HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/07/2014 Regular (2)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 44 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 – I Ot' 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. I - 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 153 1) 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 01-IA 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 I 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
April7, 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.
Caitlin Sullivan. O 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 meantjobs 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
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.
Leslie Hvsell, 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
Pa -e 7
9. .Chamelle MacKenzie, South 79'h 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 coining 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 Minufes
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, 21" 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 11 s 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 boncetns 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 arejust 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 I I
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 I 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 4" 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 In 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 Willamalahe 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 In 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.
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 newjobs 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.
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 I1 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 -1) 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
SEVERAWLITY 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 215'.
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 21" 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.
13USINESS 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
Glenwood Phase 1 Update (Springfield File Nos. TYP411- 00005, T,YP411- 00007, and TYP311-
00001 and Lane County File No. PA 1 I- 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 TYP41 1- 00005.
TYP411- 00007, AND TYP311 -00001 AND LANE COUNTY FILE NUMBER PA 11 -5489
AND AMENDING THE GLEN WOOD 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
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
1GA (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 ajoint 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 TYP4 1 1- 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:
anv--
zt-
City Reco Eer