HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/5/2014
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) April 7, 2014 – Regular Meeting b) April 14, 2014 – Council Goal Setting
c) April 21, 2014 – Work Session
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2014
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, April 7, 2014 at 7:08 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney 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. Caregiver Recognition Day Proclamation.
Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation, proclaiming April 8, 2014 as Caregiver Recognition Day in Springfield.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. February 24, 2014 – Work Session b. March 3, 2014 – Work Session
c. March 3, 2014 – Regular Session d. March 11, 2014 – Joint Elected Officials Meeting
e. March 17, 2014 – Work Session
f. March 17, 2014 – Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-06 – A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CITY PROJECT P20154;
FIRESTATION #4 WASHRACK.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-07 – A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CITY PROJECT P20513;
SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION 2007.
4. Ordinances
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 2
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Award the Subject Contract to H&J Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $997,122.00, for project P21067 – 10th and N Sewer Upgrade, Phase 2.
b. Authorize City Manager to Sign a Contract Extension with Life Flight Network, LLC to Provide Inter-facility Critical Care Ambulance Transport Services from the Springfield
Ambulance Service Area (ASA #5) to Other Locations.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH
A VOTE OF 6 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.
1. Ordinance Adopting a Temporary Moratorium on the Siting of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. ORDINANCE NO. 1 - AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON
THE SITING OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
City Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith and Lauren King presented the staff report on this item. The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) is authorized by statute (HB3460) to establish and regulate a medical
marijuana facility (dispensary) registration system. A companion law (SB 1531) allows local
governments to impose “reasonable regulations” on dispensaries. Additionally, SB 1531 also allows local governments to declare a temporary moratorium on the establishment of these dispensaries to
allow time to enact any “reasonable regulations.”
On March 24, staff and the City Attorney’s Office sought Council preference regarding whether a
moratorium should be enacted while the City considers and adopts local regulations of the dispensaries. Council directed staff to return on April 7 with options, including temporary moratoriums and a suggestion of the types of additional regulations that qualify under the statute as
“reasonable regulations.” If Council decides to adopt a moratorium, the attached draft ordinances
address the different options. If Council decides to take action, only one ordinance is necessary. However, the moratorium options described below are not mutually exclusive and in some
circumstances could be adopted together into one ordinance. If necessary, staff will revise the ordinance to reflect Council’s decision.
The options presented are: 1. Take No Action—this defaults to the state rules without additional local regulations
2. Adopt a Moratorium—Council has the flexibility as to how long the moratorium lasts and whether the moratorium temporarily prohibits all dispensaries or only those dispensaries that
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 3
have not yet been licensed. Additionally, Council can adopt a moratorium and direct staff to
begin preparing reasonable regulations. The following are the moratorium options: a. Adopt a 90-day moratorium to address “place” concerns
b. Adopt a 90-day moratorium to address “time” and “manner” concerns c. Adopt a moratorium effective May 1 , 2014 but allow dispensaries that receive a license prior to May 1, 2014 operate subject to further regulations
d. Adopt a moratorium that lasts until May 1, 2015 or until regulations are developed
3. Do Not Adopt a Moratorium but direct staff to develop additional regulations
Ms. King noted that the purpose of the moratorium was not to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, but
rather allow the City the opportunity to address how this new use could co-exist with Springfield
residents and businesses. She reviewed the three options listed above. If the Council chose not to take any action (Option 1), the OHA has rules that will regulate the dispensaries. No dispensary can
operate without an OHA license. The OHA regulations considered who can be responsible for a
facility, where a dispensary may operate, and how a dispensary may dispense medical marijuana. The license expires yearly and would need to be renewed through the OHA after proof of compliance with
all regulations. Some of the regulations include being limited to certain zones, not within 1000 feet of an elementary or high school, and not within 1000 feet of another dispensary. The City was currently implementing the minimum development review standards. This procedure was triggered by the fact
this was a new use. Dispensary owners had been to the City and were going through those minimum development standards and confirming they were within the zone as allowed by the OHA. If Council decided to adopt a moratorium, action needed to be taken by May 1 and would sunset no later than
May 15, 2015. Council did have the ability to implement a shorter time frame. Because this was a new use, the City didn’t know of the potential regulations a city may be interested in or that might be
necessary. The recommendation from the City Attorney’s office focused on the idea of looking closer
at ‘place’ because once a business was in place, it was more challenging to decide that location is not appropriate. If Council decided not to do a moratorium, but to direct staff to look at developing
additional regulations, Council could still consider place, time and manner regulations, but the place
regulations would be more challenging to implement after someone was already located.
Councilor Woodrow asked if any of the options included looking into a business license. Ms. King said Council could direct staff to begin work on preparing a business license without
adopting a moratorium. There could be a concern if the business license included requirements or restrictions on place. If a business license was later developed and required, existing businesses would need to come back in to get their license.
Councilor Brew referred to Attachment 1 which cited the OHA regulation, “The name of a person responsible for a dispensary is confidential and is not subject to disclosure without court order”. He
said that was highly unusual. There was no other business that had that requirement. If the City put in place a license, he would expect to make disclosure a requirement.
Ms. King said that would be a reasonable regulation. Part of OHA’s rules made it so someone did not have to disclose their name because it was associated with having the medical marijuana card and not
subject to disclosure. If the City required a business license, the owner would need to disclose their
name to the City, but the City wouldn’t make that a public record without a court order to protect that person’s identity.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 4
Councilor Brew said he didn’t know why we would need to keep someone’s name off the public
record when every other business was listed. He understood that most banks would not accept deposits from marijuana dispensaries because the federal government still considered it a Class 1 drug. He
asked if the City would be at risk taking cash from a marijuana sale. Ms. King said currently the federal government was not regulating marijuana as heavily as other drugs
and the law was very much in flux. There was a potential if the federal government did decide to regulate, although it was not anticipated.
Councilor VanGordon asked how long it took someone to get their license from the OHA once the application is submitted.
Ms. King said it has been taking a couple of weeks. To date, only one operator in Springfield has been issued a license.
Councilor Ralston said he suspected the reason their names are not subject to disclosure was due to the criminal element and risk in knowing where they lived, similar to police officers.
Ms. King said it could be that being responsible for a dispensary was associated with having a medical marijuana card, which was a requirement. If the City did have a business license with that information,
the City would try to make an effort to keep that information as confidential as possible. Councilor Woodrow asked if a person getting a license for a dispensary was also required to have a
medical marijuana card.
Ms. King said there are different licenses under the Oregon Medical Marijuana law for caregivers,
growers or patients. To get a license for a dispensary, the individual needed to be registered with the OHA. She was not sure of their requirements to get a license.
Councilor Woodrow said if they put a business license in place, they wouldn’t have to identify anything beyond the person responsible, such as personal information. The City wouldn’t have to
know which type of card the person had as long as they had met the requirements of the OHA. Ms. King said they could look into that more closely.
Councilor Wylie said the Federal Administration enforced the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) laws to protect privacy around medical and health care. She would
assume the medical marijuana card would fall under those laws. Ms. Smith said they weren’t sure if HIPAA applied to having a medical marijuana card holder, but the
disclosure language was in the OHA rules. They would check into that further.
Councilor Moore asked about existing city codes that restricted liquor dispensaries and adult video
stores. She asked if there were any city codes related to the e-cigarettes.
Mr. Donovan said there were state regulations that addressed liquor stores. They were considered a
standard retail use and had no significant additional regulations. Subject to the state rules, a liquor store could be located in a commercial district. Adult stores were protected by constitutional rights and
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 5
did not enter into the City’s regulation of a commercial retail establishment. The City adhered to the
state regulations for all three of her examples and had not imposed additional regulations.
Ms. King said there was a business license for liquor stores in addition to the state Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) license.
Councilor Moore asked if a similar license could be applied to medical marijuana dispensaries.
Mr. Donovan said there were differences between Municipal Code and licensing. It would be within
reason to consider licensing, place, manner and location regulations through the Municipal Code.
Councilor Brew said in comparing medical marijuana dispensaries with pharmacies, the current
zoning would not allow pharmacies in agricultural or industrial zones. Under the State rules, that would be allowed. If the City were to treat medical marijuana dispensaries like pharmacies, rules
needed to be put in place.
Mr. Donovan said although there are agricultural uses within the urban growth boundary (UGB),
Springfield does not currently have Agricultural Zones, although we could in the future. Mayor Lundberg explained the process and asked that everyone be respectful of each speaker.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
1. Caitlin Sullivan, Q Street, Springfield, OR. Ms. Sullivan said she was an Oregon Medical Marijuana Plan (OMMP) patient who recently received her card. She was diagnosed with fibro myalgia about 10 years ago making it difficult for her to get out of bed at times. She had
tried a number of pharmaceuticals, but they had not worked for her. Throughout the day, she needed different types of strains of marijuana to address different physical pain. Her family
was very low-income and she had difficulty finding a job because she was an OMMP patient.
Having a dispensary open would provide a place where she could access her medications, and also would create jobs and revenue for the City. This could offer her an employment
opportunity. Not everyone has access to their medications and not every patient-to-grower
connection was fair or accessible. She asked them not to implement a moratorium.
2. Bee Young, Main Street, Springfield, OR. Ms. Young was the current licensed dispensary
owner and was also representing the Lane County Cannabis Industry Association. One of the reasons Colorado had done so well with their legalization program was because they had the
dispensary program to bridge them over. Those with their licenses were responsible. As a
licensed individual, she was allowed to waive her right to disclosure, which she and others had done. The disclosure element was related to HIPAA rules and also to protect them from
people wanting to rob them for products. Banks often closed accounts of dispensary operators once it is known they were associated with the industry, so operators maintained funds. The Council concerns were valid, so the Association wanted to work with the City and help them
understand what this industry would do for Springfield. It meant jobs for people that could not get jobs because they test positive for marijuana due to their medicinal use. The OMMP
industry does drug testing as well and doesn’t accept any other drug than what has been
prescribed. She hoped the Council would allow the Association to work with the City to make this transition. If they are banned, businesses would move to Eugene, but she chose
Springfield and would like to stay.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 6
3. Sarah Duff, Missouri Avenue, Portland, OR. Ms. Duff said she was here representing some of her patients in Springfield. It was very difficult to connect with patients, especially those that
live in a different community. She would appreciate it if there were places for the patients to get their medications. She spoke regarding a patient with skin cancer that needed medication immediately in order to treat his disease. She suggested that if Council wanted to do a
temporary moratorium, that it be for a short period of time and would allow businesses that were already in place to continue to operate. The City of Ashland chose to eliminate all of the
retail establishments within 100 feet of a purely residential area and that had worked well for
them. She supported that type of reasonable regulation.
4. Jeremy B, Eugene, OR. Jeremy said he had someone that would speak on his behalf.
5. Jim Murphy, Greenhill, Junction City, OR. Mr. Murphy said allowing the fate of the
applicants to rely on the quick actions of the government by May 1 was wrong and unfair.
There were a lot of people that had applied for a license that had not yet been contacted. Allowing those that are open by one date to continue, and not others created a monopoly. The
way that seemed the most fair was Option 3. There should have been some thought into this already and Option 3 would allow everyone to start and the City to make rules. A business using an agricultural model would fail as this was a retail use. The 90-day moratorium wasn’t
a bad idea to get something in place and would be his second choice.
6. Larry Becker, High Street, Eugene, OR. Mr. Becker said he was here on behalf of medical
marijuana patients in Lane County. Most of what the Council did would likely be pre-empted in a year anyway. The law was passed for safe access for patients. A moratorium would make that difficult to impossible for many people. If the Council’s interest was in promoting the
health and safety of the citizens, the moratorium should not be passed. If one is passed, it should be for as brief a period as possible.
7. Leslie Hysell, Lebanon, OR. Ms. Hysell said although she did not currently live in the area, she would be moving back soon. She had previously worked for the Springfield Police
Department and been a parent volunteer in a local school district. She was stepping out as a
cannabis patient because of the need. If someone was unable to produce their own medicine, they had to go through the streets, which was non-quality. After years of working in this area
in the medical, police, and veterinary fields, she became disabled in 2009 and an opiate addict. She was told she had no other choices than to have an implant of morphine, but she chose not to do that and sought medical cannabis. In 2010, she became opiate free and she would like to
stay that way. She agreed they needed regulations, but she asked that any delay was short.
8. Dan Koozer, Pioneer Parkway, Springfield, OR. Mr. Koozer said as a political activist he had
worked on getting the initiative to legalize medical marijuana in 1997. Now we had dispensaries, but unfortunately the State legislature had doubled fees and now were giving cities the option of implementing a moratorium. There was now a resource for medicine, but
that could be stalled up to a year which was unconscionable because this was medicine. He noted examples of decreased crime in areas that allowed dispensaries. The dangers weren’t
there, but the benefits were. He asked the Council to drop the moratorium and let patients have
their medicine.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 7
9. Chamelle MacKenzie, South 79th Street, Springfield, OR. Ms. MacKenzie said as a patient
she was excited about the possibility of being able to go to a dispensary for her medication, legally and safely. As a citizen of Springfield, she wanted to buy her medicine in Springfield.
Currently, there was one dispensary that had received a license from OHA, but there was a need for more than one to provide options for patients. Some dispensaries may not offer all of the different types of medical marijuana available, so having more dispensaries open provided
those options. She felt implementing a moratorium while the City worked things out was reasonable, but one year was too long. She wanted to support the business owners in
Springfield.
10. Travis MacKenzie, Springfield, OR. Mr. MacKenzie said his wife had covered what he
wanted to say.
11. Dan Larsen, Walnut Ridge Drive, Springfield, OR. Mr. Larsen said he had been a resident of
Springfield for the last 18 years, and was a native Eugenian. He thanked the Council for the
work they did in cleaning up downtown over the last few years. He knew it was a lot of work. He felt that if they allowed dispensaries in Springfield, we would be reverting back into the
old days. He noted the new development in Glenwood and the number of visitors coming into our area. There were pages of security measures required by the dispensaries because of the products in the dispensaries. He suggested implementing a one-year moratorium. If people
needed their marijuana, they could go to Eugene. Springfield was being open-minded by having a public hearing, something Eugene did not do. Marijuana was a very dangerous drug and was a mind-altering drug. He noted an article about a young man in Colorado who died
after using marijuana. He suggested Springfield study how other communities handle dispensaries and the issues they encounter. Once a rule or place was established, it was very hard to change.
12. Mike Cozad, Homeless Veteran. Mr. Cozad said he was a former caregiver. His mother-in-
law lives in Springfield and has been a medical marijuana user for about five years. The
biggest problem she had was finding a reliable source. For people who are very ill, specific cannabinoids were needed and new information is being learned all the time about the
different properties of each. For her condition, she needs a specific strain and that is very
difficult to get. With a dispensary, the patient would know the quality, type and contents. There is still a stigma about marijuana being a dangerous drug. Anything could be dangerous
if used incorrectly, and that is likely what happened in Colorado. Marijuana has valuable medicinal use. He has seen what it can do for a variety of maladies that don’t react well to prescription medications, which have their own side effects. If a moratorium is implemented,
there are people that might not be around in a year and having this medication could improve
their quality of life. They needed to have an honest conversation about cannabis and responsible medical use, and get rid of the stigma. He hoped Springfield would take the time
and not block what was coming. 13. Kris McAlister, Springfield, OR Mr. McAlister said he was born, raised and still lived in
Springfield. He currently qualifies for five of the eleven allowed uses for medical marijuana and perhaps six with his declining health and genetic disorder. He has three concerns
regarding the moratorium. He believed this ban could be endangering patients to illegal
markets and exposing them to other substances that already invaded our community. This could create more potential issues in additional to issue patients already face. There are
approximately 6,275 patients that could be affected because Eugene only has one or two
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 8
dispensaries open. The cost of this medicine for his condition is one-third of his rent. He has
seen numerous doctors and tried hundreds of medications to address his condition. A moratorium puts the weight of caring for Springfield patients on Eugene. As Springfield
citizens, we had Springfield responsibilities. He was not a pot-head, but had medical conditions. He had served this State, the community and he cared about our people. This was our problem and we needed to fix it and care for our people. He was not supportive of taxing
the dispensaries as it would cost the patient more.
14. Robyn Broadbent, Springfield, OR. Ms. Broadbent said she was going to provide a
testimonial, but felt others had said what she had planned to say.
15. Jayson Thomas, Main Street, Springfield, OR. Mr. Thomas said he was trying to open a
dispensary at 1936 Main Street. As a dispensary owner, he was able to find a bank in Arizona that would give him a credit/merchant service as well as full banking. He received his
provisional license, his security system was installed and he could open any day but out of
respect for the City is waiting to see what action the Council takes. According to OHA, there are currently 1700 grow sites in Springfield and over 6000 patients in Lane County. He
commended the Police Department for doing a good job of regulating this program. The security program (for dispensaries) was four pages long, as noted earlier, making them safer than a bank. That should give the Council and all of the Springfield citizens assurance of
safety. When he moved to Springfield, he did a comparison of crime rates and cost of living and Springfield beat out Eugene in every department and has for a number of years. For Eugene to be more welcoming for these types of businesses and provide safe access to
medicines was ridiculous. Springfield is a progressive, safe and diverse city and we should take advantage of turning this already existing industry into a more legitimate avenue. He would need to open in 40 days to remain viable, so a 90-day moratorium would shut him
down. He planned on operating at cost for the first six months and was not out to make a lot of money. He had worked on his facility since November, had invested in the facility and had
employees ready to start work.
16. Jack Martin, 21st Street, Springfield, OR. Mr. Martin said he was a native of Springfield and
lived here for over 75 years. He liked the way the town had been run, but felt a moratorium
was needed to get all of the rules and regulations in place that they knew of now and also things they may learn about. Whether it was 90 days or one-year was at the discretion of the
Council, but it needed to be long enough to take a close look at State regulations and any other regulations we may want in Springfield.
17. Bethany Sherman, W 11th Avenue, Eugene, OR. Ms. Sherman serves as the Executive
Director of Oregon Growers Analytical, a new cannabis testing laboratory in Eugene. She is also on the board for the Lane County Cannabis Industry Association. She would like to
encourage the Council and citizens to consider the impact of a moratorium on patient’s access to safe medicine. The state required that dispensaries have all their products tested. With this regulation, they are able to provide patients with critical data they need access to so they knew
what they are consuming. If a moratorium is implemented in Springfield, the over 6000 Lane County patients will either go to Eugene to spend their money, will turn to the black market,
or continue to suffer without their medication. In any of those situations, Springfield would
lose out on valuable tax revenue and job opportunities. Allowing dispensaries to operate under State law, Springfield could look forward to a growing economy where patients had access to
clean, safe medicine and the information needed to make the right decision for what they are
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 9
purchasing. The black market would have a reduced capacity to operate with regulation in
place. She noted that reports from Colorado since they legalized marijuana showed a 9% decrease in traffic fatalities, approximately 3% decrease in teen use of marijuana, and a
decrease in some types of violent crime. The State regulation for medical marijuana dispensaries was defined over several months by a comprehensive team of educated people from several sectors. They continued to work on further defining those regulations, which are
very comprehensive, at the State level.
18. Antony Johnson, Hawthorne, Portland, OR. Mr. Johnson said he was here representing the
Oregon Cannabis Industry Association. He urged the Council not to impose a long moratorium or lengthy, stringent regulations that would zone out medical cannabis facilities in
Springfield. Many of the fears and concerns are understood by the cannabis community. They,
too, want to have safe neighborhoods, safe roads, and to keep marijuana out of the hands of children. The best way to do that is to have licensed and regulated medical cannabis access.
He sent to the Council an email with links to a number of studies that showed that crime did
not go up in states with medical marijuana dispensaries, and often decreased. The roads are not more dangerous, and often are safer. Licensed and regulated establishments do a better job
of checking for identification of medical marijuana cards than black market dealers. Forcing patients to go to other communities was a hardship to many patients. The facility operators are willing to work with the City and address concerns of the community. To fully address the
concerns of the community, licensed and regulated establishments, audited and inspected by the State, are the best way to have safe neighborhoods, safe roads, and keep marijuana out of the hands of children. He urged the City to work with the dispensary operators as a community
that wants to provide safe access to patients and do what is best for the community. 19. Eric Rosso, Wallace Creek Road, Springfield, OR. Mr. Rosso said in looking up the
marijuana related death in Colorado, he found that the person had never previously used marijuana and had ingested it and then jumped to his death. This is the type of concern that
has been blown out of proportion and diverted us from better action. Legal medical marijuana
has been in Oregon for nearly a decade and they are just now talking about whether or not to allow dispensaries. Wherever they adjusted the legal status of cannabis, there are associated
reductions in crime and illegal drug use. He is confused that Oregon is still dealing with this
issue when it is something that can help the local economy.
20. Robin Warner, Kelly Blvd., Springfield, OR. Ms. Warner referred to the accidental death due
to marijuana use, but more deaths had occurred from people using alcohol and opiates. Every pharmacy has to follow rules and regulations. Before dispensaries were legal, there were no
issues with those that were operating. Now that dispensaries are legal, there are rules and
regulations and issues to consider. She urged the Council not to enact a moratorium.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. Councilor Ralston said this isn’t something that was unexpected, yet they feel like they have to rush to
do something. The State has rules in place and is already regulating dispensaries, so the City should leave it to the State. He believes any attempt on a moratorium is not just to figure things out, but to say
we will add additional regulations and he didn’t feel that was necessary. It is not an agricultural
concern, it is commercial and the City knew the proper zoning for those already. It is time it is referred to as a medicine. Without dispensaries patients have to get their medicine from the illegal market.
That is more dangerous than allowing dispensaries. It will create jobs and we have an opportunity to
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 10
create income through fees and taxes that can help fund community services. The security is higher
than a bank, and there is no need for someone to rob a dispensary when they can steal it from others. Creating a moratorium sent a message that they didn’t personally approve of the use of marijuana as a
medicine, and that is wrong. Springfield had led the way, but if not allowed here, people would go to Eugene to get their medicines. There is nothing further to study and there is no need for a moratorium. He has confidence in our planning department to provide information on proper zoning to dispensary
owners. This medicine is much less dangerous that many of the narcotics prescribed to ease pain.
Councilor Brew said he believes in marijuana as a medicine and believes we needed to have
dispensaries, but he also believes we needed to treat this as any other new business that comes into our community by doing due diligence. A 90-day maximum moratorium is appropriate, but if we can get
ready in a shorter time frame, that would be fine. The state doesn’t consider many things that can
affect the City; that was the City’s job. Zoning is just one of the things to consider. We need to treat this like any other business. He appreciates that people are waiting for their medicine, but medical
marijuana has been approved for ten years and we are just asking for another 90 days to look at this
closer. That is part of their job.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the City had to adopt a moratorium to have currently licensed dispensaries subject to future regulations, or if they could just subject them to future regulations without enacting a moratorium.
Ms. Smith said that would be Option 3 in which the Council would choose not to impose a moratorium, but look at the issue and determine regulations. If they are time or manner regulations,
business license, hours of operation or something else to supplement state rules, the City can enact those on medical marijuana dispensaries that are currently licensed or those that became licensed in
the future. It would be difficult to place regulations on a current dispensary location where it is no
longer allowed under future regulations. In that case, the dispensary could stay and would be a pre-existing, non-conforming use. Another option would be to enact a moratorium for a certain amount of
time, but dispensaries that already have their license would not be subject to the moratorium. The
purpose of the State allowing cities to enact moratoriums is to give them a chance to look at those types of things.
Councilor Woodrow said when this first started she had concerns, so she read the regulations and emails from people, and listened to those that testified. She wanted to know how the community felt
and what was going on in the public’s lives and how they viewed things. She asked a lot of questions and would continue asking questions, but she felt comfortable with the information received thus far. She believes in medical marijuana. In the past, she worked in case work, family counseling and rehab
treatments for addiction and alcoholism and knew there was a concern of marijuana being a gateway drug, but she also recognized the medical use. This is important for the person legitimately using marijuana for medication. She is more in favor of allowing what is happening now and looking to
address issues as they arise as necessary. The State rules gave the City a good head start. Historically, Springfield has been able to address things as needed, and she feels they can do that again without a
moratorium.
Councilor VanGordon asked if there was a way to allow those with a license to open now, while the
City enacts a moratorium.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 11
Ms. King said that was an option. Some other cities are also considering that option. The City
Attorney’s office would recommend that if a dispensary was already operating, they would be subject to further regulations to create equity among dispensaries.
Councilor VanGordon said it was important to hold a public hearing on this subject to hear the comments from everyone. He also read emails that came to him and answered calls about this, which
all helped. Dispensaries are coming, but some rules need to be in place and it is difficult to add rules once businesses are already opened. He recognizes this is a pressing matter. He would prefer to set a
one-year moratorium in downtown, and referred to the testimony from the gentleman about the
improvements in downtown. He would like to see people with licenses have the ability to open now, and impose a 90-day moratorium to figure out regulations. Our community is relatively balanced. His
concern is that if they didn’t take some time to create some regulatory framework, it would be very
difficult once dispensaries opened. He felt they should take the times as they would any other industry. This option would give those that open dispensaries clarity on the City’s regulations. He isn’t against
having dispensaries downtown for a long period, but just wants the extra time in that area. He repeated
his preferences regarding existing dispensaries and a moratorium.
Councilor Moore asked about the cost for medicinal marijuana. A member of the audience responded that the price breaks are normally a gram, an eighth, a quarter, a
half and one ounce. General pricing is about $12/gram, $35/eighth, $65-$70/quarter, $110-$140/half and $200-$280/ounce depending on quality, quantity and other factors.
Councilor Moore said she is interested in Option 3 and felt they should look at the time and manner. The only place she is concerned about is mixed-use residential. Although Springfield didn’t have a lot
of that now, we had plans for that in the future. She felt they could move forward without a
moratorium and look at time and manner of dispensing, and also enacting regulations regarding mixed-use and agricultural areas.
Ms. King said there are agricultural uses allowed in the urban transition area (UTA). If the city moves forward with expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB), those would be agricultural.
Councilor Wylie said she would like the City to consider putting dispensaries in the same category as a pharmacy when looking at regulations.
Mayor Lundberg said she wants to be careful about place as it can send a negative message based on fear and bias. She doesn’t want to send the message to the community that we didn’t like them in
specific areas. She provided an example of opinions based on fear and ignorance. This is a new area for the City and probably will change at the end of the year if any of the measures go forward and pass regarding recreational marijuana. She felt recreational marijuana would be in the liquor store category,
and medical marijuana in the pharmacy category. Springfield has never been afraid to forge ahead and get things done. She doesn’t want any business that has already made a commitment to be in
Springfield not have the ability to open. They can get this done without a moratorium and can move
forward with any needed regulations quickly. She agreed they need to look at it further. She noted that there are separate liquor licenses from the City and the State, which allows the City an opportunity to
monitor that type of business. She agrees with that process. She would prefer they went to the
legislature to have them do something about e-cigarettes as she felt they were much more harmful to children. She agreed they need to look at regulations, but not a moratorium. Allow people that have
invested to continue to work towards opening their dispensaries.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 12
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO LOOK AT OPTION 3 AND DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP ADDITIONAL
REGULATIONS AS SITUATIONS OCCUR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (VANGORDON).
2. Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Recommended Funding Allocations.
Housing Program Analyst Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) reviewed five proposals and prepared CDBG
and HOME funding recommendations for the FY2014-2015 program year. The recommendations are
being forwarded to the City Council for consideration and approval. The CDAC’s funding recommendations are consistent with Springfield’s local funding priorities and identified community
development needs as documented in the 2010 Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan. A second
public hearing to approve the One-Year Action Plan would be held on May 5.
The City of Springfield will be receiving $451,142 of CDBG funds and $299,575 of HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015 (FY2014-15). This is a slight reduction in CDBG and a slight increase in HOME compared to
last year. These amounts, and approximately $102,000 of previously unallocated funds, are available. The Council Briefing Memo included details and discussion regarding the CDBG and HOME programs allocation process and the funding reductions to CDBG and HOME programs. The memo
also showed trends of CDBG and HOME funding over the past ten years which had steadily declined except for a small rise in 2010.
Mr. Ko said the applicants had been very thoughtful in their requests, asking only for the minimum needed knowing that funding was down.
Mayor Lundberg said she was on the CDAC, but was not able to attend the meetings this year due to conflicts. She apologized to the committee and applicants that she had missed those meetings. This
was a committee she truly enjoyed.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
1. John Lively, Springfield, OR. Mr. Lively serves as President of the Springfield Renaissance Development Corporation (SRDC). He congratulated the Council on the work they had done
over the years in downtown. We could all take pride in the transition that is occurring. SRDC
is proud to partner with the City in those efforts; going back to the Wildish Theater and the impact that venue has on downtown. SRDC recently purchased three buildings in downtown
on Main Street between Pioneer Parkway and 4th Street. They were asking for $35,000 to redo the front of those buildings. Currently, they had signed leases with all three buildings. The long-term goal was not to be landowners in downtown Springfield, but to continue to work
with the properties and encourage others in Springfield to develop downtown. SRDC hoped to find someone interested or living in Springfield to purchase the building and then reinvest in
fixing up other buildings. He was asking for Council support for the funds to fix those
building.
Councilor Ralston asked where the buildings were located.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 13
Mr. Lively said they were on the south side of Main Street across from PlankTown Brewery. A new bike shop had opened next door.
2. Sarah Cantril, Eugene, OR. Ms. Cantril is the Executive Director of Huerto de la Familia (The Family Garden), a non-profit organization. She was here as a partner agency to NEDCO’s
application to the CDBG Grant. Huerto de la Familia had been in Springfield since 2006. One of the programs is based in Community Gardens, offering opportunity and instruction for
families to grow their own food. They were currently partnering with Willamalane to have
garden space for the families. For the past two years, they had offered micro-development classes to Latino immigrants at the Downtown Languages location. They had been partnering
with NEDCO for their Individualized Development Account and will be working with them
on the Community Lending Works to loan money to participants. They are initiating a food booth incubator at the SPROUT indoor farmer’s market for families to sell food products and
access the community kitchen. The families Huerto de la Familia served were primarily mono-
lingual Spanish speakers so all programs were offered in Spanish. Many of the families had limited education, but had a lot to offer and a lot of experience. The job of Huerto de la
Familia’s was to help them build legitimate businesses. This proposal would assist their organization in better working with NEDCO. Huerto de la Familia would like to have a physical presence in Springfield at the 405 A Street location and hope to work with them to
allow Latino immigrants to sell their goods.
3. Roberto Peralta, Springfield, OR. Mr. Peralta is the owner of CIG Consulting. He was
speaking in support of NEDCO activities. He opened his own business in 2012 working with several businesses, one of which is a cooperative, profit-sharing with a lending company. NEDCO helped him in the beginning with his business plan and through his struggles in
managing his own company. NEDCO has the right person to support his decisions. NEDCO was like a tree. People working at NEDCO help maintain the tree, giving more fruit for the
community.
4. Nestor Sohnlein, Springfield, OR. Mr. Sohnlein was here representing NEDCO as their new
Business Development Coordinator. NEDCO was doing a lot of good in our community. This
project they are requesting funding for is geared up to start a new incubator space at 405 A Street. Incubators are one of the thriving businesses in every economy. The possibility of
generating new jobs and possibilities for the people of Springfield was great. As Business Development Coordinator, Mr. Sohnlein’s work is to teach what a business is, to counsel about business, and to go into the community to help all those that need help. With the
funding requested, NEDCO would try to make the tree grow higher.
5. Jacob Fox, Eugene, OR. Mr. Fox is the Deputy Director for the Housing and Community
Services Agency (HACSA) of Lane County. HACSA was requesting HOME funds which the CDAC supported. They were building a lovely building next to the hotel and conference center that was discussed earlier this evening, and were excited to be able to provide housing
for those workers and create a neighborhood. He acknowledged Larry Abel, Executive Director of HACSA; Steve Oakes, Real Estate Development Director for HACSA; and
Richard Herman, Cornerstone. He had worked for both housing authorities in the cities and
had been exceptionally impressed with the work done by the City of Springfield staff. The staff had come through for HACSA when needed. He acknowledged Kevin Ko, John
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 14
Tamulonis and Jim Donovan for helping to push the project along, along with other staff who
had worked hard.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. Councilor Ralston said he was supportive of the HACSA project. He asked if there was a diplomatic
way to do outreach to the surrounding mobile home parks that may be relocated as development occurred. He would prefer to be proactive and this seemed like a great opportunity.
Mr. Ko said this could provide some relief and be a demonstration of what was possible to help address the mobile home park dilemma faced by Springfield and the whole State of Oregon.
Councilor Ralston said he would like to contact each of the residents to let them know what is going on and let them know of this opportunity.
Mr. Ko said they would make sure the developers took that step.
Councilor Wylie said she was supportive of all of the projects and felt they would all help improve our community. She was very excited about downtown and watching our community grow, and acknowledged the NEDCO program for helping start up new businesses and helping them succeed.
Councilor VanGordon noted that all of the requests were for grants rather than loans. He asked if that was a change in rules.
Mr. Ko said he had made it clear in the application that the City was encouraging loans. The value of
grants was greater than loan funds, so with the limited funds it was easier for agencies to use fewer
funds through grants.
Councilor VanGordon asked if the Lock-Out Crime program was still active.
Mr. Ko said they still had funds available from the last allocation two years ago.
Councilor Moore asked about the process HACSA was going through to apply for tax credits from the State. She knew that Bascom Village was also applying. She asked about the effect on their project if
they were not awarded those credits. Mr. Fox said they were in a new region which included Corvallis and Salem. Contacts in both towns
indicated that there was not much competition in the region for other projects. They made a deliberate decision to submit both the Glenwood and Bascom Phase II projects. The dollars used for both projects were Federal dollars. If they didn’t get funded for one of the projects this year, they would
submit that project again next year.
Mayor Lundberg said she was very hopeful that the HACSA project was awarded the tax credits. She
was happy to see SRDC back with a project. She was pleased to see a new commitment from them and more investment in downtown. A set aside for downtown was started awhile back and it had worked
out very well. She was pleased with all of the applications. She thanked the CDAC and applicants.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 15
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/2015 CDBG FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
It was noted that this included the HOME funding allocations.
6. Master Fee and Charges Schedule – Spring 2014 Update
ORDINANCE NO. 2 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING
ARTICLE 1, TABLE 3-A STRUCTUAL PERMIT FEES; TABLE 3-B ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES; TABLE 3-C PLUMBING PERMIT FEES; TABLE 3-D MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES;
TABLE 3-F OTHER INSPECTION AND FEES OF THE “SPRINGFIELD BUILDING SAFETY
CODE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE” OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT; COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION “BUILDING SAFETY
CODES”.
ORDINANCE NO. 3 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL
CODE, SECTION 3.356 “SEWER CONNECTOINS – UNASSESSED PROPERTY” TO ADD A NEW SECTION, SECTION 3.356(3)(c) REGARDING PROPERTY DIRECTLY BENEFITED BY THE FRANKLIN/MCVAY SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. Each year, Council and staff
review 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. A work session was held with Council on February 3 to review the proposed changes for this spring. Staff is returning at this
time to present to Council the first phase of the proposed fee changes as discussed at that work session.
The inclusion of all fees into a single manual for improved public access does necessitate three separate actions for final approval of recommended fee changes. A single ordinance, public hearing
and second reading is necessary for changes being made to fees specially stated within the Building
Code. A second single ordinance, public hearing and second reading is necessary for changes being made to fees specially stated within the Municipal Code. Both of these ordinances are being presented
on April 7 with a second reading scheduled for April 21. These ordinances will become effective on May 21st.
A separate resolution presented for a public hearing only on April 21 has been scheduled for all other
recommended fees changes presented at the February 3rd work session but are not included in the two previously mentioned ordinances. The effective date for these fees will also be May 21st to allow all
new fees to go into effect at the same time. Mr. Duey noted two minor changes that would be made prior to adoption of the ordinance. The first
was a fee that was supposed to be raised from $5 to $5.10, but was shown as $5 to $10. The other change was to remove the emergency clause from the ordinance and the effective date. Building Code
fees had been reviewed by the State as required and building staff has vetted them with the
HomeBuilders’ Association (HBA). He described the increase in fees in the ordinances and resolution.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing on Ordinance No. 2.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 16
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing on Ordinance No. 2.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing on Ordinance No. 3.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing on Ordinance No. 3.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from David Williams Regarding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. 2. Correspondence from Charity Woodrum R.N. Regarding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BIDS
ORDINANCES
1. Glenwood Phase 1 Update (Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00005, TYP411-00007, and TYP311-00001 and Lane County File No. PA 11-5489).
ORDINANCE NO. 6316 – AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND (2012-077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING SUPPLEMENTAL
FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF SPRINGFIELD FILE NUMBERS TYP411-00005,
TYP411-00007, AND TYP311-00001 AND LANE COUNTY FILE NUMBER PA 11-5489, AND AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT, THE
SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP, AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND INCORPORATING ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING OF 14.29 ACRES OF LAND FROM EMPLOYMENT MIXED-
USE TO COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Senior Planner Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. On October 15, 2013, the
Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony on the proposed Glenwood Phase I amendment package to address the LUBA Remand. In accordance with the 1986
IGA (190 agreement) between Lane County and Springfield, the Springfield Planning Commission
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 17
voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the amendment package to the Springfield City Council
and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
On October 17, 2013, the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners held a joint work session to receive an introduction to the proposed Glenwood Phase I amendment package to address the LUBA Remand. On November 18, 2013, the City Council and Lane County Board of
Commissioners held a joint public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Springfield Development Code, and Findings associated with TYP411-00005 and TYP411-
00007 to address the deficiencies identified in LUBA’s Remand related to Statewide Planning Goals
9, 10, 12, and 15.
In response to testimony received at the November 18, 2013 public hearing, the City Council directed
staff to amend the designation and zoning of Assessor’s Maps and Tax Lots 18-03-03-11 01401, 17-03-34-440 3300, and 17-03-34-44 00301. On April 1, 2014, the City Council and Lane County Board
of Commissioners held a joint public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Glenwood
Refinement Plan, Springfield Zoning Map, Springfield Development Code, and Findings associated with TYP411-00005, TYP411-00007, and TYP311-00001 for Tax Lots 18-03-03-11 01401, 17-03-34-
440 3300, and 17-03-34-44 00301. No testimony was presented, and the City Council and Board of Commissioners closed the record.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6316. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Library Advisory Board Appointment
Mr. Towery presented this item on behalf of Library Director Rob Everett. In response to a
January 2014 posting, the Library Advisory Board received one application to fill the seat of departing Board member, Jody Anderson. The Board interviewed candidate Dwight Dzierzek at
its March 4, 2014 meeting and forwarded its recommendation to Council to interview him as a finalist for the position.
The Council interviewed Mr. Dzierzek at its March 24, 2014 work session.
Mr. Dzierzek is a 25 year resident of Springfield and works in banking for Northwest Community
Credit Union. He lives in Ward 4 of the city and in the past he has served as a member of the City’s Budget Committee. He is actively involved in his community as a board member of the March of Dimes, Forests Today & Forever, and the Springfield Chamber of Commerce Greeters.
The Library Advisory Board believes this candidate is eligible and qualified to serve on the board.
Council is requested to appoint Dwight Dzierzek to a 4-year term on the Library Advisory Board
ending 12/31/2017.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2014 Page 18
Mayor Lundberg thanked Mr. Dzierzek for staying through the whole meeting to be here for his
appointment.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPOINT DWIGHT DZIERZEK TO A 4-YEAR TERM ON THE SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC LIBRARY CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD WITH A TERM
ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2017. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Business from Council
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 9:07 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor Attest:
____________________
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2014
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 14, 2014 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Council ate dinner at 5:30 p.m.
The meeting started at 6:00 p.m.
1. Council Goal Setting Session.
Mayor Lundberg said this Goal Setting is being held later in the year than usual, which was good because they had changed the direction of the meeting several times through the individual meetings.
They landed on a format that allowed them to look at what they had been doing, what they had in the
works, what they wanted to have in the works, and what they wanted to happen. She referred to the Goals and Strategic Plan and asked the Council to consider the Strategic Plan for another follow-up
session. Copies would be provided for those that didn’t have a set. The Council Operating Procedures were available at each of the council places. One of the topics discussed with the consultant, Stan Biles, was how the Council conducted business. There was still a lot of gray area regarding what the
Council could talk about with each other. The second part of the meeting would be a chance for the councilors to talk about what they want to happen in Springfield. These would be identified as Special Emphasis Areas (SEA).
Mr. Biles said he hoped the agenda developed for tonight’s meeting would address most of the
subjects raised during his individual meetings with each council member. He reviewed the agenda:
1. Internal Council Operations
The first topic will be an opportunity for the Council to identify and discuss what is working well and what needs to be improved. This may include any or all of the following: 1) the role and execution of
the role by Council leadership; 2) the correct process for any member to raise a new issue; and 3) Council/staff working arrangements. The Council would like to be clearer in giving direction to staff and the Council would like to receive more timely updates on implementation of past Council
direction. This was a chance to look back and also to the future. 2. Special Emphasis Areas
The second topic is not intended as an opportunity to set new goals or to initiate new projects, but to have Council consider all that is going on with the many City plans, and select a small number of
topics for "special emphasis" over the next year. Some Special Emphasis Areas (SEA) could include
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 2
downtown, Glenwood, specific neighborhoods, etc. It will be essential to define a desired outcome for
each SEA that is different than what would have happened without the SEA designation.
He will close the meeting by talking about next steps and who would do what, when and how the Council would be kept up-to-date on the implementation of any of the projects they identify.
Council Operation: 1. What is working well now for the Council and City government?
2. What are the roles of the Council, both leadership and individuals?
3. How to raise new issues to the Council – what is the right way to do that in terms of process and protocol?
4. How to keep the Council informed in a timely manner both orally and in a written manner,
about status of implementation of higher priority subject areas.
He asked Council to nominate what worked well in terms of Council operations:
• Staff support
responsiveness to Council
good quality responses
direct answers to questions
good response to constituent issues from City Manager and staff
• Mutual respect among councilors
• Good deliberation
• Sound judgment
• Leave working relationship intact
• Respond well to the public
listen well
responsive
provide or get information
stay in tune with public
• Practical Council and community
results driven – focus on what can be accomplished
don’t become sidetracked with issues that don’t impact Springfield
pragmatic
• Respect for the public and their views
immediate follow-up from staff
respect the public’s nervousness and courage it takes to speak before Council
• “We get things done”
• Work well with other agencies – TEAM Springfield
• Value staff contribution and information in preparation and distribution of Council packets
• Diverse opinions, but value one another’s views
• Excellent legal counsel
• Give up personal ownership when an issue comes before the Council
• Councilors knew their role
made hard decisions
didn’t get ahead of the public and what the public wanted
Mr. Biles said this list of attributes is rare, but has been historic for this jurisdiction.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 3
Councilor Wylie recalled when she first joined the Council and was excited to get things done. She
talked with a former councilor who advised her to say her piece, give her best argument, let the Council act, then let it go. That laid the groundwork for mutual support and respect. That was hard to
learn and to practice. Mayor Lundberg said she had asked City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith to provide information on
what the City Council can and can’t do regarding communication.
Ms. Smith said when thinking about elected officials communicating with each other, the overall
principal was to remember that our form of government in the United States was to make decisions in public. They do that by meeting with a quorum, deliberate and make decisions. A few years ago, Lane
County had a court case against them regarding a public meeting law violation. That made all elected
officials overly cautious and made an impact on how Council communicated. She said the Council can communicate with one another in situations such as wanting to get an idea where one person was on a
particular situation. The issue arose when it looked like they had a quorum and were making decisions
privately. Exchanging information is fine. It helps councilors know where someone is on a particular issue and prepare for the meeting. She discouraged them having conversations via email as those can
easily get out of control with multiple people getting added to the string of emails. Email between councilors can often become problematic in that way as well as others. Meetings with less than a quorum of Council was fine as long as they all received consistent information from staff and did not
formulate decisions. Councilor Brew asked if it would be a quorum issue if all of the Council showed up at a Chamber
social event, but were not deliberating.
Ms. Smith said it would not.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the Council should steer clear of Council topics during those types of event.
Ms. Smith said it would be practical to avoid those topics. They can sit together at those types of events, but need to be cautious of the appearance to others. She encouraged them to have
conversations, but to be cautious that they are not deliberating outside of the public sphere or creating a document or record.
Councilor Wylie said Council leadership had been talking about the Council being more involved in the process of decisions making and information flow. As Council President, she can call councilors but also encouraged other councilors to call her about issues, packet information, etc. She would like
to open that door. Councilor Ralston said that used to occur, but he felt the Council had good communication so didn’t
see a need.
Councilor Woodrow said she recalled the Council President calling her husband, former Councilor
John Woodrow. She liked that as it gave the councilors an opportunity to get the background and experience from the Council President. The Mayor and Council President attended Agenda Review
and received information from councilors that they could evaluate whether or not it is something that
should come to the full Council.
Councilor Wylie said sometimes information came to the Agenda Review meetings from the Mayor, City Manager and Niel Laudati, that was important to share.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 4
Mayor Lundberg said the Council Operating Policies and Procedures were set up with a protocol for councilors to bring up new topics. They can first bring it to Council leadership who determines
whether or not to bring it to the full Council. If Council leadership doesn’t feel it should go to the full Council, the initiating councilor needs to get approval from a majority of the Council. It didn’t come up often, but was important for them to know. It was good to have Council leadership vet those ideas.
Councilor Woodrow said it saved time bringing it to Council leadership.
Mr. Biles asked if there was a difference between the information that came from leadership, and when it would come from the Mayor and when it would come from the Council President.
Mayor Lundberg said she calls when she feels it is something everyone needs to hear as needed.
Councilor Wylie asked if more definition or support was needed regarding bringing items forward.
Councilor Moore said she was not always clear why certain issues need to go through Council. She
noted a recent misunderstanding about the bus going down South 42nd Street. She wasn’t aware that needed to go to Council since Council didn’t set Lane Transit District’s (LTD) schedule. She was surprised she had circumvented the Council.
Mayor Lundberg said if it is something that affects the community, it is a Council issue. If it is an individual issue, that is dealt with at the staff level. Council should be aware of community issues.
Councilor Woodrow said by bringing that to Council, they could either muster support or see that it may not work or things need to be redefined.
Mayor Lundberg said there may be some agreement or disagreement of what would be impactful to
the community. That is why it should go through leadership.
Councilor Moore said sometimes leadership doesn’t want to go forward.
Mayor Lundberg said if leadership didn’t want to bring it forward, the councilor needs to contact the rest of the Council to see if they have support.
Councilor Woodrow said some of the councilors may have more information on that particular subject that can then be shared. Getting everyone the information was important. After sharing and getting the
information, they can determine whether or not it’s a good idea. Mayor Lundberg said generally something that is community-wide takes resources. Those type of
things need to be conducted in a work session so the public has a chance to hear and weigh in on the subject. If there is support from the Council to bring it forward, that provides the public a chance to be involved.
Councilor Brew said he was not always clear of who tracks those issues. He referred to a question he
had about the agreement with Sanipac.
Staff is going to bring that back to the Council on July 14.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 5
Mayor Lundberg said sometimes those things need a head nod from the Council because it did mean
more staff work to prepare the information to bring to Council. She will work on making sure the rest of the Council agrees to bring certain items forward.
Councilor Woodrow said the Council members who bring up those items during a meeting also need to look to see if others are in agreement.
Mayor Lundberg said it was appropriate to mention something in a work session for further
discussion.
Councilor Brew said he didn’t know if there was a formal process.
Mr. Biles said an individual request for action in a work session that doesn’t have a formal motion for action or follow-up, needs to have a head nod from the rest of the Council before moving forward. The
Mayor will look to the Council to see if they agree or not. He asked if Councilor Moore got her
question answered.
Councilor Moore said she didn’t realize LTD’s bus routes were a Council topic. It was explained that if it impacts the community it is a Council issue so that helped to clarify that question. She has no desire to circumvent the Council.
Mr. Grimaldi clarified that if council leadership chose not to move an idea from a councilor forward, the councilor would take it to the other councilors. If they have support from the appropriate number
from the Council supporting that idea, it goes forward. He asked about next steps.
It was decided that the City Manager would bring it to Council leadership to let them know. Council
leadership would then give final direction to staff. Discussion was held regarding the procedure in the Council Operating Policies and Procedures.
Mr. Biles said the last item for this area of discussion was possible improvement in keeping Council better apprised of the status of issues brought forward by Council.
Councilor Woodrow said they receive information regarding ongoing development projects in their Communication Packets. She suggested using that format to relay other information to the Council,
with the last column listing the approximate date the issue would come back to Council. Councilor Moore agreed a type of matrix could be provided with a brief description of the
information. Mayor Lundberg said Council leadership used to be the only ones to receive those development
reports, and now it was provided to the full Council. The Communication Packet does have a lot of information and that is where she catches things. Some things need to be in the Communication
Packet, but sometimes they need to be discussed in a work session.
Discussion was held regarding the Consent Calendar.
Councilor Brew clarified what Councilor Woodrow said about a chart for follow-up.
Councilor Woodrow said a chart is very simple and concise, and shows what is being done.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 6
Mr. Grimaldi said some examples of topics that can go into that type of report are the Main Street
projects and public events, the Council compensation discussion, the delay in the City Hall Plaza improvements due to the weather, etc.
Councilor Woodrow suggested keeping the list to less than a dozen.
Mr. Grimaldi said if staff is not tracking something the group thought was assigned as follow-up, they can call staff to ask about it.
Councilor VanGordon said he would like enough information so they can clearly understand the topic. He would like to see a column showing the last thing done and the next step.
Mr. Biles said it would be a snap shot of the project today, and a preview of when it was coming back to Council.
Councilor Woodrow said the development reports have proven helpful for her when out in the public, providing her easy access to the information.
Councilor Moore said it would be helpful when she attended the Mohawk Hawk meetings so she could report on things that might be of interest to them.
Mr. Biles said it sounded like the Council wants to start small.
Councilor Wylie said the Council kept busy with the inflow of information in the weekly meetings and it is easy to forget about some of the other things. She suggested the City Manager provide updates
during the Council meeting of those projects. Having the information would help them to be better
councilors.
Mr. Biles asked how often Council would like the updates – weekly, monthly, quarterly.
Councilor Wylie said she wants updates during each Council meeting done verbally.
Discussion was held regarding whether the communication should be oral or in a written format.
Mayor Lundberg said it could be part of the Communication Packet or under the Consent Calendar. The councilors can call and ask questions independently if needed. She suggested a filter of some kind to keep the list from getting too large. Perhaps items that the Council knows won’t be coming back for
a long time can be left off the list. Mr. Grimaldi said the list can be sorted so things that are changing are at the top.
Mayor Lundberg said it takes the Council’s time to read through them so keeping the list manageable
would be helpful.
Mr. Biles said there will be some different iterations of this type of communication. They can try them
out and decide which works best. It sounded like Council was looking for a written document in
summary form, short and to the point covering high priority items, which will be in the Communication Packet. It will explain what the project is and when it will be coming back to Council.
Some of the criteria for these topics can include high priority for Council, legal or jurisdictional issues,
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 7
major public involvement efforts, and major development projects. Staff can get something put
together in three weeks.
Mr. Grimaldi said they will start with a small list. Councilor Moore didn’t want to add too much work for staff.
Mr. Grimaldi said it will save time in the long run. He asked how often they wanted the report.
After discussion, Council decided they would like it weekly. Items with changes would be listed at the top and the changes noted in bold.
Council took a break at 7:15pm Council reconvened at 7:21pm
Mr. Laudati provided feedback from the Council stipend survey that was still underway. He read each question and the percent response. The survey, which was on Social Media, had been noted in a couple
of Register Guard articles, and was reported by KEZI. Discussion was held regarding the results. It was not a scientific study, but had interesting results.
Mr. Biles said the next topic of discussion is the designation of Special Emphasis Areas (SEA) for the next year. This is an opportunity for Council to choose the items they want to place special emphasis
in the coming year. A designation might land weight to resource allocations or re-allocations.
Councilor Woodrow said Glenwood came to mind.
Mayor Lundberg suggested making it Glenwood Development.
Councilor Woodrow said as a Council they should collectively champion Glenwood in the public arena.
Mr. Biles asked if there was something new they wanted to focus on in Glenwood, or emphasize what had already been agreed upon.
Councilor Woodrow said the proposal for the Glenwood Conference Center just came to Council and Council voted to authorize the City Manager to sign a letter of intent. She felt this project needed their
focus. Councilor VanGordon said the most important thing going on in Glenwood is the Conference Center.
There are a number of ways to promote this development, from staff to elected officials. If the Council decides to focus their attention on this project, they can then direct staff to focus on it as well.
Councilor Brew agreed. He just needs to know what the Council needs to do and how.
Mayor Lundberg said in the past, Gateway was the focus and then downtown. Glenwood has been an
industrial area that was overlooked, but then Steve Moe suggested Springfield take it over from Eugene. Springfield took over Glenwood in the late 1990’s. Developers who have been around for
many years have been interested in a conference center in Glenwood. There is resistance to the idea of a conference center in Glenwood for a number of reasons. She felt it could have been more welcomed
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 8
than it was. Part of the resistance is that a convention center is needed, not a conference center.
Funding is needed and that is why she had asked for the discussion with staff about the transient room tax (TRT) funds which have gone to many things, including the Lane Events Center. A conference
center is being proposed, but a convention center is much larger. A convention center needs at least 250 rooms, and only 150 rooms are being proposed in the Glenwood development.
Mr. Towery said Travel Lane County distinguished the two by size and layout. A convention center was 65,000 square feet of meeting room space, which was about 3 times the size of the proposal and 2
½ times larger than the space at the Hilton Eugene. For a convention center that size, a hotel needs 350
rooms. That is the perspective of Travel Lane County.
Mayor Lundberg said the site could potentially hold a convention center. It is important to look at the
resistance and also the opportunities to fulfill the need on a larger scale. This is the opportunity to dream of having a convention center. That would put the emphasis on Glenwood. One of the other
arguments against the conference center in Glenwood is that there is nothing else going on in
Glenwood. There is, however, other development in Glenwood as well as the rebuilding of Franklin Boulevard. This is an opportunity to look at other things and giving staff direction to focus on
Glenwood. Getting the urban renewal area to improve and make progress is the key to success for the entire community. It is time to start turning things around. If people think they need a convention center, they need to find out if there is support and if they are willing to discuss it further.
Councilor Ralston said a conference center was feasible and doable. Needing more hotel rooms is good for the surrounding area. He is not sure he would support a convention center. They need to deal
with practicality of what can and can’t be done.
Councilor VanGordon said they may need to ask the developer if they had considered a large
convention center. A conference center seems within reach compared to a convention center.
Councilor Wylie said there was a range of conference center sizes. If there was a market for a mega
convention center, it would have already been built. There is a tipping point that had been vetted by the developers. They can consider going a little larger or build on in the future. It had been a dream for
a long time for Eugene to have a mega convention center, but it is not feasible at this time. She referred to the Mayor comment that some people argue there is nothing in Glenwood. The EmX line went through Glenwood, to the Gateway Mall, PeaceHealth at Riverbend, University of Oregon, and
Eugene downtown. Councilor Brew asked if anyone was seriously talking about a convention center. He said there is an
old saying that “Great is the enemy of good”. Mayor Lundberg said if it was just Springfield looking at this, there would be no issues.
Councilor Woodrow said ten years ago, a large conference center didn’t have the support or the
developer. We are at a point that someone is interested in putting something there and she didn’t want
to see that go away. It will be a draw for other things to come into Glenwood.
Mayor Lundberg said there is resistance out there. The Council can be very good cheerleaders for the
conference center, but they only have a small part of the funding. Maybe the idea of a conference center that can be added to is something to consider. She is looking at ways for others to get to ‘yes’.
She referred to the number of rooms to accommodate those using the conference center. Most people want the hotel at the same site as the conference so there were legitimate concerns. The Council needs
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 9
to look at what they can do, and what they are willing to do, to help the development in Glenwood as a
whole. There are a number of other projects in town that staff is committed to working on. Some things might need to be moved to the back burner. They are still waiting to hear if the Federal
government will approve either the shorter or longer process for Franklin Boulevard. She again noted that Springfield only has a small funding piece for the conference center and they are relying on others.
Councilor Wylie asked if staff had talked with the developers to see if they have interest in doing a
phased approach to add another 100 rooms at a later date.
Mr. Towery said the developers indicated the conference center would generate other hotels in the
area. It would be partly driven by the market. The developers spent a lot of time looking at meeting
room demand. They might be interested in another project down the road.
Mayor Lundberg said the developers opened the door for others to open a hotel. The Council needs to
ask what they can do as a City to encourage development in Glenwood. She listed some other tools used to assist in downtown.
Councilor Brew said the Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) was already picking up SDCs for commercial development in Glenwood. Council could collectively throw themselves behind
this and talk to Congressman DeFazio to try to get the Franklin Boulevard process moving. Mr. Grimaldi said there could be a public hearing before the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Galvanizing support from the right people would be of importance. Another general project related to Lane County is the transfer station and it will take political strength to convince the County to move
that from Glenwood. One of the things already in the works is the request for funding through the
Lane County ACT for funding for Franklin Boulevard. There would be opportunities as Council inserts themselves into those conversations.
Councilor Ralston said he was supportive of doing things like that, but not of giving up all revenue to developers. They can’t make people come here. Travel Lane County and the Lane Economic
Committee could be out looking for people. Mayor Lundberg said work around mobile home parks is needed as well. The City took it to the
Regional Solutions Team and she hadn’t seen anything back from them. Mr. Grimaldi said the Regional Solutions Team was not currently staffed with a lead, but the Mayor
can have influence on that. Mayor Lundberg said an aerial view of the hotel and conference center shows a mobile home park
right next door. Having a solution for displacement of mobile home park residents was important. She will work with the Regional Solutions Team to get that back on the table for discussion.
Councilor Wylie said the City didn’t have a government relations specialist. Several staff have taken on parts of that role. The City should have done things differently with this project by talking with the
Commissioners sooner. The City needs to have a strategy to know who to talk to, how to get the
information in front of the right people, and develop a strategy. She was glad to volunteer to work with staff and the Mayor to do some of that, but they needed assignments and a strategy.
Councilor Brew asked if Council could get a list of the projects Lane County TRT’s have funded.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 10
Councilor Moore asked about the process for an economic development agency.
Mr. Grimaldi said John Lively was taking care of leads coming from the State. There is a change in the State’s approach to economic development to centralize it more in Salem. Members of our region need to sit down with those from the State to determine that working relationship. Jointly with the two
Chambers, a consultant was hired to work through a process. They are close to landing on a governance model for a new organization, although it will not be ready by July 1, 2014. They are
working on an interim solution.
Councilor Moore said the City out to be on the University of Oregon’s (UO) doorstep reminding them
that we are here and close. She knows the UO wants to partner with Springfield, so they need to be a
key player.
Mayor Lundberg said the UO does want to be part of Springfield.
Councilor Moore said the City ought to continue to remind the UO of our willingness to partner with
them. She discussed one of her ideas. The Simpsons are an international draw and the City has never taken on promoting that in our City. She asked if they have ever contacted Matt Groenig to see if 20th Century Fox would like to build some type of entertainment area based on the Simpsons, perhaps at
Booth Kelly. She would like to pursue that as an international draw. Councilor Woodrow said her concern is that once they set something up, it would be old news and
lose steam. She agreed it is a draw. People that came into the Chamber office often asked about the Simpsons. She is not sure she wants Springfield’s draw to be the Simpsons.
Mr. Biles said clearly Glenwood is the top priority, but there is a lot of work to be done. He asked if there are any other nominations for a SEA or if they want to focus exclusively on Glenwood.
Councilor Wylie said they need to start sowing seeds for a new Library. She noted the beautiful Library in Monroe.
Councilor Ralston said he will support it if they knew the taxpayers want to pay.
Councilor Woodrow said there is a good Library Board and seeds have been sown. The Sustainable City Year (SCY) program generated plans and ideas that are energizing. She heard a lot of positive comments about those plans. Continuing to get that word out will be a benefit.
Councilor VanGordon agreed. He is not sure they are ready to start pushing for a new building, but first need to work on other things to push this and build a case. Building a new Library or anything
new in downtown is exciting; however, citizens told the Library Board that the most important thing is open hours. As they went into Budget season, there may be an opportunity to impact open hours, starting down the road to discussions of a new building. He asked if there was a significant difference
in what can get done if the Council chose to make Glenwood the most important thing this year.
Mr. Grimaldi said there is a lot of work to do in Glenwood, such as Phase II of the Glenwood
Refinement Plan, improvement of McVay Highway, and the EmX. There is plenty to do in Glenwood. If the Council chose Glenwood, it will change the focus and staff will do things differently.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 11
Councilor VanGordon said that is something to consider. Leaving Glenwood on the list will give them
an opportunity to really focus the conversation and get something accomplished. That is appealing to him. They went through this exercise last year, and not everything has been delivered at this point. He
asked how last year’s list will be connected to this year’s list so things aren’t missed. Mr. Grimaldi reviewed the list from last year and what has been accomplished. Some are two-year
goals and still in the works.
Councilor VanGordon said he didn’t want to lose those things from last year’s list.
Mr. Grimaldi said nothing on that list would stop.
Mr. Biles said in response to Councilor VanGordon’s question about things getting done in Glenwood, it is up to the Council as decision makers for policy, resources and staff time. In the next 12 months,
Glenwood won’t be redeveloped, but Council can come up with specific deliverables in developing
strategies and plans for Glenwood. He provided the following examples: have a financial plan approved for a conference/convention center; or have the Federal government letter regarding grant
funding. If this is Council’s goal, they can back it up with allocation of funds, actions and policies. Councilor Wylie spoke regarding lighting, parks and streets in Glenwood. Perhaps there is a park
parcel that can be started sooner, or lighting that can be put into Glenwood sooner than originally planned. The new I-5 bridge has a large landscaping area at the base to meet up with the bike path. They need to make an effort to match some of these things up. By making this a priority, they can
move these projects forward. At the same time, they need to market to developers and get information to the right people to get some redevelopment going. If they make it their focus, they can put their
energy behind it to get things moving.
Mayor Lundberg said the Council was the leadership of the City and it is up to them to set that
direction. They need to look at what is the most beneficial for the community. By saying this is the
priority, it will prioritize staff work. Other things will fill in as needed. They can look at other things, such as Library hours during budget, but Glenwood is the area they want to do something. They now
had an impetus and interest so this was good timing. Councilor Woodrow said Eugene is now booming, but it took getting one or two things in place as a
magnet drawing in other development. They can do that in Glenwood and talk to people to see what interest they might have in bringing something into Glenwood. They have already created conversations and could take advantage of that conversation to talk to people. Everyone she talked
with last week is positive about seeing the topic of Glenwood on the table. Councilor Brew said the budget is coming up in the next couple of weeks. He asked Mr. Grimaldi if he
could bring some recommendations for ways to re-allocated funds to projects in Glenwood. It would be nice to see the eight or ten Glenwood projects in a work plan and where the Council is needed and
can get involved to leverage the different things.
Mr. Grimaldi said an option is to use additional resources from the City’s reserves.
Mayor Lundberg said she would also like information on things currently being done that could be downsized or re-prioritized.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 12
Mr. Grimaldi said they could be timed differently, or moved around to give Glenwood more attention.
Some of those came from the Council such as the Historic District plan.
Councilor Moore said she would like to have something done in Glenwood to make it more welcoming when the young athletes come into Springfield from Eugene this summer during the World Junior Championships. She suggested signs or flags.
Mayor Lundberg said maybe they could have something on the LTD bus stops.
Mr. Biles asked what Council wanted to happen next. Mayor Lundberg said the first step is putting together the list of projects in a Communication Packet.
Mr. Towery said they can also have the City Manager report on topics during the regular meeting
under Business from the City Manager. They can get the information in advance.
Councilor Wylie recommended they look at forming a Glenwood Subcommittee with assignments.
Councilor Moore said they need to bring all of the public along in the Council’s vision.
Councilor Woodrow said she agrees, but the need to be careful of what is brought to the public so they didn’t set up unrealistic expectations. The Council needs to know first what they are doing before putting anything out to the public.
Mayor Lundberg said the Glenwood Refinement Plan has some nice pictures of what the Council
wants Glenwood to look like and it was an approved document. She suggested putting those up along
the blank wall in the City Hall lobby. The pictures will help show the Council’s vision of Glenwood. Mr. Biles asked if Glenwood will be the only priority.
Council agreed that Glenwood will be their one priority.
Councilor Brew asked that they continue to move forward with the downtown lighting project.
Council agreed they would continue moving forward with the current project list. Mr. Grimaldi said the project list will be put in the May 5 City Council Communication Packet, and he
can discuss it during the May 5 Council meeting. Mayor Lundberg said the Lane County Board of Commissioners (LCBC) will be talking about the
conference center in the next week or two so May will be a good time for a check-in. Councilor Moore suggested having an update on Glenwood every week during the work session for
about 5 minutes.
Mayor Lundberg said it will be good to get those updates because people will start calling as some of
the bigger projects get underway in Glenwood.
Mr. Grimaldi said getting an understanding of the questions and concerns of the LCBC regarding the
conference center will be helpful during the next discussion with Council.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 14, 2014 Page 13
Mayor Lundberg said she wanted to get make sure the Council got good, solid and consistent information about the conference center including financial information, hotel rooms, etc. It will be
prudent to get that information to the Council so they can provide informed answers. Mr. Biles reviewed the next steps:
1. Council progress report at the first Council meeting in May (May 5) 2. The City Manager will recommend options for Council consideration reallocating resources to
Glenwood
3. May 5 written information will be provided in the packet on Glenwood projects 4. Late April or early May (after LCBC discussion) will be next opportunity for the full Council
to meeting publicly and discuss next steps in Glenwood
Exploration by the Council to create a Glenwood subcommittee
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:38 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 APRIL 21, 2014
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 21, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Main Street Corridor Vision Plan.
Mayor Lundberg said the Main Street Governance Team had been meeting to help with the planning of the Main Street Corridor. Some of the participants in those meetings include herself, Councilor
Woodrow, Doris Towery (LTD Board), Mike Dubick (LTD Board), Gino Grimaldi, Ron Kilcoyne
(LTD General Manager), and Frannie Brindle (ODOT). Part of the charge of this group is to go over the information before it goes to the public and before bringing it back to the Council.
Linda Pauly, Principal Planner, presented the staff report on this item. She thanked Mayor Lundberg and Councilor Woodrow for participating on the Governance Team Meeting. Land use and
transportation visioning is a huge task for a seven and a half corridor, but thanks to the State’s Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program they are doing their best. They are about halfway through the process.
Ms. Pauly referred to Attachments 4 and 5 which include the timelines for this project. Tonight is a
chance to listen to Council’s ideas and responses to the Draft Visions and Goals and anything else they
want to discuss regarding the three segments of the corridor and the corridor as a whole. An outline was included in the packet that will help with that discussion. Staff will be coming back to Council
with this item in July, September and October. The Main-McVay feasibility study is starting up,
giving them a great opportunity to plan out land use and transportation at the same time. The next public event is scheduled for June 18. During this event, they will see the two projects come together.
Tonight they will listen to Council input and ideas. Ms. Pauly introduced Tom Lister, aid consultant from Otak who served on the TGM Vision Plan team.
Mr. Lister displayed a power point presentation. He started by reviewing the project schedule. Currently, they are between implementation strategies and the vision/draft goals process, and are on
the cusp of moving on to the next phase. An Open House is scheduled in the next month. He referred to the map showing the three corridor segments and noted they do overlap in some areas and are adjustable. In order to have effective implementation strategies, they feel it made more sense to divide
them into segments. He referred to the Vision Plan Basics. The Vision Statements are something to capture the aspirations of the community and the technical review people. It is a way to facilitate
dialogue about what they want Main Street to be in twenty years. Around those statements, they set
some broad goals, which are meant to identify areas in which the City can focus action planning. The goals are for business activity, housing choices, transportation and public realm (what people see when
going up and down Main Street). The next step is to come up with implementation strategies and
actions. He referred to a slide listing some of the big ideas they heard during the public meetings.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 21, 2014 Page 2
Mr. Lister spoke regarding Segment One which is called the Couplet Area. This segment is two
distinct streets and two visions. General activity and housing goals were set for this area.
Mayor Lundberg said the corridor being studied is very narrow, but is impacted by the broader community especially in the industrial areas in regards to transportation, industry and businesses. A lot of things would impact that development such as jobs and schools. Those things may not need to be
considered in the planning process, but did impact how they look at things as a Council in regards to zoning. There is a lot of industrial based rail along South A which impacted this segment. They need
to look at how the land use patterns impacted the Main Street corridor.
Mr. Lister said the corridor does have a very narrow boundary, but they realize the impacts of those
surrounding areas.
Councilor Woodrow said Main Street unifies and divides at the same time, even with the couplets
lined up. North and south didn’t always create a square of activity. When looking at a vision, they
need to remember there is a dividing line going through the middle of each section.
Mr. Lister said that came up frequently in discussions. This is not the best community street. People perceived it as a dividing line rather than a seam that held it together.
Councilor VanGordon said he liked the division of Main Street and South A in the Couplet Area, and treated them differently. South A should have very limited housing goals because of the amount of industry in that segment. There is an opportunity to add more small workshops, like starter industrial
space, along the South A corridor.
Mr. Lister said those are referred to as ‘craft industries’.
Councilor Moore said the area labeled the Mid-Springfield Business Corridor had more housing,
schools, and the Willamalane complex to the south. She felt this name didn’t fit this area. The area in
front of Willamalane was not yet developed.
Ms. Pauly asked if she had a suggestion for a name. Councilor Moore said she did not.
Mr. Lister said with the very narrow corridor it is difficult to find a name since it did the go into the
different neighborhoods on either side. Councilor Wylie suggested calling it the 7-Mile District between downtown and Thurston. That is
characteristic of this corridor and is a mix of business, housing and schools. Characteristically, it will show itself in time.
Councilor Woodrow recalled that they called it ‘Business Corridor’ is because of what is along Main Street in that area. Back in the neighborhoods are the schools and homes, but the businesses are along
Main Street. She liked the label of couplet in all three areas as it creates an association between all
three. Once you get to 48th Street, the majority is residential except the Bi-Mart, Safeway and Albertson strip malls. It is hard to name them.
Mayor Lundberg said the Council is looking at issues within all three segments.
Mr. Lister spoke regarding the Mid-Springfield Business Corridor. Along that corridor is an affordable
place to have a business and can be a place in the future for small incubator space or small start-up businesses. They could also look at how those types of businesses could be supported by the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 21, 2014 Page 3
neighborhoods on either side. It is likely to develop more businesses in that area and if they cluster
together, that is a good thing for businesses, transit and organizing the street. Housing is likely to happen one or two blocks off Main Street. It will also be important to integrate any transit with this
area. Mayor Lundberg said one of the decisions Council needs to discuss is what they want Main Street,
excluding downtown, to be. It is a transportation corridor. She asked for clarification on the difference between a truck corridor and freight corridor. She read that Main Street was not a freight corridor, but
was a truck corridor. She would like clarification of the difference and the limitations. Council needs
to know if it is going to be a major transportation corridor to consider whether to create more neighborhoods on both sides or just one side. They need to determine if the design should eliminate
the need to cross Main Street as frequently for services. Many of the businesses along this corridor
identify themselves as ‘destination businesses’ which means slowing traffic down enough for people to see the business in time to pull into the business access. If they want Main Street to be a destination
area, they need to be able to control traffic and have adequate signage. There are areas that are
underdeveloped commercial and industrial lands that need to be considered for employment hubs. She feels that bicycles have a separate place and there should be connecting paths away from Main Street.
They need to think about how they want to use Main Street. She would like to meet one-on-one with staff and the consultant to discuss some other questions. She noted some formatting issues of the plan that made it difficult to read.
Councilor Ralston said Main Street is a transportation route and he didn’t want to slow down the speed. If people pass a business, it means they are not paying attention. He wants to make sure
entrances to businesses are not affected so people could access them easily. He didn’t like the center median as it limits which way vehicles can turn. Council can have a vision, but they can’t let that limit
how development occurs. It is important to decide where the bus stops are located and how to get
bikes from one end of town to the other off of Main Street.
Councilor Woodrow said there are certain safety measures that have been put in to make the
pedestrian crossings safe and feasible. The bus stops had been plotted to give good vision for those crossing. They did need to enable a safe way to cross. While on Main Street the other day, they
noticed that the pedestrian crossings created natural gaps in traffic which is essential in slowing it down enough to make it safer for everything.
Councilor Ralston said he saw cars stop when people were done crossing the street. Councilor Moore said that has been publicized.
Mayor Lundberg said public education is needed for the crossings.
Councilor Moore asked if Highway 126 (the east end of I-105) was a truck route or freight route.
Mr. Boyatt said the section of Highway 126 Councilor Moore is referring to is designated a freight
route and highway by the State. He will get an answer about the designation of Main Street (Highway 126 Business).
Councilor Moore said she had seen other communities create or assign other streets to take the load off the main transportation route. She would like to think about having frontage roads to make access to
businesses easier and doesn’t interfere with the main flow of traffic. Pulling out onto Main Street to the left from some businesses is difficult during some times of the day.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 21, 2014 Page 4
Councilor VanGordon said the vision needs to rely on the fact that Main Street is a main transportation
corridor and that will not change. Focusing on that is key. The mid-business area reminds him of small town Oregon with businesses on the main corridor and a lot of residential on both sides. He suggested
looking to see how some of the smaller towns address that issue. He would like to get the names changed to something that is more appropriate because they will stick as they continued through the process. He asked about the fifteen foot sidewalks and said that seems excessively large.
Mr. Lister said it is not a suggestion, but rather an option. They are making no recommendations, but
are offering a menu of choices for the Council to consider.
Councilor VanGordon said he would like to discuss connectivity and the ability to cross Main Street
more. People will get better with the pedestrian crossings over time. Improving safety was something
he looks forward to along this corridor. He feels the public outreach has been great. Mayor Lundberg said the themes have come out well. Main Street is a transportation corridor and will
remain so for years to come until further notice. As they went forward with planning, they need to bear that in mind. She feels Council should look at the land use separately because there are areas now that
include some not well-designed mixes of zoning. She would like to see some options of designations for Council to consider so they can better figure out how they want the neighborhoods along the Main Street to look. There will always be issues, but in the future Council can take a look at ways to
consolidate and provide more definition to particular areas. Councilor Wylie said zoning is critical to redevelopment. They need to prescribe zoning once they
decide what they want to happen in order for redevelopment to occur.
Councilor Moore said she attended the visioning session and found that people lost sight of the fact
that this is a transportation corridor. Expectations may be beyond what could be accomplished on Main Street. They do need to be realistic of what is possible.
Councilor Brew said he agrees that Main Street is a transportation corridor, but other cities with a transportation corridor running through their towns have handled them differently. Main Street is a
transportation corridor, but it is not a freeway so there are more possibilities. It is a business corridor
so they can influence Main Street if they want. It is Council’s job to set zoning and determine what should go in certain places.
Mayor Lundberg said they need more clarification about corridor uses. There are mills along Main Street with trucks going in and out and those will not be moving. It is also a rail corridor. It would be
helpful for Council to know the movement of all forms of transportation in this area. If she could do one thing, it would be to get a bike path that paralleled Main Street so people no longer have to ride along Main Street. They need to look at the conditions they want to keep and what can be altered, and
also look at zoning.
2. City Hall and Carter Building Plaza(s).
Jim Polston, Associate Project Manager, presented the staff report on this item. Direction was received
from Council during the December 2nd Work Session regarding further design modifications to be
incorporated into the City Hall entry and plaza redesign. Staff has included these changes in the design presented as Attachment 2 of the agenda packet.
Since the December Work Session, two winter storm events have caused further damage to the City Hall plaza and entry area. This damage includes significant cracking and spalling to concrete surfaces
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 21, 2014 Page 5
originally planned to be incorporated in the project design to save cost. The updated design for the
beautification of the City Hall plaza area now assumes that the damaged concrete will also be repaired as part of this project. The original budget for the City Hall Plaza project is $60,000 and the estimate
for the damaged concrete repair is an additional $27,000. The plaza project is currently funded through the combination of CDBG and Building Preservation monies. Funding to address the concrete surface areas damaged this winter can also come from Internal Building Preservation funds through cost
savings realized on current year preservation projects and deferring signage and wayfinding projects that are lower in priority and not ready for implementation. This would not impair critical projects.
In addition to the City Hall plaza and entry repair and design work, a list of possible Carter Building area improvement activities, and associated costs, is provided in Attachment 3 of the agenda packet.
Some of these activities already occurred as part of the Springfield High School Day of Caring event.
In order to fund Council’s preferred list of improvements DPW believes we can reduce the cost of a Fire Station paving project by use of our own forces. This approach could allow us to reprioritize
$10K to $15K towards these improvements.
Mr. Polston provided a power point presentation. He reviewed the drawing of the Plaza area and the
recommendations from the Council. Three new materials are being proposed based on Council feedback. He discussed the design based on those new materials and where each of those materials could be used in the proposed design. He referred to the picture showing the design for the recognition
wall on the landing going up to the Library. Mayor Lundberg said this is our front door so we want it to look nice. She liked the redesign. She
asked Council for additional comments regarding each area.
Councilor Brew asked about decorative street lights listed at $6000 each. He asked if those are
different from the used lights recently purchased.
Mr. Polston said there is the potential to use the fixtures recently purchased. They would need to be
retrofitted and poles would need to be installed. They would also need to install wiring not currently in place which would involve pavement cutting, boring, and trenching. The major cost is installation.
Councilor Wylie said she would like the color concrete in an interesting design. Her husband was an outdoor artist and often used colored concrete. It is a way to spruce up the area to look richer.
Councilor Brew said he liked the redesign and colored concrete. He confirmed it would be a mixed-in color rather than applied.
Councilor Woodrow said she also liked redesign and color concrete. She would like to see the Carter Building area usable with portable benches and things that encouraged people to use it.
Mr. Polston described improvements made to a semicircular drive-through to make a larger usable
area near the old Court entrance.
Councilor Woodrow said she wanted it to be a place for people to sit and feel comfortable.
Councilor Wylie said she would like as many amenities as they can afford at the Carter Building, including lighting if possible. They may not be using this space forever, but she would like seating and
landscaping with trees. She wants it to be as inviting as possible to bring stages, bands, activities and vendors. This will be the people’s plaza to use until a large plaza comes to fruition. It should contribute to the energy downtown.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 21, 2014 Page 6
Mr. Polston said they can keep the parking lot for parking, but improve and repave it so it will be a nice area for events. There is a pedestrian area south of the driveway, with the north side serving as a
parking lot. Councilor Wylie said she would like improvements in the pedestrian area, with the ability for events to
occur in the parking lot.
Mayor Lundberg said they would like to be able to commandeer the parking lot for events, especially
during the summer for Farmer’s market and other weekend events. It does need to be set up with electricity so vendors can access that to provide lighting on their carts. The vendors should also be
responsible for cleaning up their trash and help with security. That is a conversation they may need to
have with NEDCO and the Main Street Program. There should be no uneven surfaces and it should be clean. She referred to the option of grass or ground cover and said for areas that need landscaping she
prefers ground cover as it is less work. She liked color concrete. This is our entrance and the City
needs to set an example for others downtown.
Councilor Moore said she liked the safety material around the fountain, but thought it should be in a different color other than brown. She asked about signage for the Library.
Mr. Polston said they would have lettering at the Library entrance that will say “Springfield City Hall”. “Library” was formed into the concrete on the building closer to the plaza area.
It was decided to just put “Springfield City Hall”.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest:
____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder