) The
mechanism to enforce the Code, the Municipal Court, has no jurisdiction outside the city limits. The probability that such circumstances would continue to be “un-fixable” prompted staff to bring this
matter to the City Council for discussion and direction.
Mr. Mott referred to the Council Briefing Memorandum which was included in the agenda packet.
This document provided some history on jurisdiction authorities in the UTA, a brief description of the status of program enforcement in the UTA, and several possible solutions to achieve a change in the status of enforcement in the UTA. Some possible options noted in the memo included: 1) Ask the
County to adopt into Lane Code the same nuisances identified in the City’s Municipal Code and thereby expand the County’s enforcement program to bring it on par with the City; 2) Ask the County to adopt the City’s nuisance ordinance into Lane Code but then transfer enforcement jurisdiction to the
City; this would include transferring the administrative civil penalties procedure the County uses to levy fines, withhold other required permits, enter property to abate, and to attach liens; 3) Annex the UTA and thereby bring all of this land into the City’s jurisdiction without any participation from Lane
County.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 17, 2014 Page 2
Mr. Grimaldi said as parts of Glenwood become annexed, this will be more of an issue as annexed
properties are affected by un-annexed properties with no mechanism to address those issues. Mayor Lundberg said there had been a situation in Glenwood that prompted this discussion. When that
situation came to the Mayor’s attention, staff and elected officials from the City and Lane County met to discuss how this could be addressed. After looking at the County’s resources and the City’s
resources, they realized there wasn’t anything satisfactory that could be done. The situation involved a
neighbor that had large amounts of garbage, unused vehicles, rodents and other nuisances that were not being addressed.
Councilor Moore said one option was to take the City’s nuisance ordinance and put it into the Lane Code, and give the City enforcement authority. She asked if there was a difference between that and
having an intergovernmental agreement stating the City would implement our nuisance code in that
area. She asked if it would be advantageous for the County to have their nuisance code address these issues.
Mr. Mott said not every possible solution had been evaluated. One of the shortcomings was that Lane Code didn’t address the same nuisances or in the same way. No satisfaction would be gained by
having the City act as an agent for the County. A possibility would be to ask the County to adopt our nuisance code, but that was not likely.
Mr. Grimaldi said during initial discussions with Lane County, they did not want help.
Mr. Mott said the County’s regard for issues within the urban growth boundary (UGB) were less of a
priority for the County based on recent actions. He described those actions which included jurisdictional transfers to the City within the UGB. Those actions allowed the County to retreat from
financial responsibility. It didn’t burden the County to adopt our nuisance code, but to enable the City
to enforce it would require an IGA that specified that either the City would use the County hearings official for the enforcement process, or create our own hearings official process and administrative
penalties process with our own official. Councilor Woodrow brought up the number of nuisance complaints per year.
Mr. Mott said the number of nuisance infractions the County investigated in the UTA was not great. He couldn’t confirm that their practice was the same as the City’s regarding nuisance code violations
or complaints. If the City got a complaint, they investigated it and made a determination whether or not it was a violation. The City received ten to fifteen calls per week from residents in the UTA complaining about nuisance violations.
Councilor Woodrow said the UTA would eventually be annexed. It could be very frustrating for those
living in that area not to receive any assistance from the City when they would be part of the City once
annexed. She would like to come up with some way to ease that transition. She liked Option 2 or something similar that would allow the City to have jurisdiction to investigate and enforce. She hated
to see people in that area with no recourse for resolution. She understood Lane County’s hesitancy, but
would like to find some middle ground.
Councilor Brew agreed. There were people living in Glenwood and other areas around town that were Springfield citizens paying taxes who would be affected by nearby neighbors not within city limits and
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 17, 2014 Page 3
not required to follow city regulations. He would like them to do whatever they could to work
something out with Lane County. If Lane County adopted the City’s nuisance code, he asked if they would be under an obligation to enforce that code elsewhere in the County, or would it be specifically
in the UGB. Mr. Mott said the County’s existing nuisance codes identified violations within the UGB of either city.
They had a slightly different approach for properties outside the UGB. Some things were allowed in County zoning that were not allowed in the UTA. He read from the Lane County code.
Councilor VanGordon asked if staff knew what the additional cost to the City would be with any of these changes.
Mr. Mott said they did not. It was difficult to determine at this time because the volume of work Lane County does is much different from the City. It was also difficult to know how many calls the City
would receive. He noted that the City received 10-15 calls per month related to the UTA. So far this
calendar year, the City’s code enforcement had received 480 calls related to both City limits and in the UTA. A certain percentage of those were violations and some were not.
Councilor VanGordon said he was in favor of going forward, but was concerned about cost.
Mr. Mott said staff would do their best to bring that information to the Council. We had a good enforcement program in the City. There was a big difference between the City and County programs.
Councilor VanGordon said in making this change, he didn’t want to hurt our current enforcement program.
Councilor Moore said she liked the public information strategy piece. She agreed that Option 2 was the best solution unless it was cost prohibitive. She suggested expanding Spring Cleanup to those
living in the UTA in the future. Some people didn’t have a place to dispose of things.
Councilor Woodrow said she would think that since the City hadn’t had an enforcement process in the
UTA, the costs would initially increase, but could eventually go back down once people got familiar with the program.
Councilor Brew said he sympathized with people that had to deal with these issues. Things had be to fairly egregious to get to the level of enforcement action in the City. He asked if the enforcement program was self-supporting.
Mr. Mott said 120-140 cases per year ended up in Court. Fines could be fairly steep if it is an ongoing health hazard activity, but were often reduced if the property owner cleans up the violation. If a
property owner was constrained through no fault of their own, the Judge will take that into account and provide additional time or payment plans. He wasn’t sure what type of revenue came into the
program.
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said this would be a tool for compliance rather than a revenue
stream.
Mayor Lundberg said Council was supportive of moving forward with Option 2. She asked staff to
bring back figures and other information. She noted that the people in this area were people that had lived in an area for a long time without any enforcement, so it could be an issue if suddenly they had
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 17, 2014 Page 4
enforcement. On the other hand, they were part of the transition area and this could be a boost to bring
them into the community. It could be an opportunity to polish up the area, such as Glenwood, with some code enforcement.
Mr. Mott said since the area in the UTA included about 6000 residents this change would be impactful. He would bring back additional information to consider this further.
2. TEAM Springfield Annual Meeting Follow-up.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented the staff report on this item. At the annual TEAM Springfield meeting held on January 25, 2014, discussion was held on a series of next steps to continue to
strengthen TEAM Springfield and provide direction regarding the future of TEAM Springfield. It was
agreed that each governing body would review the next steps and provide direction. The results of the discussions of the governing bodies will be reviewed at the TEAM Springfield Chief Elected Officials
meeting on April 16, 2014. He reviewed the top four items.
Councilor Woodrow said she was reminded of Al King’s question of the School District helping with
urban renewal and downtown, starting with a meeting between the School District and the City. She would like to add that to the four items. Everything else looks good.
Councilor Moore said she appreciated the statement under Item #3 that stated, “Use this effort to explain TEAM Springfield as a collaboration of partners, not a separate entity”. She suggested they use pictures of staff from each agency at different events to show that they are four different agencies.
Councilor Woodrow said she thought they were thinking of doing something like that on the website.
She would like to see each agency emphasized with an article in the newsletter similar to what they
did when they highlighted the Council members last year. This could be done on a cyclic basis bringing each to the forefront with an in-depth look at the role of each agency in the community.
Councilor VanGordon said he was good with the four items listed and had no additions.
Mayor Lundberg said their collaboration went beyond sharing activities and should include
encouraging one another. She would like to add to the list looking at other ways they could collaborate on money saving ideas and increasing efficiency.
Councilor Woodrow said if someone had a project or idea, they should bring that idea along with the specific roles for each agency. That might save time and get a more collaborative mindset from the
start. Mayor Lundberg mentioned the joint meeting between the School District and City Council. A
meeting had been scheduled with Mayor Lundberg, Board Chair Light, Dr. Hertica Martin and Gino Grimaldi to discuss a possible direction for a joint meeting with the full Council and Boards. She re-
iterated the suggestions from the Council. She asked if there was currently a cycle where each agency
was highlighted in the newsletter. Community Relations Manager Niel Laudati said staff was working on that now. They often
highlighted the agency that had an issue that rose above the others or was timely, but typically it rotated. The newsletter went to print twice a year and was sent to 28,000 residents. It was sent by zip
code.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 17, 2014 Page 5
Mayor Lundberg asked if it went to residents in Glenwood. She felt it would benefit that population
and she would like to include them. It also needs to include those that are in school and park district boundaries.
Mr. Laudati said they could break that down to the zip code in Glenwood.
Councilor Moore asked if the bylaws were being updated. Mr. Grimaldi said they were. She mentioned that Mr. Keefer had brought up the Mill Race and that everyone was already involved in
that process. She asked if there was further discussion about that project.
Mr. Grimaldi said that came up when discussing collaboration and identifying the separate roles of
each agency. That did go forward as a collaborative project.
Councilor Moore said that was a good project to promote.
Mayor Lundberg said the Mill Race would be a place where the TEAM Springfield logo and each agency logo would be listed so people saw that all four agencies were contributing to that project.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa City Recorder
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 17, 2014 Page 6
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY MARCH 17, 2014
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday March 17, 2014 at 7:00 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 Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Mayor’s Recognition
a. Mayor’s Day of Recognition for National Service.
Mayor Lundberg proclaimed April 1 as Mayors’ Day of Recognition for National Service and read from the proclamation. Amy Bressler from United Way came forward to accept the proclamation.
Ms. Bressler thanked the Mayor for her support.
2. Other
a. Employee Recognition: Melanie Gates, 15 Year of Service
City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented this item. He introduced Melanie Gates from the Fire
Department in the FireMed Program. He noted her accomplishments over the last fifteen years and that she was well-loved by her volunteers and those that worked around her.
b. Employee Recognition: Jon Driscoll, 10 Year of Service
Mr. Driscoll was unable to attend tonight’s meeting so this item will be rescheduled.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims a. Approval of February 2014, Disbursements for Approval.
2. Minutes
a. January 14, 2014 – Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2014 Page 2
b. February 10, 2014 – Work Session
c. February 18, 2014 – Work Session d. February 18, 2014 – Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6314 – 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
WILLAKENZIE RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Intergovernmental Oregon Emergency Response
Cooperative Assistant Agreement on behalf of the City.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others.
.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE – Limited to 20 minutes. 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.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2014 Page 3
Councilor Moore said she attended Nurse Ann Berg’s retirement party today. She would be
finishing out the week and then retiring. She was hoping they were looking to find another contracted person who would be as effective as Nurse Berg working in the Wellness Program for
the City. b. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
Mr. Grimaldi said Nurse Berg did make a big difference and would be hard to replace.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:04 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________
Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest: ____________________
City Recorder