Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/4/2015 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. March 23, 2015 – Work Session b. April 6, 2015 – Work Session c. April 6, 2015 – Regular Meeting d. April 20, 2015 – Work Session e. April 20, 2015 – Regular Meeting DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY MARCH 23, 2015 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday March 23, 2015 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Wylie was absent (excused). 1. Budget Committee Interviews. Bob Duey, Finance Director, presented the staff report on this item. Applicants are being sought to represent Wards 3 and 4 where former committee members’ terms expired. The recruitment for this vacancy opened on January 29, 2015 and closed on February 27, 2015. Three candidates have applied for Ward 4. One candidate had initially applied for Ward 3, but withdrew their Budget Committee application when appointed by Council to another volunteer position. The appointee for Ward 4 will serve a three year term that will expire on December 31, 2017. Any eventual appointment for the Ward 3 position would also be eligible for a three year term. The Council is requested to interview three applicants. Budget Committee appointments are scheduled to be ratified at the Regular Session Meeting on April 6, 2015. Mr. Duey said Council had the discretion of appointing someone from Ward 4 to the Ward 3 position. Outreach has been done, but it is unlikely a candidate from Ward 3 will be found in time for the Budget Committee meetings. The Council chose the questions they would ask of each applicant: 1. Why are you interested in serving on the Budget Committee? (Mayor Lundberg) 2. Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become a committee member. (Councilor VanGordon) 3. Describe some personal goals that you wish to achieve by serving on the Springfield Budget Committee. (Councilor Woodrow) 4. While all of Springfield services seem to have strong support from different areas of the community, it is often necessary to prioritize services for budgetary reasons. How would you go about the task of establishing priorities among services? (Councilor Moore) 5. If you were a member of the Budget Committee, what would be some of the ways you would look to control costs and still be responsive to the service expectations of our citizens? (Councilor Ralston) 6. If you were on the Budget Committee and were looking at one of the City’s services to decide how much should be funded through general taxes and how much through specific fees on City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 23, 2015 Page 2 customers, what questions would you want to have answered in order to make your decision? (Councilor Pishioneri) Council introduced themselves to the applicants and interviewed Gabrielle Guidero, CJ Mann and Nathan Mischel. Following the interviews, Council discussed the qualifications of each applicant. It was noted that all three applicants were highly qualified. Council consensus was to re-appoint Gabrielle Guidero to the Ward 4 Budget Committee position for a three-year term, and to appoint Nathan Mischel to the Ward 3 Budget Committee position for one year. They asked Mr. Duey to explain to Mr. Mischel that Council’s preference is to appoint by ward, but would like to accept his offer to represent Ward 3 because of his proximity to Ward 3. The appointment would be for one year only. Councilor Moore wanted it expressed to CJ Mann that Council appreciated her applying and acknowledged her qualifications. They would encourage her to apply for other positions. Mr. Duey said he would explain to Mr. Mischel about the one-year appointment, and pass along the encouraging words to Ms. Mann. 2. Springfield 2030 Plan UGB Study: Results of College View Visioning Process (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP 2009-00014). Linda Pauly, Principal Planner, presented the staff report on this item. Ms. Pauly said the purpose of tonight’s work session is to share the results of the visioning process the City conducted for the College View study area in the urban growth boundary (UGB) study. She included all of the materials so the Council could get a sense of what staff heard from community members. They started the process on January 14 with two workshops at City Hall. There were over 100 people in attendance on that date. She referred to the bottom of page 3, Attachment 1 of the agenda packet which included some of the content of what was discussed at the workshop. People were given four questions: • What is your biggest concern about change? • What is your biggest concern about this process? • What is your experience of the College View/South Franklin area today? • What one thing would improve your experience of College View/South Franklin? A stakeholder working group was appointed by the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) following the workshops. That working group met three times: February 11, 2015, February 25, 2015, and March 4, 2015. Several of the stakeholder members were in the audience at tonight’s meeting. Each meeting was about 1 ½ to 2 hours in length and were held at City Hall. At the first workshop people were asked to introduce themselves, share their experience of the area today, and how the future of that area might fit in or not fit into their visions for their property, business or neighborhoods. They had a great discussion about where the gateway to Mt. Pisgah and Buford Park was and how that relates to the proposed expansion of the UGB. At the second meeting, they started to develop some good vision and goal statements which were included in the agenda packet as Attachment 2. They discussed commerce and industry types and land use that is consistent with those. At the final meeting, they talked at length regarding the existing Lane County zoning in the area. Most of the stakeholder members were not familiar with the existing City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 23, 2015 Page 3 zoning or permitted uses. A lot of information was shared by a planner from Lane County and city staff. Ms. Pauly referred to Attachment 1, Exhibit A which outlined the policy themes she had pulled out from the meetings that the majority of the participants would agree to, although not all. Staff is asking Council to look at those themes and determine if they are important themes the Council wants to carry into their Comprehensive plans and policies as they move forward with planning and zoning in that area. Many of these things are similar to what is currently in the Springfield Comprehensive Plan and zoning standards. One of the concerns that came up frequently was that there could be smoke stack industry. The citywide planning goals dictate the language used in planning and commercial, industrial and residential all have specific meanings. The City has to show that our plan is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9, economic development. The goal identifies Industrial Uses and Other Employment Uses. The technical, legal Goal 9 definition of industrial land and Other Employment Uses is “all non-industrial employment activities including the widest range of retail, wholesale, service, non-profit, business headquarters, administrative and government employment activities that are accommodated in retail, office and flexible building types. Other employment uses also include employment activities of an entity or organization that serves the medical, educational social service, recreation and security needs of the community typically in large buildings or multi-building campuses”. Councilor Moore asked if RiverBend was on industrial land. Ms. Pauly said it would be considered Other Employment Uses. Councilor Moore referred to page 6 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, “Zoning that will allow existing uses to be grandfathered in and grow in place, while requiring new zoning controls . . . for new development, expansions and redevelopment”. She has concerns about existing zoning in that area and asked why that statement was included. Ms. Pauly said there is a lot of legal complexity about non-conforming uses and uses permitted in existing zoning. This is similar to Glenwood where uses had been permitted for many years. Those existing uses are handled through non-conforming use policies in our Code. Mr. Grimaldi said businesses and activities in that location would remain, but would need to comply with the new rules if they redeveloped. The City cannot change the rules in that regard. Councilor Moore asked if the people at these meetings understood that rule. Ms. Pauly said they didn’t have much representation from the business community, but it was a concern for the existing businesses in that location in terms of how it would affect them. Councilor VanGordon said he had seen a Eugene map off 30th Avenue. He asked if that was still valid. Ms. Pauly said someone had submitted that during a visioning workshop and was included in the record. Councilor VanGordon said there was a lot of great material included. Sometimes the conversation shifted away from the discussion of the UGB and went to park and farmland. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 23, 2015 Page 4 Ms. Pauly said many of those in the working group were concerned about what they saw from their property in terms of sight, smells, and sounds. Councilor VanGordon said the City’s strong history of water quality is very important. He would not want to see smoke stacks, but something very clean that would generate jobs for the community. He feels confident that the water and air quality can be protected by policy decisions. It seemed like there was a secondary concern about protecting the park (Buford) itself. He asked if that concern should be turned over to the County. Ms. Pauly said the Council could direct that issue go to the County as a next step. Councilor VanGordon said there is a lot of good material. When they are done with this conversation, he would like to forward this information to the County so they can see what their citizens are saying about that area. He liked the example of how the changes in Glenwood were approached. Councilor Ralston said our air quality is high and Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) has been involved. The same standards that we have in the city would be applied to this area if brought into the city. Councilor Moore is pleased to read the comments. They were not counter to Council concerns that had been discussed. Of those opposed, their concerns were no less than those of the Council in terms of protections. The City would possibly be a benefit in that area to help preserve the things they value. Mayor Lundberg said even with all of the land currently inside the UGB, the City still needs 644 acres. The two areas under consideration (Gateway and College View) are much less than 644 acres. She noted some of the issues along McVay and the mobile home parks that were under County jurisdiction, and that the City’s code enforcement rules are much stricter. People in that area called the City to get help because the County regulations are much less stringent. City codes are much stricter and we have a higher standard than the County. We have the ability to provide for a much better system than currently exists. She asked if this area was part of the original jurisdictional transfer of Glenwood. Mr. Grimaldi said it was not. Mayor Lundberg said following Glenwood through McVay, it leads to the College View area, making that connection. Willamalane has moved up their plans to put a bridge from Springfield to Mt. Pisgah at 32nd Street. In some of the materials provided, there was as comment that Springfield is not up to the task of taking care of the land. She didn’t believe that was true. Springfield is a good steward and we try very hard. There are places that haven’t changed for a long time. Now we have an opportunity to make this area something that everyone wants and can be proud of. She agreed with the themes and noted that the newer projects along the mill ways and Willamette River fit with these themes. She asked if the visions could be made into a proposal. Ms. Pauly said she felt they could. Other cities had struggled with the Industrial definitions from the State, but that seemed to be changing across the county. People want more flexible employment zones. Heavy industrial isn’t happening much anymore, but is what people associate with the term Industrial. Mayor Lundberg asked if there was flexibility in how it was worded to call it out as an employment zone. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 23, 2015 Page 5 Ms. Pauly said Council held three work sessions last year and spoke regarding the economic element. There were policies that spoke specifically about that topic. The City had identified targeted industries for the UGB area Mayor Lundberg said what had come out of the vision process and what Council identified, could all go into the College View and Gateway areas, and fit within the State goals. Councilor Woodrow said she appreciated all of the work everyone put into the meetings and workshops. The themes that rose to the top are the ones that the Council started out with and wanted in the vision of this area. She is happy to see the match. It demonstrated the due diligence by everyone involved. Councilor Moore said Allison Laursen spoke to the Council and had a positive way of presenting the potential in that area. This area is a gem that could be polished into something amazing. Coming in off the freeway, she can see the potential for this area as being part of Springfield. Mayor Lundberg said they picked the five areas because they had potential. As far back as 10 years ago, they were told the College View area was a top area to consider because of how it fits in the State goals. Ms. Pauly said under the rules and goals, the City’s first priority when looking to expand is urban reserves, which we don’t have in the metro area. The second priority is exceptions areas (rural industrial, rural commercial, rural residential, and rural public facility). This area has the most of that closest to Springfield. We are required to look at those areas first to see if they meet our needs before expanding our entire value farmland, which is the exclusive farm use zone. Typically, larger parcels are exclusive farm use. The exceptions are ‘exceptions’ because they weren’t large enough at the time they did the original Comp Plan. Mayor Lundberg said because of that designation and looking at the economic piece, this area and Gateway rose to the top. They would need to come to an agreement of how to protect the area and make use of it. A citizen who was part of the visioning workshop spoke up, stating that the top theme was that they do not want the City of Springfield to expand in this area. He felt they were only hearing one side. Mayor Lundberg explained that this was a work session and public comment was not allowed. Ms. Pauly said she would be back to speak before the Council before their summer recess to finalize the buildable lands inventory and economic opportunities analysis that will establish land use. Staff will be preparing the proposal with all of the elements including zoning, plan designations, maps, findings, staff reports, etc. A joint work session with the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners is scheduled for September 28, with a joint public hearing on October 19. Councilor Moore said anyone who would like to speak during a regular meeting, can do that at those public hearings. Mayor Lundberg said there was a full public process that hasn’t been started yet. Another citizen spoke in opposition and referred to a letter from their attorney. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 23, 2015 Page 6 Mayor Lundberg asked Ms. Pauly to get information out to the people on the panel and in the neighborhood about the public process and how they can participate. Mr. Grimaldi said people can talk to the Council anytime, but when doing a land use process, the best place is during the public hearing on that item so it is part of the public record. Mayor Lundberg said tonight’s discussion is just an update. Councilor Pishioneri said he appreciated the depth of this and the work done. There is no way this will make everyone happy. He hoped people could look at the big picture and greater good. This is not an easy process and will take fortitude and communication. He appreciated what Ms. Pauly was doing and all of the considerations made regarding the land. He looks forward to further discussion. Mayor Lundberg thanked Ms. Pauly for all of her work and for bringing all of the information to the Council. She looks forward to the rest of the process. They need to be open and communicate as much as possible. Ms. Pauly said there has been a lot of public involvement over the last few years, and many of the concerns that have come forward are being addressed. 3. ADA Compliance Update Briefing. Tom Mugleston, Risk Manager, and City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith presented the staff report on this item. The City recently finished up a lawsuit with a hearing impaired citizen and part of the settlement was to do a comprehensive review of policies and procedures through the Police Department. Through that process, it came to light that the City hadn’t done a large comprehensive review of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) policies and procedures citywide. The City has done a lot of work as a City, but did not have a comprehensive plan. Ms. Smith said they are bringing the draft transition plan, which is part of the ADA regulations which shows how the City approaches the ADA and addressing concerns from disabled citizens. The focus of the transition plan is on programs, services and activities. The next steps will be to incorporate facilities into the plan, starting with City Hall and City facilities and moving outwards. They found that each department had done a lot of work on ADA, but it was not in a cohesive city-wide policy. The plan is to have a public process regarding the regulations required, on the City’s website. She asked them to let staff know of any community members that could review the information, or if they would like to see a different public process. There is a complaint process and Mr. Mugleston will be the point person for that process. The City already has an ordinance that addresses not allowing discrimination specifically for disabilities, and they didn’t see a need to revise that at this time. She also asked Council for any input on the transition plan. The plan will be reviewed every six months for the first year, and then every 2-3 years with department self-assessments coordinated by Mr. Mugleston. Councilor Woodrow asked about requests for other formats and accommodations and asked if that was posted anywhere. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 23, 2015 Page 7 Ms. Smith said it was posted on the website. They have talked about posting it throughout the City in conference rooms. It is always on agendas for public meetings. The final piece would be to incorporate it on public notices that go out to the public. Councilor Woodrow said it could be incorporated under a signature line in and email or on general correspondence. People don’t often realize they have that option. Ms. Smith said that should be done in the next few months. Councilor Pishioneri asked if staff had contacted Eugene and Lane County to compare their plans. Ms. Smith said they had talked to both of them. Councilor Pishioneri suggested contacting Alicia Hayes at Lane County who had started the County program. Councilor Ralston asked how much this would cost, such as an interpreter. Ms. Smith said it will depend on the situation and the accommodation. She explained a recent request for minutes transcribed. These are costs under the law that the City would absorb. Purchase of equipment or materials would be based on budget availability and technology. Councilor Ralston asked if they are also looking at making all buildings ADA compliant. Ms. Smith said all new buildings are ADA compliant, as is City Hall. As the building ages and changes, it becomes part of the ongoing maintenance. Councilor Woodrow said it spreads out beyond City Hall. When installing the pedestrian crossings, they are incorporated those accommodations. It is getting done through different projects. Ms. Smith said as a developer comes in, they would make curbs that area ADA compliant. There are also discussions about how to bring other areas up to compliance. Councilor Moore asked about staff training and who would be responsible to make sure that occurred. Mr. Mugleston said there will be two tiers. For general ADA concepts and knowledge, Human Resources will be responsible to train staff. Departmental specific trainings will be shifted towards the department. Councilor VanGordon said everything looked good. He feels these types of plans are ongoing. Mayor Lundberg said this is a good start. Her mother was in a wheelchair in times when there were no accommodations. It is the people that are affected that need to say how this works and need to be involved in the process. The accommodation can often be something small. There is a gentleman on the Lane ACT that serves as the representative for disabilities. She suggested they contact him because he is aware of ADA laws. They could contact Frannie Brindle to get his name. She appreciated that they are working on this. Councilor Pishioneri said the definition of disability has gotten extremely broad and covers both short-term and long-term disabilities. Educating the staff is very important. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 23, 2015 Page 8 4. Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments Adding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to Certain Zoning Districts – File TYP414-0003. Mayor Lundberg said since the legislature is in the middle of the discussion around recreational marijuana, there will be more steps and possible rules. Rather than have an in-depth conversation about what the Council wants to do, staff will continue to work with the medical marijuana industry and patient groups, but hold off on specifics until they see how recreational marijuana laws will interface. Councilor Ralston said he liked the second map. They did meet with a lot of representatives and talked about the buffers. They came up with 50 foot buffers from residential and 250 foot buffers on parks. They are required by State law to have 1000 foot buffers from schools. If they set 1000 foot buffers from parks, it limits the locations. They can set some preferences. Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor, said they started with the House Bill that approved dispensaries; the City opted out of the moratorium and came back with some Municipal Code reasonable regulations that are in place and working. The other piece was the zoning regulations. With the election on recreational marijuana, they felt it best to wait to address this until more was known about regulations for recreational marijuana. The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) is progressing on those regulations, has held some listening meetings, and is forming a committee at the State level. They want to have regulations in place by January 1, 2016, although it may be late 2016 before they actually approve a retail outlet. Mr. Donovan said he brought one additional map from the first discussion with 1000 foot buffers from residential, parks, schools and daycares that left very little options for locating dispensaries. Staff is proposing to allow medical marijuana dispensaries in two commercial zoning districts – the CC (Community Commercial) and MRC (Major Retail Commercial) districts. As outlined in the staff report, other neighborhood zoning districts and general office are transitional zoning districts that typically abut commercial zoning districts. Staff felt that CC and MRC were more appropriate. Staff is not proposing making medical marijuana dispensaries a permitted use in industrials districts. They thought it best to reserve industrial districts for the following four licenses related to recreational marijuana: grow; manufacture; wholesale; and retail. Three of the four are better suited to industrial districts. Campus industrial allows some industrial, but is generally more office buildings and businesses that support the people in the building. Mixed-use commercial zoning districts by definition include residential 90 % of the time so is not a good fit. That was shared with the dispensary group and was understood by those attending. Mr. Donovan said staff is proposing to put a marijuana dispensaries and other uses category in the Code under definitions and commercial zoning districts. Currently, they are not listed as a permitted use under any of the zoning districts. They are currently being treated as changes of use. Creating the zoning use category allows the City to put these businesses into place and allows some reasonable protections. He discussed the buffers and how they would provide protections. When meeting with industry reps, a buffer of 250 feet was agreed upon for the buffer to park facilities. Willamalane staff and management would prefer a 1000 foot buffer from destination parks and facilities that kids congregate, but are fine with a 250 foot buffer to walkways, paths or other facilities. Mr. Donovan said the rest of the staff report was the non-confirming use protection in situations where a school or daycare moves into a Commercial District near an existing dispensary. That would not City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 23, 2015 Page 9 create a non-conforming use in that instance. Similarly, once the regulations are adopted, the five dispensaries currently in operation would be grandfathered in and would become legally formed non-conforming uses, until they are non-operational for six months. Councilor Ralston said what Willamalane wanted made sense, and agreed that trails should be an exception. Putting a 1000 foot buffer at the facility on 32nd Street would prevent dispensaries from locating on a long stretch of Main Street in that area. He doesn’t feel strongly about it either way. Councilor Ralston left the meeting at 7:10pm. Councilor Pishioneri said he liked the first map (1000 foot buffers). He feels dispensaries and retail outlets should not be permitted in the same building. He would like to see what they currently had for building standards downtown. The Salem rules are clear and he agrees with those and would like the City to align with those rules. He feels 100 feet from residential makes more sense than 50 feet. He asked if the City could prohibit legalized grows in City limits. He asked if there are agricultural zones in the City. If so, it could cause some issues regarding homes on those sites. The city should put reasonable design standards in place downtown. He feels 1000 foot buffers from schools, day-care and parks are reasonable. Councilor Woodrow asked how they could set up a system to identify the difference between a destination park and a bike path park or other park. She was comfortable with 1000 foot buffer with all parks so they didn’t have to try to differentiate. She liked the first map with 1000 foot buffers. She also thought the suggestion of 100 foot buffers to residential might be a good idea. Mr. Donovan said they would bring back 50 and 100 foot buffers for Council to consider. The staff report includes the 250 foot buffer in some cases along Main Street. The 50 foot buffer would preclude a dispensary on a parcel within 50 feet of the residential zoning district. The difference in the impact between 50 and 100 feet may be nominal, but staff will do some research and bring it back for Council consideration. Councilor VanGordon said he was leaning towards the 1000 foot buffer for park. The only impact he can see is near 32nd Street. He is not sure if there will be a big difference between 50 and 100 foot buffers to residential. He is fine with 50 foot buffers. Councilor Moore said she understood that at the point recreational marijuana is legal, people could have plants growing in their home (residential zone). It could move into the residential area regardless. She asked if there were any issues with the five dispensaries currently operating. Mr. Donovan said aside from the standard development communication back and forth and getting things on track and coordinating building, there were no major problems. Chief Doney said they had a handful of Police calls for service from a neighboring business at one of the dispensaries, but nothing with the others. Councilor Moore said she agreed with the 1000 foot buffer for parks. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the City would be licensing these establishments. Mr. Donovan said Council adopted Code for dispensaries and the City has been licensing them. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 23, 2015 Page 10 Councilor Pishioneri asked if any of that Code addressed multiple calls of service, similar to businesses with OLCC licenses. Mr. Donovan said they are only discussing medical marijuana at this time. The framework being created is to have a process in place once OHA finishes their recreational rules to set Code for recreational marijuana. Councilor Pishioneri said any of these businesses should be tied to calls for service. Mayor Lundberg said she wants to separate the two (medical and recreational). As she reads what is happening with both types, there are changes every day. It will all affect what the City does in the future. Medical marijuana dispensaries should be treated more like a pharmacy. Recreational marijuana will be a completely different and unknown issue. Tonight they are discussing how to make set codes that make medical marijuana dispensaries fit into the community and protect those trying to go there. Tonight’s discussion needs to fit just the medical marijuana. She doesn’t want to say anything about tracking police calls for medical marijuana, but will expect that OLCC will require those rules for recreational marijuana. She wants to be sensitive to those that have been working with the City and were trying to run their businesses. She is fine with the first map. Mr. Donovan said recreational marijuana will come with similar guidelines and suggestions, and reasonable protective clarification. After meeting again with health and industry representatives, staff can bring back zoning regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries for Council consideration. That will create the framework as they move into retail outlets. They will leave the current Municipal Code regulations and bring back the zoning regulations based on the first map. Mayor Lundberg said there is still a question about who can be in the front area of dispensaries. Mr. Donovan said staff can bring back some information to address that concern. That is part local and part State. State regulations address minors in areas where the product is available. Some dispensaries have separate areas, and some don’t. He referenced a scenario where a single parent had a child with them. Current City Code states that a minor shall not be on the premises. That could be clarified. Mayor Lundberg said when staff meets with the representatives, she would like them to look at that and look for options. Councilor Pishioneri asked about the discontinuation of up to 6 months making a business abandoned. Mr. Donovan said that was the standard legal definition for creating a non-conforming use. Mr. Grimaldi asked if Council wants them to come back to get this in place prior to clarification on what is happening with recreational marijuana. Yes. He referred to Councilor Pishioneri’s comments about design standards, and asked for clarification on areas. Councilor Pishioneri said he would like to see design standards in all commercial areas. Mr. Grimaldi said that would be a larger project. Mayor Lundberg said that would impact many businesses and she was not supportive. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 23, 2015 Page 11 Councilor Moore said the City is currently doing downtown business standards. Design standards do say a lot about our town. Mr. Donovan said there was a rush to get dispensaries open so some of them have very bright motifs to get attention. They are now getting more subdued. It may be best for design standards to be filtered through citywide analysis or the Main Street Corridor planning, rather than current planning staff. Councilor Pishioneri said people will hear this is a concern and a topic of discussion. He hoped that would bring a heightened interest to businesses. Mr. Donovan said staff would share that concern. Mayor Lundberg said she didn’t want to go there based on a certain business. It is a big discussion and involves a lot of Code changes. Council agreed there is no need for staff to follow-up on design standards at this time. Mr. Donovan said staff will work on the proposal and bring back responses to questions. Zoning regulation options will be brought to the Planning Commission, the industry, and back to Council for final consideration and adoption. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 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 6, 2015 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday April 6, 2015 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Moore, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilors VanGordon, Wylie and Ralston were absent (excused). 1. Downtown Parking Fees and Rates. Courtney Griesel, Management Analyst, presented the staff report on this item. Beginning July 1st, 2015, the City of Springfield will begin full enforcement of parking in Downtown. Permits in select areas will be made available for purchase. The proposed permit rates and violation fees are reflected here. The proposed rates and fees specific to the Downtown Parking Enforcement Program are: ASSET TYPE PER UNIT RATE/FEE ASSESSED Premium Permit Parking Lot $ 30.00 Monthly Non-Premium Permit Parking Lot $ 15.00 Monthly On-Street Permit Zone $ 10.00 Monthly Residential Permit Zone $ 20.00 Annually On-Street Non-Permit Parking $ 16.00 Per Citation for Violation The proposed rates and fees are recommended by the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee. Based on the proposed permit rates, and taking into consideration a gradual rate of program acceptance by downtown employees and businesses and seasonal parking needs, the estimated actual revenue from permit sales in the first year of the enforcement program is approximately $22,000. Based on the proposed permit rates, the potential revenue for all areas is $49,680 annually. As Downtown revitalization continues to gain momentum, demand for parking will increase, bringing the program closer to realizing all potential permit revenue. Staff is requesting feedback from Council on the proposed parking program rates and fees. Next steps for the program include selection and Council award of the contract for parking enforcement services anticipated in late April. Ms. Griesel explained the comparisons and how they were gathered and reviewed the proposed fees. At this time, they are not planning to oversell any of the lots. As the program grows and they develop a better understanding of usage and peak hours, they may look at that further with the Parking City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 6, 2015 Page 2 Advisory Committee and Council. It is typical for parking programs to oversell. This would be a pilot parking permit program and would be evaluated over the fourteen month period. Councilor Pishioneri referred to the map and asked about Lot 7. Ms. Griesel said Lot 7 is not a permittable lot, but is free public parking for Library patrons. The boundaries of the parking zones were put together by the parking consultant after taking into account other parking lots and on-street parking. Councilor Pishioneri asked about Lot 1 and Lot 2 and that they were only permit parking for staff from the city and other businesses. He asked about covered parking for patrons of the Library. Ms. Griesel said the Library specifically requested that Lot 7 (Library lot) was left for public as that is where their patrons are used to parking and is closest to their entrance. Sometimes patrons are unsure if the covered parking is for public use. Some lots will be redesigned making them a little tighter and oriented for permit users. Councilor Woodrow asked if someone was restricted to a certain area if the purchased a permit. Ms. Griesel said the permit would identify which lot it was set up to use. You could renew at that lot, or look for available spaces in another lot to purchase a permit. If a permit is purchased for on-street parking, the person can park all day at any space that has 3-hour parking. Councilor Woodrow asked if the businesses in Zone B are required to buy permits that would allow them to have their own business parking. Ms. Griesel said those businesses that are in the green zone could potentially have someone with a permit park in front of their business. If the business doesn’t have private parking, they will need to buy permits for employees to park more than 3 hours. There is no assurance they would be able to park in front of their own business. Councilor Woodrow said she didn’t feel that was business friendly. Ms. Griesel said a business could come in and purchase permits for an off-street parking lot and could provide those to an employee or customer for specific parking. Typically, they don’t want to reserve a particular spot on-street as it limits the users which could negatively impact the rest of the block. They want the on-street parking as full as possible, turning every two hours. Councilor Moore asked how much free parking is available. It would be good to advertise that there is free parking. Ms. Griesel said all on-street is free for 3 hours. There are 44 free parking spots posted at 3 hours, including the Library parking lot. The Main Street lot (L3) will also have free parking for half of the lot along Main Street for 3 hours. Booth Kelly doesn’t currently have any free spaces. They are in a partnership with Lane Transit District for the Park-n-Ride and are at maximum capacity. Councilor Pishioneri asked if there was about the same number of permitted parking spaces as the number of staff in both the city and private businesses. He asked if there will be competition for those spaces, and if so how those will be allocated. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 6, 2015 Page 3 Ms. Griesel said it will be set up as a first come-first serve basis. They don’t believe the number of spaces meets the number of employees in the downtown area. There are also a significant number of employees that utilize LTD and other modes of transportation to and from work. It is another opportunity to further the partnership between the City and LTD Point2Point Solutions program. They anticipate that some of the employees will choose to park further out into the residential areas. In the future, they will look into a residential permit zone with an annual fee. The goal of the program in partnership with urban renewal is to increase demand for parking on both the employee and retail/business level. As that demand increases, the City can look at investments in things such as a parking structure. As redevelopment occurs and more employers are brought downtown, the urban renewal revenues start to build for that type of infrastructure. There are several key location identified in the Downtown Plan for property acquisition and investments towards a parking structure. Also, when they look at the need for Library facilities, they may look at an investment in parking. Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted assurances that when it starts that it is an equal process for all who are working in the downtown. He doesn’t want there to be an appearance of favoritism to City employees. Ms. Griesel said they will be getting the word out and meeting with businesses. Councilor Woodrow said she misunderstood earlier and was thinking the on-street parking was paid parking. She had no concerns. She agreed that it was important to make it a fair process. Mayor Lundberg asked about the hours this would be in effect. Ms. Griesel said they are considering 9:00am-4:00pm. The signs don’t have the days to allow some flexibility. Early communication would be very important regarding the days and hours. Councilor Pishioneri asked about the permit lots and the hours for those. Ms. Griesel said the permit lots would probably be from 8:00am-5:00pm. Some of that is part of the process of working with the enforcement staff. Mayor Lundberg said people get accustomed to paying to park when a program is in place, and you do what you have to do in terms of parking. It looks like there is a lot of free parking. She is comfortable and knew the parking advisory committee reviewed this carefully. Employers will need to determine how many permits they purchase for their employees. This is a better system than the previous system, and was more equitable. We have nice signage and markings on the street for parking. It is still good and there is a lot of free parking for patrons. She’s happy with the work done by the committee. Councilor Moore asked about potential revenue and the City’s cost for enforcement. Ms. Griesel said initially there will not be net revenue, but the Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) will absorb some of the gap. People will gradually purchase permits, with that increasing towards the winter. The revenue is to the City, but there will be a flat fee management contract with an enforcement entity. The goal is to increase revenue from permits and decrease revenue from citations. Councilor Pishioneri asked about the court involvement regarding citations. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 6, 2015 Page 4 Ms. Griesel said they are looking at something called administrative adjudication. People could still appeal a ticket through the Courts, but there will be administrative authority for someone to hear details from the person receiving the citation about why they would like the ticket dismissed. They are looking at a process that would include an open administrative hearing about every other week where people could sit with trained staff to discuss the citation. Staff would have the authority to reduce, dismiss, or settle on the citation. This is an option to address concerns rather than through a formal court hearing, and could be done at a lower cost. A volume increase of this amount would be too much for current Court staff. Councilor Pishioneri asked if they were able to get a comparator of number of violations in other cities. Ms. Griesel said it was very minimal. They had heard from other communities that about 2% of all tickets issued came back with concerns. The difficult part is in the start-up phase, but the goal is to have a total of 2% violation rate. It may get to the point where part of the revenues from the program will go into the operation of the program. Mayor Lundberg said there were also those that didn’t pay their parking fees. She asked if staff could provide information in a Communication Packet after the program has been up and running. Responding to a concern of the Mayor, Ms. Griesel said there was no booting in Request for Proposal (RFP). During the pilot phase, it would be a very mild enforcement environment. They did ask those that bid on this how they would handle the unpaid. Council was fine with staff moving forward. Mayor Lundberg said it is something new and there are questions and concerns, but they know it is something needed. Councilor Pishioneri asked how the committee came up with the recommended fees. Ms. Griesel said the parameters were based on those set by Eugene, Bend and Salem. The range proposed didn’t get much higher than $30. There was more discussion about which lot should be premium. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the business owners were on a different page from the rest of the committee, or if it was collaborative. Ms. Griesel said it was very collaborative. The area of the most conversation was about how to use the parking lots for special events parking. There was acknowledgement that the rates needed to be significant enough to move parkers off the parking spaces in front of the businesses’ building. They wanted to make sure the spaces are freed up for patrons. Mayor Lundberg said they used to get special parking permits for half or full-day events. She asked if they would have some type of accommodation for those events. Ms. Griesel said the committee would like to take on the task of that type of situation. The structure they have identified utilizes the Main Street lot first and a portion of the Library lot. When they meet for their quarterly review meetings, downtown businesses and the City could request spaces for events. The committee would hear and approve as appropriate those requests. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 6, 2015 Page 5 Mayor Lundberg said that needs to be well publicized. Councilor Moore confirmed enforcement was only during weekdays. 2. Discuss Subdivision Application Fee Comparison. Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor, and Matthew Ruettgers, Building and Land Development Manager, presented the staff report on this item. During a recent subdivision project the developer asked for a comparison and discussion of Springfield’s application fees and process as compared to the same application in Eugene. In response to the developer inquiry staff has reviewed both processes and fees to compare the respective benefits associated with each model. Staff shared this discussion with City Council in a June 19, 2014 Communication Packet Memorandum. This work session is to address questions raised by Council concerning the timing of fees in the Springfield model and whether the collection point for some upfront fees could be deferred to a point later in the process. The subdivision processes in Springfield and Eugene are essentially identical with nearly all the same steps/milestones starting at Tentative Plan all the way through Final Plat. The primary difference in each city’s approach to working with developers is the timing for the review of engineered improvements. The majority of the detailed review in the Eugene process occurs late in the process at the time of the Public Improvement Plan (PIP) application and building permits; while in the Springfield process much of this detailed review occurs early in the process during the Tentative Plan Application. The timing of these reviews also determines when the fees for the service are charged. Both approaches have competitive advantages for the developers in specific areas of the residential market. Mr. Donovan explained that Springfield charged the majority of the fees at the beginning of the process rather than the end to help cover costs, get detailed information about the proposal, and to move the application through the process as easily and efficiently as possible. He explained in more detail. Eugene did things differently and charged more of the fees at the end of the process. The final costs in Eugene are approximately $500 more in Eugene compared to Springfield. He spoke regarding deferrals and incentives. Mr. Ruettgers said the big savings the developer would see with the deferral process is that they wouldn’t have to put all of the money up front so could finance less. Our application costs for the 78- lot model was about $66,000, a portion which was deferred to tentative approval. The cost savings in that example would be the interest they would not have to pay for that deferred amount. Typically, the process in Springfield from preliminary submittal to final decision is about 60 days which would equal about two months’ interest. Depending on the size of the project, the interest could be anywhere from $100 to $1000. Mr. Donovan said the deferral was a sliding scale based on the size of the development. That might be attractive to a smaller developer in terms of financing costs. Technically, the City is actually subsidizing the development by holding those costs. It is low risk and not a high amount in terms of the full City budget. In the past when doing these types of deferrals, they would generally ask for some sort of hold or down payment up front. The timeline under Oregon land use laws is 120 days. Have a deferral when making a land use decision can cause additional issues. Internally, there is staff time involved in tracking deferred payments. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 6, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Ruettgers said for the entitlement process, the cost to the developer would be the same; they would just save some on the interest. Councilor Woodrow asked if Springfield was in the position to lose competitively to Eugene by requiring more payments at the beginning of the process. Mr. Donovan said staff has only heard from one developer about this concern. This developer was very experienced in both cities. Mayor Lundberg said if the old system didn’t work there would be no development, but there was a good amount of development. She had talked with Councilor VanGordon who was in favor of the deferral. She wanted to have a process in place that was straightforward and efficient for the developer who was familiar with the process and had everything together. She would like recognition and give and take with those well-known developers that could get them through the process more quickly. Those seasoned developers are willing to take the risk in higher costs if their engineer missed something. Mr. Grimaldi asked if the Mayor wanted a change in the process. Mayor Lundberg said for those developers that are correctly zoned and have everything gathered, she would like a faster process. Mr. Grimaldi said this would be a change in the process. The other options are to keep the same process, but defer payment. He asked if the third option mentioned by the Mayor was for developers to be pre-approved for a site before they know what project they are building Mayor Lundberg said they would only be pre-approved for a planned project if they had everything in place and didn’t need a site plan review. Mr. Grimaldi said that would be a change. Mr. Donovan said they would need to work with the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and bring some options back to the Council. It ranges from something like a ‘master builder’ program to other options currently being discussed. Changing the process is possible, or they could put together a pilot program. Mayor Lundberg said maybe it is a ‘flexibility’ policy depending on the person doing the development or building. Mr. Grimaldi asked if Council would like staff to do a deferral on a trial basis while they are examining the alternative process. Councilor Pishioneri said he likes current practice regarding deferrals. He wants to do what is best for the developer at the least cost possible throughout the process. For those developers that have done their due diligence and have their paperwork done, there should be a system that allows a faster process. Those that don’t have experience should go through the full process. Mr. Donovan said the developers that use the system, recognize the benefit in the long run. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 6, 2015 Page 7 Councilor Moore said deferrals are additional tracking and work load for staff, which translates into more cost. If the current system is working, she didn’t see a need to change. Councilor Woodrow agreed with the flexibility option and working with the developers according to their needs. Mayor Lundberg said if the project is held up, it is the developer’s risk not the City’s. She would like a happy medium. Mr. Donovan said it would be appropriate to look at a master builder concept. That could be addressed and discussed with the DAC. Mayor Lundberg asked staff to bring that idea back to Council. Mr. Grimaldi said it may take some time to do it correctly. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY APRIL 6, 2015 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 6, 2015 at 7:03 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie (by conference phone), Moore, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Community Relations Manager Niel Laudati, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilors VanGordon and Ralston were absent (excused). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Mayor’s Recognition a. National Service Recognition Day Proclamation. Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation and declared April 7, 2015 as National Service Recognition Day. She encouraged residents to recognize the positive impact of national service in our city; to thank those who serve; and to find ways to give back to their communities. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. January 26, 2015 – TEAM Springfield Annual Meeting b. March 9, 2015 – Work Session c. March 9, 2015 – Special Regular Meeting d. March 16, 2015 – Work Session e. March 16, 2015 – Regular Meeting 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances a. ORDINANCE NO. 6335 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 8.300-8.338 ABOUT GRADING, AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 8.400-8.420 CODIFYING THE LAND AND DRAINAGE ALTERATION PROGRAM 5. Other Routine Matters City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 6, 2015 Page 2 a. To Approve the Subject Change Order to City Project P21101 with Lantz Electric, Inc. b. Begin Phase III of the Asset Management project (P41024) for $254,000, Which Includes Contracting with David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) for $169,000 and Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute all Documents Required to Effect the Transaction. c. Contract with Hawes Technologies (Hawes/HTL) for $50,000 and Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute all Documents Required to Effect the Transaction. d. Approve a Purchase Agreement with Motorola Solutions, Inc. for Interoperable Radio Equipment and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement. e. Allow Construction Activities Outside of the Hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., in Order to Complete Construction Activities in Association with the Upcoming Lane County Overlay Project of 19th Street and Related Utility Construction. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – VANGORDON AND RALSTON). ITEMS REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. Renee, Altman-Anderson, Springfield, OR. Ms. Altman-Anderson said she lived on Main Street and felt that there needed to be crosswalks with flashing lights in several locations between 52nd Street and 69th Street. She said there were six public bus stops along that part of Main Street and no safe crossings to help people get from one side of the road to the other. She asked Council to consider lowering the speed limit to 30 mph where it is currently set at 45 mph. Cars often drive at speeds closer to 50 or 55 mph along that stretch of road that goes right in front of her home. She presented a petition with signatures and contact information from many other concerned residents who feel the same way. She has four children ranging in age from 2 to 13 and it is very scary pushing their strollers or walking along Main Street with cars going so fast. Lowering the speed would allow both vehicles and pedestrians more reaction time. Mayor Lundberg asked if staff could meet with Ms. Altman-Anderson to talk to her about her suggestions and to let her know what was currently being done or considered. Mr. Grimaldi asked staff to meet with Ms. Altman-Anderson. He also assured the Council that Ms. Altman-Anderson’s suggestions would be added to others that will be considered. Council will hear those suggestions presented by staff during the April 27 work session. 2. Elizabeth Dowdy, Springfield, OR. Ms. Dowdy said she coordinated a couple of food distribution programs in her mobile home park through Food for Lane County (FFLC). She told of a family that lives in this mobile home park who are living off of less than $1000 a month. The husband and wife are near 60 and have a disabled son in his mid-30’s. By the time they pay the rent on their space, they have just under $600/month for food and clothing. They receive services such as food stamps and food baskets through two of the programs she coordinates, but that is all. She would like the Council to educate themselves to find out all City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 6, 2015 Page 3 the things FFLC does if they don’t already know. She invited them to come to her mobile home park on Thursday at 3:00pm to see the distribution program. They will be serving about 35-40 households. 3. Hanalei Rozen, Springfield, OR Ms. Rozen said the first full week of April is Oregon Arbor Week. Ms. Rozen said she is a former member of Urban Forest Advisory Committee. The trees that are on the drawing board for our corridor, Franklin Boulevard, Glenwood and many other developments need to be able to grow and have a great canopy. In the archives from ten and twenty years ago, there is a lot of information and research for new standards for trees growing in the City that is nearly ready for the Council to approve. She recommends that the City appoint a task force of five people, including her, that can bring together those materials by September. If they don’t pull information from what they already have, they won’t have the canopy that’s depicted in the drawings. COUNCIL RESPONSE Mayor Lundberg said she would make note of Ms. Rozen’s suggestion. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence from Jim Straub, Springfield, Oregon, Regarding the UGB Expansion. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (COUNCILORS VANGORDON AND RALSTON WERE ABSENT). BIDS ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments a. Budget Committee Appointments. Nate Bell, Accounting Manager, presented the staff report on this item. Two vacancies have occurred on the City’s Budget Committee due to the term expirations of members from the Ward 3 and Ward 4 positions. Each full term of the Budget Committee is for a 3-year period, with the positions staggered to have two vacancies occur every December. After interviews on March 23rd, Council members directed staff to prepare as AIS for the appointment of Nathan Mischel to the Ward 3 position and Gabrielle Guidero to the Ward 4 position. The City’s charge for the Budget Committee states as a qualifier 6 members from the Council and 6 citizens by Ward (Citizen members may not be officers, agents or employees of the City, per ORS 294.336(4). City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 6, 2015 Page 4 IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO APPOINT NATHAN MISCHEL TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR WARD 3 WITH A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2015. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. (COUNCILORS VANGORDON AND RALSTON WERE ABSENT). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO REAPPOINT GABRIELLE GUIDERO TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR WARD 4 WITH A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2017. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. (COUNCILORS VANGORDON AND RALSTON WERE ABSENT). 2. Business from Council Mayor Lundberg noted that John DeWenter was recently appointed to the Planning Commission. At the same time, he had applied to serve on the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) board and was appointed to that position. With that appointment, Mr. DeWenter has resigned from the Planning Commission. Andrew Landen and Mr. DeWenter both received four votes from Council, so she is recommending the Council appoint Mr. Landen to the Planning Commission on April 20 to take the place of Mr. DeWenter. a. Committee Reports 1. Councilor Moore spoke regarding Housing Policy Board and their work on the Consolidated Plan which will be forwarded to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in mid-May. The Plan will come to Council for formal action on April 27. 2. Councilor Woodrow reported on the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Everyone at that meeting is focusing on the safety on Main Street. Ideas, thoughts and concerns came from everyone. It is an ongoing process beyond Springfield. There is community-wide involvement working towards formulating the most successful plan. b. Other Business BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Swanson Group Manufacturing LLC Request Regarding Enterprise Zone Extension in Springfield. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-09 – A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENTS WITH LANE COUNTY AND THE SWANSON GROUP MANUFACTURING LLC TO EXTEND THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION TWO YEARS FOR A VENEER PEELING AND PLYWOOD LAYUP MILL IN THE DOWNTOWN SPRINGFIELD AREA. John Tamulonis, Community Development Manager, presented the staff report on this item. He acknowledged Steve Swanson and Cameron Krauss from Swanson who were in the audience. As co-sponsor of the Springfield Enterprise Zone II with Lane County, consider approving the resolution to extend property tax benefits for an additional two years to the Swanson Group Manufacturing LLC for its proposed $44.85 – $54.75 million veneer peeling and plywood layup operation to replace the facility lost to fire in July 2014. Swanson Group has requested that both sponsors (Lane County and the City of Springfield) of the Springfield Enterprise Zone (EZ) approve extending enterprise zone benefits. In Swanson Group’s decision to replace the facility lost in July 2014 with a $44.85 – $54.75 million veneer peeling and plywood layup operation to replace the facility lost to fire in July 2014, Swanson Group needs to know if it will have an additional two years (five years total) of enterprise zone benefits to ensure compensation and hiring meets the zone requirements. A three-year exemption requires the firm to merely increase its employment level by 10% and maintain it throughout the exemption period. The extended five-year exemption also requires that the Average Annual Compensation level for new hires be maintained above 150% of Lane County’s average wage of $38,353 or above $57,530 throughout the five-year exemption. Mr. Tamulonis reviewed the figures and noted that Swanson planned to hire additional employees bringing the total to approximately 190 employees when fully built. Councilor Pishioneri asked what percentage of the employees were Springfield citizens. He asked if when hiring in the future, they could offer positions to equal candidates to a Springfield resident. He would like to see preference hiring. Mr. Tamulonis said the EZ used to have that requirement, but it was declared unconstitutional throughout the United States and in Oregon so is no longer allowed. Councilor Moore expressed her appreciation for Swanson and their belief in Springfield. She hoped it would work out well for all concerned. Mayor Lundberg thanked them for being here. Springfield is a mill town and she is proud of that history. Logging and timber continues to be a big part of Springfield. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2015-09. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. (COUNCILORS VANGORDON AND RALSTON WERE ABSENT). Mr. Tamulonis said the next step is to go to the Lane County Board of Commissioners on April 14, 2015 for their approval. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:27 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 20, 2015 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 20, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., with Council President Woodrow presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Council President Woodrow and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Pishioneri. 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. Mayor Lundberg was absent (excused). 1. Arts Commission Applicant Interview. The Arts Commission has one vacancy on its board of nine commissioners. One position opening was advertised. The vacancy was due to a resignation with 8 months remaining in the term. The Arts Commission received one application. The applicant will attend the April 14, 2015 Arts Commission meeting for an interview. The Arts Commission requests that this candidate be interviewed by the City Council. In response to a news release in March of 2015, the Arts Commission received one application. The applicant was interviewed by the Arts Commission at their April 14, 2015 meeting. The Arts Commission requests that this candidate be interviewed by the City Council. The Council introduced themselves and interviewed Kimberly Lyddane: 1. Why are you interested in serving on the Arts Commission? (Councilor Moore) 2. Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become an Arts Commissioner. (Councilor Wylie) 3. Describe your familiarity with the Springfield Arts Commission’s past or current community arts initiatives. (Councilor VanGordon) 4. Which initiatives are you interested in working on if you are appointed as a Commissioner? (Councilor Pishioneri) 5. Have you attended an Arts Commission meeting? If so, what were your impressions? (Councilor Ralston) 6. Do you have any questions of us? (Council President Woodrow) Council discussed the qualifications of Ms. Lyddane and her enthusiasm. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 20, 2015 Page 2 Council consensus was to appoint Ms. Lyddane to the Arts Commission during the May 4, 2015 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY APRIL 20, 2015 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 20, 2015 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Council President Woodrow and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Mayor’s Recognition a. Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation. Council President Woodrow read from the proclamation. She encouraged all citizens, community agencies, faith groups, medical facilities, and businesses to increase their participation in our efforts to support families, thereby preventing child abuse and strengthening the communities in which we live. a. Employee Recognition: Dean Bishop, 25 Years of Service. This item was rescheduled to May 4. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims a. Approval of the March 2015, Disbursements for Approval. 2. Minutes 3. Resolutions a. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-10. – A RESOLUTION REQUESTING SURRENDER OF JURISDICTION OF PORTIONS OF GLENWOOD BOULEVARD AND EAST 17TH AVENUE 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Pavement and Sidewalk Improvements and Jurisdictional Surrender of Portions of 19th Street and Yolanda Avenue to the City of Springfield with Lane County on Behalf of the City. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 20, 2015 Page 2 b. Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute the Local Agency Agreement Surface Transportation Program – Urban Glenwood Connector Path Extension City of Springfield Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Amendment #1 with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on Behalf of the City. c. Allow Pavement Overlay Activities Outside of the Hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. for Grinding and Paving Work for the Gateway Overlay Projects. d. Award the Purchase of a Combination Sewer Cleaning Machine to Owen Equipment for $326,375. e. Liquor License Application for Haggen #2082, Located at 5415 Main Street, Springfield, OR. f. Liquor License Application for Steve’s Breakfast & More, Located at 117 S. 14th Street, Suite A & B, Springfield, OR. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ITEMS REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. 1. 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program, A Community Reinvestment Plan. Jeff Paschall, Civil Engineering Manager, presented the staff report on this item. The City of Springfield’s 2016-2020 CIP – A Community Reinvestment Plan has been drafted by staff, reviewed by the Planning Commission (February 18, 2015 and March 3, 2015), and reviewed by the City Council in work session (March 16, 2015). It is now ready for public hearing and adoption. The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft City of Springfield 2016 – 2020 CIP at their February 18, 2015 meeting. The Commission recommended Council approval of the plan at their March 3, 2015 meeting. The City Council reviewed the draft CIP in work session on March 16, 2015 and provided direction to bring the CIP as drafted to a Council regular session for public hearing and approval. After hearing public comments, Council is requested to adopt the 2016 – 2020 Capital Improvement Program by motion. Councilor Moore asked about the two fire stations listed as being moved. She noted the station in the east Thurston area and asked how often fire stations needed to be built or refurbished. Mr. Grimaldi said the Thurston Fire Station had mold issues and had to be rebuilt. Fire Station #4 on 5th Street is older and needs some upgrades. At this time, they are still settling in with the merge of the two departments, which could alleviate the need to move Station #4. At one time, it was being consider to move Station #4 closer to the downtown area. Calls for service are being tracked in east Springfield. At one time, they thought they may need to move a station out on Bob Straub Parkway from Main Street, but that may no longer be needed. That land, which is owned by the City, may be put up for sale at the right time. Councilor Moore said fire stations are a huge investment. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 20, 2015 Page 3 Mr. Grimaldi said if things continue to move forward as they are, they won’t need to move the two fire stations. Councilor Pishioneri noted that the property on Bob Straub had a home on it that is being rented out, keeping it a residential designation. Mr. Paschall said those have remained in the CIP in the event one does need to be rebuilt or relocated. Having that in the CIP allows the City to apply for grant funds for those needs. Councilor Woodrow opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Councilor Woodrow closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO ADOPT THE 2016-2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, A COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT PLAN. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments a. Planning Commission Appointment. Greg Mott, Planning Manager, presented the staff report on this item. The seven-member Planning Commission has one vacancy: Mr. John DeWenter resigned his March 16, 2015 appointment to the planning commission on April 2, 2015. The City Council appointed three new members to the Planning Commission on March 16, 2015; Michael Koivula, Sean Dunn and John DeWenter. Prior to Mr. DeWenter’s initial participation on the Planning Commission he accepted an appointment to the Springfield Utility Board. Section 3.10 of the Springfield City Council Operating Policies and Procedures, addresses the question of multiple volunteer commitments as follows: “When possible, the Council will not appoint people currently serving on another governing body”. As Mr. DeWenter’s appointment to the SUB Board was nearly simultaneous to his selection to the Planning Commission the purpose and intent of Section 3.10 was met. In light of the Council’s policy Mr. DeWenter subsequently submitted his resignation from the Planning Commission on April 2, 2015. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 20, 2015 Page 4 When the Council conducted the initial interview process last February that resulted in the appointment of Mr. Koivula, Mr. Dunn and Mr. DeWenter to the Planning Commission, Mr. Landen received the fourth highest number of votes for appointment. As the Council’s interview process was so recently conducted, Mr. Landen is eligible for appointment to the Planning Commission with an affirmative vote by the City Council on April 20, 2015. Staff recommends Council accept Mr. DeWenter’s resignation and appoint Mr. Landen. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO APPOINT ANDREW LANDEN TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A TERM EXPIRING JULY 31, 2018. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports 1. Councilor Pishioneri reported on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) meeting and the discussion of their budget. MWMC was proposing a 2% rate increase. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said she would bring a revision of the Lane Workforce Partnership intergovernmental agreement (IGA). They are looking to add some additional cities (Florence, Cottage Grove, and Junction City) to that organization, and working on a reorganization within that structure. She hopes to bring it to the Council before Summer break. Jean Vinson from the Relief Nursery came forward to receive the proclamation for Child Abuse Prevention. She knows the City’s commitment to child welfare and wellness. Hosted by the Relief Nursery in Springfield, she works on a prevention initiative awarded to the City of Springfield by the Children’s Trust Fund, Casey Family Programs. They continue to work on finding ways to serve Springfield to keep children safe. This proclamation further endorses Springfield’s commitment. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:10 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder