HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 9/8/2015
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. June 22, 2015 – Work Session
b. July 6, 2015 – Work Session c. July 6, 2015 – Regular Meeting d. July 13, 2015 – Work Session
e. July 14, 2015 – Joint Elected Officials Meeting f. July 20, 2015 – Work Session g. July 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 JUNE 22, 2015
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday June 22, 2015 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, 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.
1. Applicant Interviews for Springfield Representative on the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency
(LRAPA) Board.
Jeff Towery, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
The LRAPA Board is a nine-member board which meets monthly to establish policy and adopt agency regulations. To date, Springfield has had one city councilor as the representative on the LRAPA
Board. Due to an increase in population, Springfield is now eligible for a second representative to
serve on the Board. The second representative is to be appointed by the Springfield City Council.
Section IX of the Council Operating Policies and Procedures outline the following: 1.3) Springfield's boards, commissions, committees, and task forces bring together citizen viewpoints which might not otherwise be heard. Persons of wide-ranging interests who want to
participate in public service but not compete for public office may choose to be involved in advisory boards, commissions, committees and task forces instead. They also help fulfill the goals of the City’s
adopted Citizen Involvement Program to have an informed and involved citizenry. The City received no applications for the new Board position during a four-week recruitment process,
so the date was extended for a second recruitment process. During the second recruitment process, 2
applications were received. Council is asked to interview the following candidates:
• James Yarnall
• Ronald Thompson
The Council is scheduled to ratify the appointment of the selected candidate during their July 6, 2015 regular Council meeting.
Council chose the questions they would ask of the applicants.
1. Why do you want to become a member of the LRAPA Board of Directors? (Mayor Lundberg)
2. Are you currently serving on any advisory boards or committees? If so, which ones? (Councilor Moore)
3. Please list the areas of concern you have about air quality, community development and the
environment in general. (Councilor VanGordon) 4. Please give a brief description of any particular experience or training you have that would benefit
the board or agency. (Councilor Woodrow)
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 22, 2015 Page 2
5. Board meetings are held once a month, except in August and December (no meetings). The days
that the meetings are held are set at the beginning of the year. Would you have any conflicts in your schedule that might conflict with the monthly meeting? (Councilor Pishioneri)
6. Briefly describe your present or past involvement in relevant committees, groups or projects in Lane County or elsewhere. (Councilor Wylie)
Council introduced themselves to each of the applicants and interviewed each of them.
Councilor Ralston asked a question about something on Mr. Yarnall’s application.
Mr. Yarnall responded.
Following the interviews, Council discussed each applicant. The majority of the Council had concerns about both candidates in terms of this particular Board and chose to re-open the recruitment period
again. Council will actively go out and recruit for the position. Staff will utilize social media and other
means to get the word out.
Mr. Towery said we will start the recruitment after the fourth of July and target appointments for soon after Council returns from their summer break.
7. Federal Surface Transportation Program – Urban (STP-U) Funding Requests. Tom Boyatt, Senior Community Development Manager presented the staff report on this item.
Roughly every three years the multi-agency Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),
through its staff committee (Transportation Planning Committee, TPC) and its policy body
(Metropolitan Policy Committee, MPC) completes a process to program discretionary federal transportation dollars. Applications for this round of funding are due July 10. Staff seeks Council
input on Springfield’s proposed project applications.
While federal funds have not yet been programmed for this funding cycle, it is reasonable and prudent
for the MPO to prepare its priorities and program those in its Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (M-TIP). Approximately $8 million is available within the MPO for local Preservation, Safety, Transit, and System Enhancement projects.
The application and review cycle is somewhat compressed this year as member jurisdictions have been waiting for the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) decision on the 2018 – 2021 Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding levels, as well as the outcome of the Lane County Vehicle Registration Fee proposal as two key inputs to decisions about what projects to pursue in the STP-U funding cycle. As the Vehicle Registration Fee failed at the ballot, and the OTC is
expected to program the statutory minimum for projects statewide, MPO member agencies must be strategic in their request for STP-U funding. All STP-U projects require an 11.5% local match.
Staff has reviewed the Springfield Transportation System Plan and the City’s Pavement Management System, as well as the ongoing list of unfunded street system priorities, and recommends applying for
four projects listed below:
• Glenwood Riverfront Path, $500,000 to complete NEPA and design
• Virginia-Daisy Thin Lift Overlay, $500,000
• Phase One - Traffic Signal System Upgrades, $250,000
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 22, 2015 Page 3
• Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Safe Routes to Schools Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improvements, $750,000
These projects have been identified as meeting Council priorities and each leverages other system investments and activities in order to make improvements in multiple areas of the City.
Mr. Boyatt described the projects in more detail. He explained the application process and coordination with the City of Eugene and Lane County to share in these funds. He noted previous
awards of this funding and which projects they funded. Councilor Pishioneri said he felt the list was good. He asked if the Safe Routes to Schools would be
something for the schools to support financially. Mr. Boyatt said the State provided funding for Safe Routes to Schools for three of our school districts.
The infrastructure costs are in the community so are charged to the public. The School Districts don’t have resources to invest in infrastructure outside of school property.
Councilor Pishioneri said he is supportive of bike traffic, but didn’t want to see vehicular traffic affected adversely. He noted a location on Main Street at 14th Street in which that happened. He wants
to make sure these projects are not at the cost of vehicular traffic.
Councilor Wylie said she served on the MPC when they talked about the Safe Routes to Schools. It is
an important aspect in getting kids safely to school on their bikes. She asked about the Glenwood
Riverfront Path and if Eugene was supportive of that project.
Mr. Boyatt said the City of Eugene and Lane County are both supportive. They look at the overall regional impact of the project, and the benefit for both cities.
Councilor Wylie asked if the City of Eugene had any projects that the City of Springfield might be able to support.
Mr. Boyatt named several projects on Eugene’s list that Springfield could support. Councilor Ralston said the list is a good idea. He asked if the traffic system upgrade could run more
than just one corridor.
Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett said there are three components to consider. One is the intersection
software and hardware at the intersection, the second is the communication system connecting intersection to intersection, and the software at City Hall.
Councilor Ralston said the Mohawk corridor was one that needed to be addressed. There are also other areas that have issues, such as Glenwood.
Mr. Boyatt said they looked at a difficult pilot corridor in order to demonstrate how valuable these types of investments are to the community.
Councilor Moore referred to the Daisy/Virginia Street overlay. She said the State had awarded the City
funds for east to west bike lanes. She asked if there was an issue.
Mr. Boyatt said staff applied for this grant in 2012, but they were not awarded. Other projects around
the State either couldn’t get started or did something different. Last winter, the City got word that they
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 22, 2015 Page 4
would be funding the City’s project. He had been in communication with the State to provide
timelines. The only problem could be if they don’t have an active Federal revenue stream for 2016. As long as there is a Federal appropriation, the MPO can access the funds. If possible, they would want to
do this surface preservation project in 2016. Councilor Moore asked which project received the funds.
Mr. Boyatt said the funds received were $698,000. It was broadly scoped, but the first purpose of the
project is to get public involvement, identify the goals for the project, touch base with the Council to
get their input and consent to move forward, and develop what would happen.
Councilor Woodrow said the list seems to fall into the category of bike/pedestrian and safety. She
asked if those types of projects had a better chance of getting approval.
Mr. Boyatt said that is a big part of it. From staff’s perspective, there is room to invest in
bike/pedestrian. With the timing of tragic accidents, Safe Routes to School, and the completion of the Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP), these are projects that are easy to find support.
Councilor Pishioneri said significant improvements have already been made along Olympic Street and that a flashing crossing was put in following a fatal accident. There have been no accidents since that
crossing was installed, which is a great selling point when they apply to show what has been done. He did note that the street needs to be restriped in that area. He would like to see a dedicated left turn for southbound traffic on Mohawk/18th Street turning east on Olympic.
Councilor VanGordon said he is comfortable with the list and feels it presents the City’s priorities.
Mayor Lundberg said she attended the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) meeting last week. The State hasn’t passed a transportation funding package yet, but the things for FixIt and
Bike/Pedestrians are on the top of their list. These projects are within the parameters for the funding if
it is there. She is fine with the list. Safe Schools is one that hasn’t been identified yet is so important. She hasn’t found Safe Routes to be as effective unless they start going there on a school day when
they can reach all of the students. This list is a broad stroke and a good list.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:27 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 JULY 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 July 6, 2015 at 6:02 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, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney
Mary Bridget Smith, Assistant City Attorney Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused).
1. Springfield Police Advisory Committee (SPAC) Interviews. Michael Harman, Services Bureau Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
The Springfield Police Advisory Committee has two open positions available, one for a representative of the minority community and one for a representative of the faith community. There are no current
incumbents eligible for either position. The Committee received twelve applications for the two open positions: seven for the faith
community position and five for the minority community position. Two applicants were unable to attend the scheduled interview session. The remaining ten applicants were interviewed on June 25,
2015 by a subcommittee consisting of Isa Aviad (At-Large), Michelle Khanthanhot (Business) and
Jack Martin (At-Large). The subcommittee reports that this was a very strong pool of applicants. For the Faith Community representative, the subcommittee recommends that Scott Chase and Mitham
Clement be interviewed further by the Council, with a preference toward Mr. Chase by the
subcommittee. For the Minority Community representative, the subcommittee recommends that Jose da Silva and Silvia Ceja be interviewed further by the Council, with no strong preference by the
subcommittee. The Council chose the questions they would ask of the applicants.
1. Why do you want to serve on the Springfield Police Advisory Committee? (Mayor Lundberg)
2. What concerns or suggestions do you have for our community? (Councilor Moore)
3. What do you enjoy about the City of Springfield? (Councilor VanGordon) 4. What perspective and experience will you bring to the Police Advisory Committee?
(Councilor Woodrow) 5. In your opinion, where do you think the Springfield Police Department could improve the most? (Councilor Pishioneri)
6. How do you think our City will change over the next 10 years? (Councilor Ralston)
The Council introduced themselves to the applicants. They interviewed Scott Chase, Mitham Clement,
and Silvia Ceje. Jose da Silva was unable to attend tonight’s meeting so would be interviewed during the July 13, 2015 work session.
The Mayor asked if the applicants had questions of the Council.
Mr. Chase asked what the Council liked about Springfield.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 2
Mr. Clement had no questions, but thanked the Council for their service.
Ms. Ceja had no questions, but commented that the meetings with other services agencies she attends do not have a Police representative. She feels it would be important to have a Police representative.
Council discussed the applicants and their qualifications. Because they still need to interview one of the minority community representative positions, they chose to wait until they can interview the
second applicant before making the decision for that position.
Councilor Ralston expressed concern regarding two of the applicants.
Council chose to appoint Scott Chase for the faith-based representative.
2. 2016 TEAM Springfield Budget.
Gino Grimaldi, City Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
TEAM Springfield is in the process of preparing its 2016 Budget. Mayor Lundberg has requested City Council input regarding the 2016 proposed budget.
Each year the four TEAM Springfield agencies (Willamalane, School District 19, Springfield Utility Board, and the City of Springfield) allocate $20,000 each totaling $80,000 for projects and activities
intended to benefit the Springfield Community. The proposed budget maintains funding for Police Bicycle Patrol in the Downtown/Island Park area ($29,000); partial funding of the Gift of Literacy
Program ($5,000); partial funding for the Light of Liberty Celebration ($4,000); funding for other
community events to be determined ($6,000); funding for the TEAM Springfield Newsletter ($15,000); and $1,000 for bus transportation for 8th Grade Field trips to businesses for the purpose of
exposing youth to a variety of career opportunities. The proposed budget contains $20,000 for other
projects and opportunities to be determined at a later date. Should the fiscal year end without expending all of the funds, each agency retains its proportional share of those funds.
The City of Springfield’s Fiscal Year 2016 contains the City’s $20,000 contribution towards TEAM Springfield projects.
Mayor Lundberg said she had wanted the Council to see the TEAM Springfield budget and provide any input or feedback. The budget originally had more detailed information, but now was a bit more
open-ended. She feels the Council should see the budget every so often.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was not sure why the 8th Grade field trip was under TEAM Springfield,
rather than just the School District. He suggested that they put the funding together for any festivals and events, rather than identify which festival or event. That line could be re-worded as “Support City festivals and events”.
Mayor Lundberg said the 8th Grade field trip involves the Chamber of Commerce and is a way to get
kids out into the community so they can start thinking of themselves as workers in the community. She
appreciated the feedback and said that is why she wanted this brought to the Council so they could discuss it and come to an agreement.
Councilor Pishioneri said the budget for bike patrol had remained the same, but the costs had increase. He asked if the service would be decreased.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 3
Chief Doney said they don’t anticipate any increase due to staffing levels. There could be a reduction
in the future until they can get their patrol officers up to speed, probably next summer due to the hiring process and getting them through the academy.
Councilor Ralston asked if we could hire people that are already trained.
Chief Doney said they would try to get a lateral (already trained officer), but they can be difficult to find.
Mr. Grimaldi said they would bring their comments back to the TEAM Springfield CEO/CAO group.
Councilor Woodrow asked about the Opportunity Fund balance. She asked how someone could apply
or request those funds.
Mr. Grimaldi said they had received requests for small amounts from that fund, generally for festivals,
etc. There should be a better process with criteria. There had been discussions about what some people were thinking about, but no decisions were made.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the CAO’s could develop criteria. She is concerned that the funds are spent and the Council has no input on how they are spent.
Mr. Grimaldi said in the past, those funds were not entirely spent. Any money that is not spent from this fund remains with each agency.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would like to be made aware of requests that come in for those funds.
Council discussed other events and activities that could use those funds.
Mayor Lundberg said they also discussed having coupons in the TEAM Springfield newsletter in order
to increase readership. The City could perhaps include a drawing for a free FireMed membership, etc.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest:
____________________ Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 6, 2015
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 6, 2015 at 7:00 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, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. May 18, 2015 – Regular Meeting Minutes b. May 26, 2015 – Work Session Minutes
c. June 1, 2015 – Work Session Minutes
3. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-21 – A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE 2015 TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENT GENERATING ECONOMIC RECOVERY GRANT APPLICATION.
4. Ordinances
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6339 – AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF SOUTH 59TH STREET NORTH OF MOUNTAINGATE DRIVE.
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Lane County to Act as an Agent for the City for Engineering and Materials Testing Services.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WYLIE).
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 2
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. An Ordinance Amending the Springfield Municipal Code Section 2.703, 2.708, 2.709 and 2.710
Regarding Public Contracts.
ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD AMENDING SECTIONS 2.703, 2.708, 2.709, and 2.710 "PUBLIC
CONTRACTS" OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE (FIRST READING). Jayne McMahan, Management Analyst, presented the staff report on this item.
The proposed amendments arose after a review of the Springfield Municipal Code with respect to the
State of Oregon Public Contracting Law as well as the need for process improvement. The first requested change to Springfield Municipal Code, Exempt Contract 2.703(5), is to assure the
exemption for declaring an emergency is consistent with current public contracting law under the State of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and the change clearly defines the circumstances of an emergency.
The second requested change to the Springfield Municipal Code, General Personal Services Contracts. 2.708(3)(e), is to add “health care professionals” to the class list of professionals that are exempt. This will be a process improvement for Human Resources, Fire and Life Safety and the Municipal Jail by
giving them the latitude to directly appoint health care professionals to positions where locally there aren’t choices to fulfill the needed contractual services. This change will not diminish competition
and it will save staff time by not conducting a sourcing activity and only getting one response.
The third and fourth changes address housekeeping wording to ensure consistency with public
contracting law under ORS. The net result of the change is that for public improvement contracts not
exceeding $5,000, an informal quote process may be used.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
First reading only. No action requested. 2. Public Hearing on 2015 Justice Assistance Grant
Michael Harman, Services Bureau Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
The Department is proposing to use the 2015 Justice Assistance Grant to augment the Department’s training budget.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 3
The City of Springfield is eligible to receive $14,517 from the Department of Justice 2015 Local
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). This is an annual, non-competitive grant award designated to support public safety goals. The Department expects to receive these funds sometime in the Fall, and the grant
period will be for two years. Previous awards have been used to support specialized equipment purchases, training for police and court staff, and support for community policing programs.
The Department is proposing that the entirety of this year’s award be used to augment the Department’s FY15 General Fund training budget, which is budgeted at $20,000.
The Department has requested this public hearing to inform the Council and the Public of the grant opportunity, and to meet an application requirement for a public hearing.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the training.
Mr. Harman said the training has not been narrowed down to a specific topic.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. 3. Moderate Visibility Cellular Tower Application – SmartLink PCS on Behalf of Verizon Wireless
LLC, Cases TYP315-00003 and TYP215-00012.
Mayor Lundberg asked Lauren King from the City Attorney’s office to advise the Council and the
audience on the standards and procedural requirements of the quasi-judicial hearing process.
Ms. King said moderate visibility cell towers require a discretionary use approval from the Planning
Commission unless City Council on its own motion elevates the application to Council review. On June 25, 2015, the City Council adopted a motion elevating the Verizon application to Council review.
Tonight’s hearing is a quasi-judicial hearing. Quasi-judicial means that certain due process and procedural rights are associated with these decision making processes. These rights include the right to notice, to present evidence, to have a written decision based upon standards, and to an impartial
decision maker. The primary purpose of this hearing is to establish a record on which a decision can be made.
Ms. King said the evidentiary rules associated with these hearings are less restrictive than those used in Circuit Court. All relevant testimony, including heresy testimony, may be considered. It is important to note that you must raise procedural and substantive issues at this hearing or you will be
prohibited from raising these issues subsequently on appeal before the Land Use Board of Appeals. A person raising an issue must support raising the issue with statements or evidence sufficient so the
Council has an opportunity to respond to your question or concern. If you are an applicant, you must
raise concerns regarding any proposed condition of approval to preserve your right to appeal. Failure to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the proposed conditions of approval without sufficient
specificity to allow the City Council to respond to the issues precludes an action for damages in
Circuit Court.
Ms. King said the record on this matter consists of the application and any supporting information, any staff report and supporting documents, and any testimony and documentary evidence submitted during
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 4
this hearing. If you want an item entered into the record, please present that item to the City Recorder
orally or in writing. If there is any question in your mind whether material is in the record, make a point of asking that it be accepted into the record. By statute, anyone has the right to request that the
record be held open for 7 days. No reason for the request is needed, but the request must be made before the hearing is closed. If new evidence is introduced during that time, the record may be held open for an additional period of time to allow other parties an opportunity to respond. The applicant
always gets the last word. Anyone can also request a continuance of the public hearing, but discontinuance is discretionary with the City Council.
This hearing is recorded so those wishing to testify should step up to the podium and begin testimony by stating their name and address. The City Recorder will receive any request to speak cards and will
keep the transcript of the hearing. If anyone wants a copy of the written decision, they need to provide
their name and address to the City Recorder. The City Council will issue a written decision after the record is closed. The City Council’s decision is final. Any person who participated in the hearing may
appeal the City Council’s decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). She recommended
people wishing to appeal consult with an attorney regarding the deadline for the appeal and the form of appeal.
Oregon Land Use Law requires that the City Council disclose any ex parte contacts of conflicts of interest related to this matter, and allow a person to challenge the City Council for bias. Generally a
conflict of interest involves a situation where the decision maker, his or her family business would benefit or suffer by his or her decision. Ex parte contact is a communication by the decision maker or to the decision maker that includes substantive issues regarding the application and occurs outside this
public venue.
Mayor Lundberg asked that everyone here tonight who’d like to testify on this matter fill out a request
to speak form located on the table by the entry door and then give it to the City Recorder when finished. Please indicate on the form if you support, oppose or are taking no position on this
application.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing on this application and asked the Council to declare any
potential conflicts of interest and to disclose any ex parte contact that may have occurred since the submittal of this application with the City on May 1, 2015. A conflict of interest arises from any possible financial gain that might accrue to an individual Councilor or family member as a result of
the Council’s decision on the application. Ex parte contact includes any conversations or written communication between a Councilor and the public or anyone connected with the application. She asked Council to disclose any ex parte contact or conflict of interest.
Councilor Pishioneri said he had ex parte contact with Kelly Sutherland from the Relief Nursery today. She was listed in a document he read for this item as a neutral party and had a question for her
about the location of the cell tower. During the conversation, he determined that she was not neutral. Their conversation was limited to location of the cell tower in relation to where children were at the
Relief Nursery. The location is near her building. Ms. Sutherland’s response was that she was
opposed to the location of the cell tower in relation to the Relief Nursery, and had concerns about the noise. She expressed relief that the applicant had changed the automatic generator start-up time. He
feels he can make an unbiased decision.
Councilor Ralston said he had no ex parte contact.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 5
Councilor Woodrow said she also had a conversation with Kelly Sutherland telling her she could not
have a meeting with her because of the public hearing. During part of that conversation, Ms. Sutherland mentioned that she was concerned about the location of the tower. Councilor Woodrow
said she could make a decision without bias. Councilor VanGordon said he had no ex parte contact.
Councilor Moore said she had no ex parte contact and had no bias.
Mayor Lundberg said she had no ex parte contact and had no bias.
Andy Limbird, Senior Planner presented the staff report on this item. He provided a map showing the
location of the proposed cell tower location. The proposed location is west of 42nd Street, north of Jasper Road, and north of an extension of Horace Street which has not yet been developed. The
location as shown on the aerial photo is just southwest of the parcel that has the Relief Nursery, and
west of an existing vacant commercial building that fronts 42nd Street. The specific tower location is about 54 feet from the north property line, which would abut the Relief Nursery property. He included
a copy of the site plan for specificity of the location and dimensions of the tower. The location of the proposed tower is central to a band of Community Commercial zoning which fronts 42nd Street and Jasper Road. There was a
commercial development planned for the northwest quadrant of Jasper Road and South 42nd, but only
got as far on one building and the dedication of right-of-way for Horace Street, but nothing has been constructed there. With the zoning and designation, it is anticipated that at some point in the future, it
will develop with commercial enterprise; therefore, the applicant has used the Community Commercial provisions such as setbacks for siting the cell tower at this location. He referred to the applicants proposed site plan upon which staff based the recommendations and recommended
conditions. The 40’ x 40’ compound was shown on the map, as well as the property line. The tower is identified as an 85’ high monopine, but staff considers it to be 90 feet high because of the five foot
topper. The proposed cell tower is just under 54’ from the north property line which is shared with the
Relief Nursery property. Staff used air photo measurement to estimate the distance from the Relief Nursery building and came up with about 130 feet, which is beyond the tower height. Staff notes that
the applicant has identified a requirement to set back towers equivalent to the tower height from any
residentially zoned property. Staff identified a 90’setback zone on the west boundary where a cell tower could not be sited because it abuts the Mt. Vernon Elementary property.
Mr. Limbird said access to the facility is by an existing gravel driveway onto South 42nd Street, which was intended to serve the existing store building. The applicant plans to use that driveway for
maintenance access and extend a short driveway stub west of the circular driveway to serve the
compound facility. After construction period, there would be occasional maintenance access to the facility, but is not considered an occupied facility. The equipment shelter proposed is 12’ x 26’ and
about 10 1/2’ and the facility would be surrounded by a six-foot high chain link fence with a barbed wire topper. There would be other equipment within the facility, including fiber optic lines and dedicated conduit to serve the tower facility.
The applicant has shown the extension of utilities necessary to serve the facility. At the time of the
submittal, the applicant considered using natural gas, but has changed that to a diesel fire generator.
The applicant is proposing a two-branch per foot design, but staff is recommending a three-branch per foot design to better match local landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the discretionary use
subject to the recommendation as outlined in the agenda packet, and the site plan subject to conditions
which include provisions of easements and access, and water protection. He noted that staff received
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 6
public comment from property owners on Horace Street. It was pointed out to staff that the location
was incorrectly listed as NW of Horace Street, when it is actually NE of Horace Street. Upon Council decision, the final staff report and decision will be corrected to NE.
Mr. Limbird asked if the Council would allow the applicant more than 3 minutes for their presentation.
Councilor Pishioneri asked for the definition of a commercial building.
Mr. Limbird said anything requiring a building permit on commercial land. It may not necessarily be
occupied.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if it would be a commercial building if someone built a wood shed larger
than 12’ x 12’.
Mr. Limbird said it would have to be reviewed.
Councilor Pishioneri said the building, which is more a pile of brick that is on the property has not
been used in decades. He asked if that is a commercial building or an attractive nuisance. Mr. Limbird said it has been graffiti tagged, and probably trespassed which would make it a nuisance.
Until such time it is removed, it is the principal building on the property. Someone could build a secondary structure. The building was permitted when originally constructed, although not necessarily maintained well enough to be occupied.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if it considered a commercial building if there is no electricity, water or
sewer and it is inhabitable.
Mr. Limbird said he was not aware of the original purpose of the building when constructed. It was
considered an existing condition.
1. Lauren Russell, SmartLink Representing Verizon Wireless, 621 SW Alder Street, Suite 660,
Portland, OR. Ms. Russell said she would be giving a similar presentation to what she shared
with the Planning Commission on June 2. SmartLink was brought into this process early last year by Verizon. The existing tower is located at the paper plant (IP) on top of one of their
towers. Every 5-10 years depending on the lease agreement, the landowner has the option of asking the tenant to leave and IP has asked to have that tower decommissioned. Because of that, Verizon needed to find a new location so Clearwater was proposed. The area is currently
served by one of the three antenna sectors of Springfield. Once the tower at IP is
decommissioned this year, there will be no antenna pointing towards the Clearwater area and no good service in that area. She referred to a slide showing the current cell capacity in
Springfield and the level of service in each area. Once they determined the area of issue, they created a search area by looking at the current
coverage provided by the site to be decommissioned, take into account the terrain, population and density distribution. Following that search, they identified a preferred location which did
not end up working. They looked at the network traffic requirements for that area to see if
there were existing towers available within the search area, but found there were none. After they determined that a new tower was needed, they looked at which properties could be
possible. All of the residential area was not feasible, so they had two community commercial
properties in which to approach, and only one had an interested landlord, the property at 4164
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 7
Jasper Road. She referred to an analysis of alternative sites and the reception in those areas.
The closest tower is 0.8 miles north, just south of the decommissioned site and too far to cover the study area. The next closest tower is 1.27 miles to the northwest which is a Verizon co-
location. Adding an additional facility at that site would duplicate coverage. Another tower site is located 1.64 miles away, but again is too close to another Verizon site and would duplicate service rather than address the coverage objectives of Clearwater. She noted a
comparison of coverage before and after the decommissioning of the tower at IP and the start-up of the new tower.
Ms. Russell said they had originally proposed the two-branch design, but based on condition of approval in the staff report, they were now looking at the three-branch design. If the
application is approve, they will choose Larson as the manufacturer of the tower as they
design the most realistic trees on the market. She provided examples of the bark and the branches. She explained the design to make it look most like a tree. She displayed photo
simulations of the tower and landscaping. She said Larson has one 100-foot monopine in
Central Point which was built behind the Boy Scouts of America building and near a baseball field. She noted the setbacks and that they are proposing setbacks much further than those
required. The landlord is willing to locate this tower in the proposed location as it would not impeded future development.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the branches would be maintained and would withstand weather and birds.
Ms. Russell said the branches are wind tested and Larson provides resurfacing if needed. Verizon would take care of any repairs or branch replacement if needed.
Councilor VanGordon asked about tower placements and why one of the non-Verizon towers was ruled out.
Ms. Russell said it was too far north to provide coverage in the Clearwater area. The current need is capacity, but once the cell tower is decommissioned, coverage will also be needed.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to the before and after pictures and said it looked like moving the tower created more of a coverage issue.
Ms. Russell said her company was only asked to assist with the current Clearwater issue. She was not sure if Verizon will be addressing that coverage issue at a later date. The current issue
at the existing site is coverage. Councilor Pishioneri asked about the ambient decibel ratings for the noise of the cooling
systems and generator.
Ms. Russell said when they did the noise study, the background noise was found to be 48
decibels. The limit is 50 decibels at night and 60 decibels during the day. For the air conditioning units which can run up to 24-hours a day, they had to make sure they stayed
under 50 decibels. For the generator, they needed to stay below 60 decibels during the day
hours. The actual noise to the northern property was 55 decibels during their 15-minute cycles. The construction manager suggested only one air conditioner unit run at a time to keep them
below the noise level. They will abide by the hours required.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 8
Councilor Pishioneri said based on the proposed location of the tower on that lot, it would
significantly impact those ratings based on the location of the service building. If they moved the site west, those ratings would drop. Springfield invested heavily in the Relief Nursery
property to the north of the proposed tower site. He asked where they took the decibel measurements.
Ms. Russell said the measurements were taken from the shelter to the northern property line. The path is north of that location, as is the Relief Nursery.
Councilor Pishioneri said he doesn’t oppose having a tower in that area, but opposes the exact location that was chosen. He said it is not clear if the building on the property is a commercial
building. The property hasn’t been used for commercial for decades and he would hate to see
the cell tower degrade the potential for that property. He discussed the RF emissions for inhabited buildings and asked if there is a different standard for playgrounds. He feels the
residential standards should be applied there since kids are there throughout the entire day. He
wants to be sure they comply with the standards and location based on the path.
Ms. Russell said the proposed location is in an area so the property owner could still develop the rest of that property. She spoke regarding the non-ionizing electric magnetic radiation. She can’t do a calculation on people walking by, but they often work on rooftop structures with a
ten-foot distance between the antennae and habitable space. They are mostly looking at emissions at the same level as the antenna (90 feet).
2. Rohn Roberts, Eugene, OR. Mr. Roberts said he was an attorney and co-chair of the Board for the Relief Nursery. The Relief Nursery owns and operates a facility at 850 South 42nd Street in Springfield. The facility abuts the northeast portion of the property owned by Jasper Junction.
This facility was built on property bought from the City of Springfield and he expressed their appreciation of the support from the City for the facility and the children and families. They
are not opposed to a cell tower on this property per se, but are concerned about the location in
proximity to the Relief Nursery as proposed. According to the site plan in the application, the north boundary of leased premises will be only 21 feet from the Relief Nursery property. The
90 foot tower will be within 50 feet of the southern boundary of the Relief Nursery property.
The site plan has the measurements from the center of the base, so should be moved another 20 feet to see how close in proximity. He noted that on the southern portion of the Relief
Nursery property are the early child therapeutic classrooms and to the west are the playgrounds. The playground is within 50 feet of the proposed tower. Section 8 of Section 4.3-145(f) of the Springfield Development Code provides that in order to ensure public safety, all
towers located or adjacent to any residential zoning districts shall be set back from all
residential property lines. He discussed briefly the Council’s charge.
3. Kelly Sutherland, Relief Nursery Executive Director, Eugene, OR. Ms. Sutherland said she agrees with the remarks from Mr. Roberts. They are grateful to the City of Springfield for their investment in the Relief Nursery. This has been a collaborative effort of the City to bring
nursery services to the children and families in Springfield. The Relief Nursery works with the City of Springfield, Rotary Clubs, Springfield Chamber of Commerce and the Council.
Approving the tower at this location would be at odds with the investment the City has already
made in these children. To ensure public safety is part of the Code and this should be considered a medium residential zone in regards to the setbacks. There is ample room to move
the tower west or south. The picture displayed did not show the playground so was not
reflective of how the property exists today. She referred to the samples of the bark and leaves,
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 9
but said they did not see samples of the chain link fence or barbed wire. The tower itself is 130
feet from the Relief Nursery building, but that doesn’t include the playground. Children are out there every day at the playgrounds and in the classrooms. She asked the Council to
consider approving this with the location of the tower modified to a different place on the property.
4. Dennis Konrady, Goshen, OR. Mr. Konrady said he is supportive of cell phone connections. He does not want to get rid of the cell tower on that property, but to take a common sense
approach in regards to the Relief Nursery. He is on the Board for the Relief Nursery and also
involved with the Twin Rivers Rotary Club who has worked on this project. They would like Council to give consideration that this is too close to the playgrounds. They don’t feel the
setbacks noted are true numbers and that the tower could be better suited at another site on the
property and still allow room for development. The Relief Nursery has tried to reach out to the property owner, but had not heard their plans.
5. Nori Hemphill, Eugene, OR. Ms. Hemphill said she had served as a principal and administrator for the Eugene School District, and is currently employed by the University of
Oregon as a supervisor of administrator practicum students. She thanked the Council for their support of children of all ages. She served on the Relief Nursery Board and as an advocate for children is always concerned about safety. She would like to support what has been said about
moving the location of the tower.
6. Jean Phelps, Eugene OR. Ms. Phelps said the road that goes through the property does not
have vehicle traffic, but it does have children walking to and from the elementary school. She also noted that the children are not only at the Relief Nursery during the day, but also in the evening during evening classes for parents and children.
7. Robert Laney, Pleasant Hill, OR. Mr. Laney said he had been a board member of the Relief
Nursery for 30 years. Subsection 8 of the Development Code provides that in order to insure
public safety, all towers adjacent to residential zoning districts shall be set back from all residential property lines by a distance at least equal to the height of the facility, closest to the
neighboring property line. They acknowledge that the Relief Nursery is not zoned residential,
however the approval criteria for the pending application provides that if the approving authority determines there is any impact with the proposed facility on adjacent properties and
on the public, they can be mitigated through the application of other Springfield Development Code standards. They would submit that the sense it makes to require the 90 foot setback from a residentially owned area would apply with equal or greater force to the condition that there
is a therapeutic pre-school sited on the adjacent property. That could be mitigated by moving
the tower further from the property line, and would address the safety concerns in the Code.
8. Susan Roberts, Eugene OR. Ms. Roberts said she was a Board Member of the Relief Nursery. The road referred to by Ms. Phelps is the pathway used by the children to get to school. She just wants the tower moved a little farther way away from the school.
9. Jean Vinson, Eugene, OR. Ms. Vinson said she was formerly a high school teacher at
Springfield Public Schools and was now fortunate to work at the Relief Nursery. The Relief
Nursery is supported by the Department of Education for early childhood education. She is here in support of this group that is concerned about children and their safety, and proposes
that the cell tower be relocated to a safer place.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 10
Mayor Lundberg asked if there was anyone wishing to speak under the neutral category.
Mr. Limbird addressed the question about the existing building on the property and said the same application would be before Council even without the existing building because of the zoning. Other than the fact that the driveway on the property does provide access from South 42nd Street, the existing
building has no bearing on this application. Tonight they are looking specifically at the lease area which is delineated by the applicant as the tower location and utilities to the facility. The issue of
public safety would apply if the tower is moved towards the public street away from the Relief
Nursery. The testimony is correct in pointing out that the provision for a 90-foot setback is specific to residential zoning and not applicable to other zoning. In a residential district, educational facilities
such as the Relief Nursery and nearby elementary school are discretionary uses and also had to go
through the site review process.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to Finding #19 on page 12 of Attachment 1 regarding accessory
structures. He said that would indicate that the facility on the property was used in staff’s findings.
Mr. Limbird said it was part of their findings, but did not change that this application would be reviewed.
Ms. King said staff considered the relevance of the property being zoned as Community Commercial (CC). Whether or not the building was used for commercial purposes at any point in time was not part of the criteria of approval.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the educational facilities were also exempt from some of the
requirements as a discretionary use.
Mr. Limbird said the requirements were specific to the zoning, not the structure. The CC zoning is the
most permissible zoning in the City. The applicant’s submittal is predicated on the provisions of the
City’s Development Code regarding wireless transmission facilities and the CC district. There is provision for the tower to be sited in that zoning, but not in all zoning areas, so this location was
chosen. Staff would echo Ms. Russell’s observation that the applicant is basing the site of the tower in
the rear of the property so as not to limit future aspirations for development. At present, the site is a vacant field with a shuttered masonry building. The aspiration is to have it develop as a viable
commercial center. Councilor Woodrow asked for clarification on the difference in safety if the tower is moved.
Mr. Limbird said the safety aspect in this case would be limited to the tower falling. That is assuming there is a catastrophic failure and the tower falls. That is why there is that provision in residential
zoning. It has nothing to do with federally regulated emission frequencies as federal mandate has determined that local jurisdictions are responsible for debating whether or not those pose a risk to the
public.
Councilor Woodrow said based on the safety premise as described, they would require 90 feet of
clearance in all directions in a residential zone.
Mr. Limbird said that is what the City used when they developed the provisions of the Code.
Councilor Moore asked if commercial development could occur closer to cell towers than residential.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 11
Mr. Limbird said the commercial property could be developed with the leased area as proposed as an exclusion zone. There is also buffering landscaping proposed by the applicant. The site could be
developed to encompass that area up to the north property line. The applicant would also be within their rights to fence the property line with chain link fence, but at this time they are only proposing to fence the enclosure.
Councilor Moore asked if the rental from the cell tower at this location would be very lucrative for the
property owner. She asked if there was discussion with the owner by staff about moving the tower.
Mr. Limbird said staff was only going through the applicant as they have had no reason or cause to
contact the owner. They are reviewing the application based on information presented. Staff doesn’t
typically get involved in private transactions. The site was selected as part of the property owner’s plans.
Ms. King said a letter from the Relief Nursery was presented to the Mayor and Council at their seats to be entered into the record.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the applicant had a rebuttal.
Ms. Russell said that as a representative of Verizon, they agree with the staff report for the discretionary use, as well as the site plan review and conditions. They have made a change from the two-branch per foot to the three-branch per foot design, and would support approving the application
with those conditions.
Mayor Lundberg asked if there were any requests to keep the record open.
Ms. King said Council could also leave the record open to get further information.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there was a reason why the cell tower couldn’t be moved to the west other than the property owner wanting the tower sited on that location for future commercial purposes.
Ms. King said Council has to make a decision based on the criteria. The applicant submitted this location, so Council needs to make a decision based on the criteria at this location.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the noise standards would be more applicable if the tower was moved to the west.
Mayor Lundberg said they have to make a decision based on the location presented based on the criteria.
Ms. King said if what they have heard from the applicant or the public shows that the application as
presented meets the criteria, the Council could deny. If they do meet the criteria, she would
recommend approval.
Mr. Roberts asked that the record remain open for seven days. He also noted that Council has the right
to approve the application with conditions. He would like to explore that possibility.
Ms. King said with this request, Council must leave the record open, although they can close the public hearing. This would allow seven days for those requesting the record remain open to submit
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 12
testimony, seven days for the applicant to rebut and typically seven days for staff respond. Staff or the
applicant may be willing to accommodate schedules to tighten that timeline. The Council could then reconvene to deliberate and vote.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WYLIE).
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing, but noted the public record would stay open.
Mr. Grimaldi said there were time constraints so staff and the applicant were discussing timelines.
Ms. King said the record will remain open for seven days, and then staff and the applicant would respond in following seven days, for a total of fourteen days. Council could reconvene on July 20.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
Councilor Moore said she attended the Housing Policy Board meeting today and would share
information with the Council in written form. b. City Manager Compensation.
Greta Utecht, Human Resources Director, presented the staff report on this item.
According to City Manager Gino Grimaldi’s employment contract, each February the City’s Human Resources Department will average the percentages from four different index sources to determine what, if any, amount of salary or cost of living adjustment to recommend to the City Council. In
addition, Human Resources staff completed a survey of comparable agencies. Results of the survey and the average of the indices were presented to the Finance & Judiciary Committee on June 1 2015,
during which the committee voted to approve and forward on to Council staff’s proposal that Mr.
Grimaldi’s salary be adjusted by 2%.
The following table lists the indices used, and their overall average.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 13
Portland-Salem CPI-W for 2014 2.3
Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment 2014 1.7
Public Administrators National Index 2014 2.5
Western & Oregon Officers/Executives 2014 2.5
Average: 2.25% Currently, Mr. Grimaldi’s total compensation package is 3.24% below the average of comparable
agencies with no geographic differential calculations applied. (Geographic differential factors help us compare the cost of labor in another community or region and have been used in other recent market
surveys, specifically those prepared for non-Union, SEIU, IAFF and AFSCME employee groups.)
When the geographic differential factors are applied, Mr. Grimaldi’s total compensation package is
approximately 1.20% below average. If a 2.0% adjustment were made to his salary, it would result in
a base salary of $153,349 and an overall increase of $3437. Based on the attached compensation survey, that adjustment would put his total compensation approximately 1.29% below average without
geographic factoring and .72% above average with the geographic factors applied. Assuming any
adjustment would be implemented July 1, retroactive costs to November 1, 2014 would be $2290 for a 2% adjustment.
Councilor Moore asked if there would be increases in the comparator agencies sometime soon.
Ms. Utecht said the comparison was done in April. At that time, some of those agencies noted that they would give an increase on July 1. City Manager and County Administrator salaries don’t always fall in line in terms of timing with fiscal years and occur at different times throughout the year.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON TO APPROVE FINANCE & JUDICIARY COMMITTEE’S
RECOMMENDATION TO ADJUST SALARY OF CITY MANAGER BY 2% EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 2014. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Mayor Lundberg confirmed it was retroactive to 2014.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Council Operating Policies and Procedures Amendment.
Amy Sowa, City Recorder, presented the staff report on this item.
The Springfield Charter states “Section 12. Operating Procedures and Policies. The Council shall approve and maintain operating procedures and policies annually.” Amendments to the Council’s operating policies and procedures document require approval by a two-thirds vote of the members of
Council present. On January 21, 2014, Council amended the Council Operating Policies and Procedures, Section IX, by
adding subsections 3.10 and 3.11 regarding appointment to Council boards, commissions, committees and task forces.
Since adoption of that section in the Council Operating Policies, there was confusion about application of the amended sections. Council reviewed the section again on November 3, 2014 and June 15, 2015
and asked that the following changes be made to clarify that section.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015 Page 14
• Section IX (3) – Appointing Board, Commission, Committee and Task Force Members (per Council direction at the June 15, 2015 Work Session) :
Add to Section 3.10) “to the Planning Commission and Budget Committee”.
Insert the proposed Section 3.9) between 3.10) and 3.11) clarifying that Council will take into account if an applicant currently serves on another governing body or
another city board, commission or committee, when appointing people to the other boards, commissions, and committees (besides the Planning Commission and Budget Committee) – rename to 3.11).
Keep Section 3.11) - rename to 3.12) Another change was made to clarify Section VIII (4) regarding notification to the City Manager’s
office and Mayor when Council members are asked to do an interview. Finally, Section III (5) (5.2.1) and (5.2.2) was added to formally outline the process for proclamations.
Other minor housekeeping amendments are also being proposed.
Staff is asking for formal approval of the proposed amendments.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON TO APPROVE THE AMENDED COUNCIL OPERATING POLICIIES AND
PROCEDURES. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WYLIE).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 8:35 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 JULY 13, 2015
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday July 13, 2015 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie (5:47 p.m.), 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.
1. Springfield Police Advisory Committee (SPAC) Interview.
Michael Harman, Services Bureau Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
The Springfield Police Advisory Committee has an open position for a representative of the minority
community. There is one remaining applicant to be interviewed.
The Springfield Police Advisory Committee recommended either Jose da Silva or Silvia Ceja for the
open Minority Community Representative position. On July 6 the Council interviewed Silvia Ceja,
while Jose da Silva was unavailable due to previously scheduled travel. At the request of Council, Mr. da Silva’s interview has been rescheduled for this evening.
The Mayor and Council introduced themselves to Mr. da Silva.
They asked the following questions of Mr. da Silva: 1.) Why do you want to serve on the Springfield Police Advisory Committee? (Mayor Lundberg)
2.) What concerns or suggestions do you have for our community? (Councilor Moore) 3.) What do you enjoy about the City of Springfield? (Councilor VanGordon)
4.) What perspective and experience will you bring to the Police Advisory Committee?
(Councilor Woodrow) 5.) In your opinion, where do you think the Springfield Police Department could improve the
most? (Councilor Pishioneri)
6.) How do you think our City will change over the next 10 years? (Councilor Ralston)
Council discussed the qualifications of Mr. da Silva as well as those of Silvia Ceja who also applied for this position and was interviewed on Monday, July 6. Both were highly qualified. Council consensus was to appoint Jose da Silva.
Council said they would like to encourage Silvia Ceja to apply for other positions on City committees.
Appointments for this position, as well as for the Faith Community Representative position (both interviewed on July 6) are scheduled for the July 20, 2015 Council meeting.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 13, 2015 Page 2
2. Eugene-Springfield Area Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Organization and
Management Improvement Opportunities.
Ken Vogeney, City Engineer presented the staff report on this item. Mr. Vogeney introduced Myrnie Daut, Risk Services Manager of the City of Eugene. The CERT Program and Emergency Management Program are run under Ms. Daut’s department. He introduced one of the staff members from that
department, Lindsey Cullums who worked with Americorp and has served as outreach coordinator for CERT and other emergency management topics for the past year. Finally, he introduced one of
Springfield’s CERT trainers and District CERT leader, Isa Aviad.
The Eugene-Springfield Area CERT has recently made several organizational changes and the City is
implementing a new volunteer management software system. These two changes combine to give the
City an opportunity to manage and utilize CERT members more effectively in both Springfield and Eugene.
The Eugene-Springfield Area CERT program is undergoing significant changes. Staff needs to advise Council of what these changes mean to our CERT structure, Volunteer Coordinator Program, IT
platform, insurance compliance and software programs. To assist Springfield with its overall volunteer management, the Human Resources Department has
purchased a subscription to the Volgistics volunteer management system. Using Volgistics for all of our CERT volunteers will streamline the City’s processes for reporting hours and insurance information, simplify the application and approval process for new volunteers, provide an on-line
scheduling tool, and improve our ability to communicate, activate and utilize volunteers when we need their services.
The subscription service for Volgistics is based upon an annual fee for using the system and a monthly fee for each administrator who is given access to manage the data, send messages, etc. There is no
additional cost per volunteer, so we are able to have an unlimited number of volunteers use the system.
Since CERT is a shared program with Eugene, we are negotiating a cost sharing agreement with them and Springfield’s share of the annual and monthly fees for CERT will be charged to the Emergency
Management Program budget. Mr. Vogeney said the CERT group adopted bylaws last month and elected officers. The group decided
to divide the area into five districts, four in Eugene and one in Springfield for now. Once they get a larger Springfield presence, that number could grow to two or three districts.
KarLynn Akins, Human Resources Analyst and Volunteer Coordinator described some of the benefits of the Volgistics program for the CERT program.
Mr. Vogeney said Volgistics also allows them to move forward with the resolution that Council passed in the Spring to extend Workers’ Compensation to CERT volunteers.
Councilor Pishioneri said he likes what they are doing. He hasn’t seen a cost associated with this yet, and knew they were negotiating. He wanted to make sure they had the cost in place first. He asked
about the tracking and Workers’ Compensation and how that worked when Eugene CERT members
worked in Springfield and Springfield members in Eugene.
Mr. Vogeney said if a CERT member is working on a City of Springfield event, they would be covered by Springfield’s Workers’ Comp, regardless of where they live. If Springfield residents are
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 13, 2015 Page 3
working a Eugene event, they will be covered under whatever program Eugene is using. Eugene does
not extend Worker’s Compensation coverage to its volunteers.
Councilor Pishioneri asked who was covering the cost of Volgistics. Mr. Vogeney said the base fee is covered by Springfield because we need the system anyway. Since
there is a fee per administrator, Eugene will cover any expense for City of Eugene CERT administrators, and Springfield will cover the expense for City of Springfield administrators. The
estimated cost is a couple of hundred dollars per year.
Ms. Akins said the program is cloud-based, so the City is not buying software or hardware, just the
access. The cost is already budgeted in Human Resources, and allows them to bring CERT into this
program. There is $500 in annual administrative fees and Eugene Springfield are working out how to cover that cost. The administrator charge is $10 per administrator.
Councilor Moore asked if they were recruiting volunteers and providing training.
Mr. Vogeney said they are always in recruitment mode for the CERT Program. During the National Night Out last week they had about 20 people sign up who were interested in attending the class in the Fall. Currently, the trainings are being hosted in the Fall and Spring by the City of Eugene. They are
talking about shifting one of those trainings to Springfield. Information is on our website under the Emergency Management page.
3. Downtown Lighting.
Courtney Griesel, Management Analyst, and Brian Barnett presented the staff report on this item.
The installation of the first phase of Downtown lighting was installed in Spring of this year. New and
upgraded fixtures were installed along three blocks of Main Street from Pioneer Parkway East to 6th
Street. During the FY16 Budget Process, Council and Budget Committee members directed staff to present an outline of costs specific to future lighting installations.
Future proposed areas for Downtown Lighting improvements are split into three distinct project areas with unique construction characteristics and costs;
• Area A – Main Street from the river to Pioneer Parkway East Includes a total of 20 fixtures to be installed at an estimated cost of $155,000
• Area B – Main Street from 6th Street to 10th Street Includes a total of 40 fixtures to be installed at an estimated cost of $276,000
• Area C – 5th Street from Main Street to North B Street
Includes a total of 22 fixtures to be installed at an estimated cost of $200,000
The total estimated cost for Lighting Areas A, B, & C is $631,000. Similar to the Phase I lighting installation completed earlier this Spring 2015, future lighting would be funded through internal borrowing by the Springfield Economic Development Agency from City reserves. Based on
estimates, not all areas of lighting can be recommended at this time and retain flexibility in future special projects. There is adequate internal borrowing capacity for the Downtown Urban Renewal
District to do two of the three proposed projects: Area A plus Area B at an estimated to cost $431,000.
This would complete the Main Street from 10th Street to the bridges. Area C is not recommended at this time because it has a higher cost per fixture, affects few businesses, provides a smaller impact for
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 13, 2015 Page 4
a relatively higher cost. In addition, limiting the lighting upgrades to Areas A and B retains some
flexibility in opportunistic funding of future special projects Downtown.
The City Council may determine to utilize this internal borrowing resource partially as recommended, or in its entirety, for priority future lighting areas. Doing all three areas would limit the availability of funds for any future desired investments by the Downtown Urban Renewal District in the near-term
future (2 to 4 years).
Ms. Griesel spoke regarding the lights that had been installed to date and ‘turned on’ in January of this
year. She described the options listed above.
Mayor Lundberg said this would be a SEDA budget impact, for both Downtown and Glenwood.
Ms. Griesel said SEDA borrows from the City which affects borrowing capacity. Glenwood is
generating more tax increment so is not relying on internal borrowing. This does bind our ability to do
significant amounts of borrowing against our internal capacity for downtown projects. This would be the big capital project until something else came along with a guaranteed, positive tax increment
benefit. Mayor Lundberg said the decision point is whether or not this is a good investment for downtown.
Councilor Woodrow said they have seen a positive response from the lights and it would be good to get Main Street finished with the lighting. If they don’t continue they are limiting participation of the
businesses.
Councilor Moore asked about the phases in the areas.
Ms. Griesel said explained how they phases have changed since they originally looked at this project.
Councilor Moore said it would be appropriate for the citizens to know the cost involved. People think that since we have the lights, it is a minimal cost. It could help with their understanding.
Councilor VanGordon said he is comfortable with focusing on where businesses are located. He referred to a sponsorship program for the lights and asked if staff had an update on that program.
Mr. Barnett said it was still being scoped out.
Mr. Grimaldi said once they have the project scoped out, they will start to talk to people about donations.
Ms. Griesel said that type of program could be ongoing even after the lights are installed.
Councilor Wylie said we are going above and beyond as a City and she thought there might be some
federal funds for sustainability and beautification of Downtown. She noted the grants received by Hillsboro, some small and some large.
Councilor Moore said the Main Street Program could be another possibility.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 13, 2015 Page 5
Councilor Pishioneri said he would like to see Area A and B lit up, but if we look at only one area, he
would support Area A as the core of downtown. That would give them time to look at Area B down the road.
Mr. Barnett said the larger the project, the more efficient it will be in terms of administration, although it may not be a large impact. They can be done independently.
Councilor Pishioneri said if there are significant savings in combining both areas, it could warrant
doing them together.
Mr. Barnett said the figures are just a preliminary estimate and each area is different.
Councilor Pishioneri said if it penciled out, he would support doing one area only then waiting to do another area.
Councilor Woodrow said she would be more inclined not to do that since they had already told businesses we would be lighting downtown. She would like to see as much as we can do to support
Downtown businesses. Mayor Lundberg said she looks at how they can do the most with the public dollars available to make
the biggest difference. By far, Downtown lighting has been the most impactful. The initial lighting was so welcome and well attended. She agrees they should look for grant dollars to help offset the cost. Since the first section was completed, there is anticipation that they will complete that entire area.
From 10th Street to Mill Street is considered the downtown core. She supports moving forward with Areas A and B.
Mr. Grimaldi said if Council wants to move forward with both areas, staff will put it out to bid.
Council supported Areas A and B.
Councilor Pishioneri said he is fine with Areas A and B, but noted that it is their fiduciary
responsibility to make sure they can do that without sacrificing the financial strength of SEDA.
Ms. Griesel said once it goes out for bid, Council will have another opportunity to look at those again
and determine if it is financially feasible. Mayor Lundberg said they don’t have anything else to commit to in the Downtown at this time. The
two things the City has done in Downtown to make the biggest impact is parking and lighting.
4. Franklin Boulevard Project Update / Franklin Boulevard Resolution of Necessity.
Kristi Krueger, Principal Engineer, presented the staff report on these two items.
In 2008, the City had a layout with the Franklin Study for the corridor which had roundabouts on each end. She described design at that time. In 2013, they had a new iteration to try to qualify for the
Categorical Exclusion (CE) in the environmental process. During that process, they found that the line
was impacting one side of the boulevard more than the other, so they moved the center line in order to even out the impacts. In December 2013, they came up with an iteration that reduced impacts even
more. With that iteration, the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) gave the City approval to move
forward with the CE and proceed with design. In January 2014, they started the design process and did
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 13, 2015 Page 6
the survey work for the entire corridor. They are now going from McVay Highway all the way through
Glenwood to a 30% design. They will then focus only on McVay to Mississippi which is the area they hope to construct. Further impacts were reduced through that process which she described.
Ms. Krueger said the 30% design has now transferred over to other design groups at CH2M Hill, the consultant for this project. They are now working on the vertical alignment in order to have a 3-D
model to work from with the rest of the design. This project will be done in concrete which requires less maintenance. After the 30% is when they start getting into the fine details from McVay Highway
to Mississippi. The City has applied for a TIGER Grant and will find out this Fall whether or not the
City will be awarded the grant.
Staff has been meeting with Springfield Utility Board (SUB) to discuss water and electric facilities.
They will be undergrounding all of the electrical utilities which is a very complex project. Ms. Krueger has been communicating with the Academy of Arts and Academics (A3) school’s director
regarding the possibility of having a class of students work with an A3 teacher and a local metal artist
to develop a large piece of art for the double roundabout. Redmond, Oregon did a similar project which has been installed. A3 is very excited about the project. There has been public outreach, but
until they have the 30% design complete don’t have a lot to share. Staff has been updating stakeholders on the project, and all business and property owners in Phase I have been emailed the layout presented to Council. She has worked with several business owners who have questions or
ideas. Once the 30% design is complete, they will provide it to all of corridor and Glenwood, and will hold an Open House in the Fall.
Ms. Krueger spoke regarding the right-of-ways. There are three properties the City is considering purchasing for right-of-way. Two of them are on the southeast corner of Mississippi and Franklin
Blvd, and the third is a vacant Quonset hut property. Staff has sent out the initial letter and is working
on the appraisals in order to go through the negotiation and offer process. They aren’t able to start the rest of the process for Phase I until the 30% design is complete. Staff will do everything they can to
have successful negotiations, but would like to be able to move forward with the eminent domain
process if negotiations aren’t successful. Staff would come back to Council if they were to move into condemnation. When they go through the negotiation process, staff would like the City Manager to
have the authority to sign off on the purchase of the properties. Ms. Krueger noted the different color of lines on the maps and what they each represented. Some are
for future right-of-way needs for transit or other uses, some are travel lanes, bike lanes, and swales. Staff has been working with Lane Transit District (LTD).
Councilor Moore said it looked like the lines on the north side showed impact to more businesses. Mr. Krueger described how the lines were changed to create the least amount of impact to both sides
when going through the NEPA process.
Councilor VanGordon asked if staff was talking with other utilities about lines being underground.
Ms. Krueger said SUB asked the City to talk with them from the beginning. They decided to include
discussions about Riverfront as well as Franklin Boulevard to try to make it all as successful as
possible. Once the 30% design is complete, they will speak with all of the utilities. They do have a utility coordinator on the team. The normal process is to wait to talk to the utilities much later, but
they decided to start those discussions earlier. As they start negotiations with the property owners,
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 13, 2015 Page 7
they want to make sure they are only talked with once, not by multiple agencies, so they can get all of
the information at the same time.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the sidewalk widths and street widths and why they were so wide. Ms. Krueger said in looking back at properties affected, there was not a lot of difference in the
impacts. She described the expected development area, access and sidewalk widths. They have gone through many iterations to try to reduce the impact while keeping a good facility. When looking at the
bike facility, they need to look in the future at three wheel trikes and carts behind bikes for children
and safety. They have been successful minimizing impacts, while keeping a good facility, but they will bring up that concern when they meet with the bike community.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to the area from Mississippi Avenue to Henderson and the area with parallel parking on the south side. He noted that diagonal parking was most efficient. He was looking
for ways to reduce the width by seven feet.
Ms. Krueger explained the work done to look at all possible options while still maintaining a protected
bike lane for safety. Mayor Lundberg said 30% design is not the final design. She said staff was looking for direction from
Council to go forward, and to approve the resolution for condemnation. The City had a history of making it work for people so they could come to a reasonable solution. She asked who was part of the bike community that staff would be meeting.
Ms. Krueger said bike community members were from the Bike/Pedestrian Committee.
Mayor Lundberg said she wants to know where those people live. She noted that Better Eugene Springfield Transit (BEST) who is concerned about the roundabout, but most of those members are
from Eugene. This does link both communities, but she wants to make sure they temper the input so
there is an adequate number from Springfield. There are not a lot of opportunities for changes after the 30% design is complete.
Ms. Krueger said there is opportunity from the McVay Highway to Glenwood Boulevard in the future, but the area from Mississippi Avenue to the McVay Highway would be moving forward in Phase I.
They can make changes as long as they stay within the envelope. She has been talking with property owners and business owners and trying to be as transparent as possible. Those affected are working with the City.
Mayor Lundberg said hadn’t heard from anyone that owns a business or property in Glenwood lately so she assumes things are going fine and she is good with that. She wants to make sure Council is
clear on what they are agreeing to move forward with and when there is an opportunity to make any changes to details.
Councilor Wylie said this seems very ambitious. She is not opposed to that, but is opposed to impacting functional businesses. They need to be very cautious when moving forward and be sensitive
to businesses.
Ms. Krueger said staff has been working closely with businesses, property owners and development
group. There is a big relocation process in this and the City will help them relocate in Springfield or Glenwood if needed. Many businesses will stay.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 13, 2015 Page 8
Councilor Ralston said he doesn’t support future transit lanes due to the space they require so would look at taking out those extra traffic lanes. He asked if we are committed to busses having designated
lanes in the future. Mr. Grimaldi said the extra lanes preserves options for many transportation services.
Councilor Pishioneri discussed bike lanes and sidewalks, and how they interact with traffic. He likes
that it allows for expansion in the future, but the wide bike path doesn’t make sense. If they moved the
bike path to be congruent with the sidewalk, they could gain 17 feet. They could buy up space and move the future transit lane next to existing traffic. He said it doesn’t make sense for bikes to travel
between big vehicles.
Mayor Lundberg said staff has been working on this and the design had been like this for many years.
Councilor Ralston said if the lane is for future use, it should be next to existing lanes. It sounds like they are planning it for exclusive bus lane.
Mayor Lundberg said they need a certain amount of space and need to know that as they go out to talk with property owners.
Ms. Krueger said some of this was already in the Glenwood Refinement Plan. If they go narrower, development will occur to that line and they won’t be able to get it back.
Mr. Grimaldi said it would be costly to change the design if they move forward.
Mayor Lundberg said they had gotten the money from federal government for this design.
Mr. Grimaldi said tonight’s discussion was an update. Significant discussion over the years had
produced this cross section.
Mayor Lundberg said she wants to make sure they talk with Springfield bicyclists. Councilor Moore said she is happy to see a safe corridor for bicyclists. It would be nice to have trees
between bikes and the traffic, and the bike path next to the walking path. She thanked staff for their hard work.
Councilor Ralston asked if they were locked into the lane design or if they could add a lane in the future.
Mr. Grimaldi gave an example of reconfiguring the street in ten or fifteen years.
Ms. Krueger said if exclusive EmX lanes go in that area, the roundabouts are designed to
accommodate. The bike facility is adjacent to the travel lane which is how they normally are, and this design was the safest.
Mayor Lundberg said staff did very well and have worked very hard. She had been in meetings with property owners and had seen Ms. Krueger meeting with property owners. She is always looking for
ways to make things work.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 13, 2015 Page 9
Council was fine with the resolution of necessity so staff will bring it back to Council for action on
July 20, 2015.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________ Amy Sowa
City Recorder
MINUTES OF THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY JULY 14, 2015
A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield and Lane County was held in the Library
Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall, 225 5th Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday July 14, 2015 at 5:30 p.m. with Council President Marilee Woodrow presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Council President Woodrow opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council.
Board Chair Bozievich opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Present from Springfield were Council President Marilee Woodrow and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, and Pishioneri. Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi and other Springfield
staff were also present. Mayor Lundberg was absent (excused). Present from Lane County were Board Chair Bozievich and Commissioners Leiken, Stewart, Farr and
Sorenson. Lane County Administrator Steve Moh and other Lane County staff were also present. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Glenwood Amendments to the Eugene Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) a Refinement Plan of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).
Springfield Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. ORS 197.712 (2)(e)
requires cities to “develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within an urban growth
boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons. The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for public projects needed to provide sewer, water and
transportation for the land uses contemplated in the comprehensive plan and land use regulations.” The PFSP is a refinement plan of the Metro Plan that contains the project lists, maps, estimated costs and timing for significant water, stormwater, sewer, and electric infrastructure. As
significant new infrastructure projects are identified, the PFSP must be amended to show these
projects.
The City of Springfield proposes to amend the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan by amending the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) to: 1) add three stormwater outfalls; 2) relocate a planned electric substation; and 3) add transmission lines connecting the substation to the
Alvey Substation in Goshen and the Laura St. Substation in Springfield. The planned facilities shall be added to the applicable PFSP Maps 3 and 4; and project lists found in Tables 6, 8 and 18. Each of the proposed new facilities is intended to fulfill the Council goal of preparing Glenwood for planned
future development. Mr. Metzger described the amendments. The projects will help prepare Glenwood for future development. He presented photos of stormwater outfalls to illustrate what they
looked like and their function. The facilities will fit in the 75 foot setback already protected for clean
water purposes. He noted the pole mounted lines that are also on the project list. Areas that will be developed in Glenwood will be underground, but these provide connection to Goshen and Laura
Street.
Mr. Metzger said a letter was submitted by the Seaver family regarding concerns they have regarding
stormwater outfall and transmission line on their property. City and Springfield Utility Board Staff
met with the Seavers to let them know that the facilities will be in the right-of-way rather than on their
July 14, 2015
Joint Elected Officials - Public Hearing
City of Springfield Lane County
Page 2 of 4
property. He noted a diagram showing the new outfall locations. The facilities in Glenwood need to be acted on by both the City of Springfield and Lane County as they span the city limits and the area in the urban growth boundary.
City Attorney Lauren King explained the quasi-judicial hearing process and said the public has an opportunity to provide comments. Testimony must be regarding the criteria listed. By statute anyone
can request that the record be held open for one week. Staff received a request to leave the public record for two weeks. She asked the Council President and Board Chair to poll the elected officials regarding ex parte contact.
Council President Woodrow polled the Council regarding ex parte contact. None of the Council
members had any ex parte contact.
Board Chair Bozievich polled the Board regarding ex parte contact. None of the board members had
any ex parte contact.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi read the Springfield ordinance title:
SPRINGFIELD ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENT WITH POLICY G.3 IN CHAPTER III, SECTION G. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT;
AMENDING TABLE 6, TABLE 8, AND TABLE 18, AND MAP 3 AND MAP 4 OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN TO UPDATE THE PROJECT LISTS AND MAPPED LOCATION OF PLANNED PUBLIC FACILITIES IN GLENWOOD; AND
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE (FIRST READING)
Board Chair read the Lane County ordinance title:
LANE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO PA 1318/ IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) CONSISTENT WITH POLICY G.3 IN CHAPTER III, SECTION G, PUBLIC FACILITIES
AND SERVICES ELEMENT; AMENDING TABLE 6, TABLE 8, AND TABLE 18, AND MAP 3 AND MAP 4 OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP) TO UPDATE
THE PROJECT LISTS AND MAPPED LOCATION OF PLANNED PUBLIC FACILITIES IN
GLENWOOD; AND ADOPTING A SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. (LANE COUNTY FILE NO. 509-PA15-05397) (SPRINGFIELD FILE NO. TYP415-00002) (SECOND
READING)
Board Member Sorenson asked if there was still a combined Eugene Springfield urban growth
boundary (UGB). Mr. Metzger said they have separate UGB’s and these actions take place inside the Springfield UGB.
Some of the facilities in the PFSP are inside city limits and some are outside city limits.
Council President Woodrow opened the public hearing for the Springfield City Council.
Board Chair Bozievich opened the public hearing for Lane County.
Mr. Metzger said a packet of information was presented to the Council which identifies the criteria of approval. He reviewed the criteria for approval for the Metro Plan and Refinement Plan amendments.
July 14, 2015
Joint Elected Officials - Public Hearing
City of Springfield Lane County
Page 3 of 4
The following criteria from Springfield Development Code Section 5.6-115 will be considered tonight: A. In reaching a decision on the adoption or amendment of refinement plans and this Code’s text,
the City Council shall adopt findings that demonstrate conformance to the following: 1. The Metro Plan; 2. Applicable State statutes; and
3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules. B. Applications specified in Section 5.6-105 require co-adoption by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. (6279)
For the record, he noted that the date was incorrect under Finding #1. Rather than September 14, 2015,
it should read September 15, 2014. At 3:00 pm today, staff received an email from Charles Stewart
and Diana Garcia with concern regarding substations E9 and E10. These substations are located west of I-5 in Eugene’s UGB and are proposed by Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). They are on
the map already and not subject to this process. He noted the request to keep the record open for two
weeks which came from Mr. Stewart. Springfield will hear this item again on September 8 and Lane County on September 15. This is a housekeeping exercise, but is very important.
Board Member Sorenson asked about the stormwater facilities and if there was any coordination of other public facilities that would need to be coordinated with water and electric.
Mr. Metzger said as part of their development review process, the City did make contact and provide notice to other Springfield related agencies. There is no conflict with this proposal and it is consistent
with the other public facilities. 1. Charles Stewart, Seavey Loop Road, Eugene, OR. Mr. Stewart thanked Mr. Metzger for
explaining some of this to him just prior to the meeting. This information came to him and his neighbors late and they did not have a chance to look it over. He asked to keep the record open for one month rather than two weeks, which was his original request. He said he had served as
a coordinator of information for the Seavey Loop neighbors who have a lot of concern regarding any activity between Franklin Boulevard and Lane Community College (LCC).
Some of the groups they work with are the Arboretum, Friends of Howard Buford Park, the
Sierra Club, and Willamette Farm and Food Coalition. He would like more time for review.
Mr. Metzger said there were two published notices, one for the Planning Commission meeting and one
for tonight’s meeting. The City also sent mailed notice within 300 feet of any of the facilities proposed. He wants to make sure they are respectful of their concerns.
Ms. King said by statute, the elected officials need to leave the record open for seven days because of the request. Staff will then need time to respond to any comments.
Mr. Metger said it would likely take about three weeks to prepare a response to any comments received.
Commissioner Farr said the changes are going to last years for those living in the area, so two weeks wasn’t a long time.
Councilor Moore said it is her understanding that Springfield has no jurisdiction over substations #9
and #10.
July 14, 2015
Joint Elected Officials - Public Hearing
City of Springfield Lane County
Page 4 of 4
Mr. Metzger said that is correct. Mr. Stewart is mostly concerned about the impact on the Seavey Loop area, although these amendments are in Glenwood.
Councilor Moore said if they have a concern about those substations, the proper jurisdiction is Eugene and Lane County.
Board Chair Bozievich said any request mandates that they keep the record open for seven days. It is disappointing to have to hold another meeting on something they could have taken action on this evening this is a housekeeping item. He appreciated Commissioner Farr’s comment about the
concerns.
Mr. Metzger would recommend Friday, August 14 as the last date for the record to remain open.
Springfield would then bring recommendations and a summary of any other information to the September 8, and the County to their September 15 meeting, for them to consider taking action.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO KEEP THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL AUGUST 14 AT 5:00 P.M. AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART WITH SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FARR TO MOVE THE SECOND READING AND SETTING THE THIRD READING FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2015, CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND KEEPING THE RECORD
OPEN UNTIL AUGUST 14 AT 5:00 P.M. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned for the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of
Commissioners at 6:01 p.m.
Minutes Recorder
Amy Sowa City Recorder
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest:
____________________ City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY JULY 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 July 20, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow, and
Pishioneri (by phone). Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. International Paper Company Request Regarding Enterprise Zone Extension in Springfield.
John Tamulonis, Community Development Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
As co-sponsor of the Springfield Enterprise Zone (EZ) with Lane County, Council is being asked to
consider approving the resolution to extend property tax abatement for five years to the International
Paper (IP) Company for its proposed $101.6 million equipment replacement upgrades to its paper mill manufacturing operations in Springfield.
International Paper has requested that both sponsors of the Springfield Enterprise Zone (City of Springfield and Lane County) approve five-years of extended enterprise zone benefits though
International Paper is not increasing employment. Its decision to replace two nearly nonfunctional and key components of its ongoing Springfield plant operations – a head box and boiler floor (current value approximately $3-$4 million) – would allow the facility to continue operations, increase
efficiency, and help maintain quality for critical world markets. The replacement equipment would take nearly a year to install, employ about 400 additional contractors at its peak, and does not anticipate reducing any of its current employment of about 260 through this project. International
Paper is scheduled in the coming weeks to consider where to make upgrades to multiple manufacturing facilities and these proposed upgrades could greatly enhance the long-term operations
of this Springfield plant. The EZ benefits could influence where International Paper chooses to make a
major investment and they need to know if they will have the requested five-years of enterprise zone benefits.
Mr. Tamulonis introduced several representatives from IP who were in the audience – Ann Marie Person, Kallie Hodgson, Ken Hill, Michael Culver and Cynthia Leon, as well as their attorney Eric
Kodesh. Councilor Pishioneri joined the meeting via speaker phone at 6:35pm
Mr. Tamulonis said the current employment is about 260 employees at the plant site. In discussions this afternoon with the Lane County Tax Assessor’s office, it was noted there is an additional facility
in Glenwood which was originally missed since it had a Eugene address. That means there will need to be some adjustments in the employment figures and will be closer to 280 employees. Staff will make that change to the resolution before it is finalized. IP has asked that the figure be 80% of current
employment as a standard used by their company. They are not expecting a reduction in staffing, but
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 2
felt they could not commit to a five-year commitment of full staffing due to the unknown element of
market conditions in the future. IP has several hundred contractors that work at the plant currently. During the construction period, about 350-400 additional contract employees will be working on site.
Construction could start in September and they would extend their usual annual shut-down to remove old equipment. As part of the removal of equipment, the City has asked the company to make five payments of $100,000 for a total of $500,000 to help offset the loss of tax revenue. If they get the five-
year exemption, the company must have wages of 1.5 times that of the Lane County median. Currently, IP pays an average of over 2.5 times the average amount. Part of the EZ requirement is that
new employees would need to reach the level of $58,530/annual compensation. IP must also sign an
agreement that they will go the State of Oregon Employment division for all new hires during the EZ period.
Councilor Moore asked if the exemption begins when the plant is fully operational.
Mr. Tamulonis said it will begin on January 1 following the year they are fully operational. They do
have an exemption on the new investment that is being installed as they are in construction.
Councilor Moore said it sounds like the City would not receive tax revenue on the new investment until 2021.
Mr. Tamulonis said the City would still get taxes on the old investment which is valued at about $190M.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the average wages were based on top salary employees and lowest, the average, or average of work force. He is uncomfortable with them having the ability to reduce down to
80% of current staff.
Mr. Tamulonis said the average compensation would be above $58,530 for new employees. Their
current workforce has a substantially higher level of compensation. The current level has no bearing
on that requirement. They would have the ability to reduce staffing, but have no intention to reduce below current levels based on this project. The investment will increase efficiency, but does not
replace workers. Councilor Pishioneri said he is concerned about allowing a company to become more efficient only to
lay off workers. If they want the 80% figure in the case of a market turn, he would like that written in the agreement.
Mr. Tamulonis said they have not explored that and he was not aware of a way to define that in terms of a tipping point.
Councilor Pishioneri said he is not against this, but has that concern. A reduction in workforce counters what the EZ is for which is to increase workforce.
Mr. Tamulonis said the key piece was how viable the facility would be long term without this investment and they continued to use the old equipment.
Councilor VanGordon asked about multi-year payout and tax exemption, and if the revenue was not expected to change dramatically.
Mr. Tamulonis said they don’t know the depreciation schedule, but there could be some fluctuation.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 3
Councilor VanGordon asked if they had an estimate of the property after 2022.
Mr. Tamulonis said there could be about a $650,000 increase for property taxes per year after that date, decreasing over time due to depreciation.
Councilor VanGordon said the mill is important to the community and employs a lot of people, so he wants IP to be as successful as possible. His only concern is trying to understand the change in
employment.
A representative from IP said they have 260 employees and the proposed project will operate in the
same way it currently exists with the current equipment. The 80% is per an IP standard guideline, but
they plan on operating the mill at the same level and move forward as a stronger mill.
Councilor VanGordon confirmed that 80% was the corporate standard used by IP for these types of
applications. He was told it was, so said he was fine with that figure.
Mr. Tamulonis said when the City signs the agreement, there will be an annual check-in on the number of employees annually, as well as the wages. If there are any layoffs beyond the 20%, the City and County would need to be informed and they would lose their EZ exemption.
Councilor VanGordon asked if it would be possible during the annual review to ask for an explanation of why any reductions in employment occur.
Mr. Tamulonis said they could certainly ask.
Councilor Moore asked about how the other taxing agencies would be affected.
Mr. Grimaldi said they will get the taxes they currently receive, but will not receive the additional
taxes until the EZ period is over.
Mayor Lundberg said IP has been in town for a long time, been a solid employer and pays great wages. Swanson got a similar deal and would be building a more efficient building and their overall number of employees is reduced. They started with no employees because after the fire, no one was
working there, so anyone hired from this point forward was an increase. The City saw that as an investment, and the IP situation is also an investment in our community. The intention is not to reduce the work force. The investment in our community is huge.
Mr. Grimaldi asked IP if the equipment being installed changes the current staffing.
Ms. Hodgson said yes, they would be operating in the same way as they do currently.
Mayor Lundberg said she received a message from Councilor Pishioneri saying he supported the EZ.
Councilor Woodrow thanked IP and said she is encouraged they are reinvesting in our community.
She was comfortable with the questions and answers.
Councilor Wylie said it sounded like they may be employing fewer people when they are finished.
Ms. Hodgson said it would not affect the number of employees needed to run the plant.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 4
Ms. Hodgson said there is another potential project to improve the assets, but no plans to reduce the number of employees from the current figure. The investment is mostly in newer machinery.
Mr. Tamulonis said with the addition of the employees at the Glenwood facility, staff will ask for an amended motion to adjust the resolution to 80 % rather than an actual figure.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest: ____________________
Amy Sowa City Recorder
`City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY JULY 20, 2015
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:02 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. 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 2. Other
a. Employee Recognition: David Bowlsby, 15 Years of Service.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi introduced David Bowlsby, Building Official for the City of Springfield. Mr. Bowlsby introduced three of his sons who were in the audience.
Mr. Grimaldi noted some of the positions Mr. Bowlsby has held with the City and his
many accomplishments over the past fifteen years. Mr. Grimaldi presented Mr. Bowlsby with a plaque to recognize his years of service.
b. Employee Recognition: Anette Miller, 25 Years of Service.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi introduced Annette Miller, Corrections Officer for the Police Department for the City of Springfield. Ms. Miller introduced her husband, daughter and
friend who were in the audience. He noted some of the positions Ms. Miller has held with
the City and her many accomplishments and honors over the past twenty-five years. Mr. Grimaldi presented her with a plaque to recognize her years of service.
c. Employee Recognition: John Tamulonis, 30 Years of Service.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi introduced John Tamulonis, Community Development
Manager. He noted the many large projects Mr. Tamulonis has been involved with over the last 30 years, including Sony, Royal Caribbean, Symantec, PeaceHealth and many
others. Mr. Tamulonis is the gear that keeps City Hall going and works with private
developers to help them get things moving along through the appropriate processes. Mr. Grimaldi presented Mr. Tamulonis with a plaque to recognize his years of service.
Mayor Lundberg thanked all of the staff who was recognized this evening.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 2
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said the resolution for eminent domain for Franklin Boulevard that
was discussed at a recent work session was listed on the Consent Calendar, but if Council had any further questions, they could pull it and move it to another place on the agenda for discussion.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
a. Approval of the June 2015, Disbursements for Approval
2. Minutes
a. June 8, 2015 – Work Session b. June 15, 2015 – Work Session c. June 15, 2015 – Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
A. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-22 – A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF A PROCEEDING IN EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY
INTEREST FOR THE FRANKLIN BOULEVARD PROJECT, CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
PROJECT NO. P21066 AND THE IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY
b. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-23 – A RESOLUTION EXTENDING CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE TO VOLUNTEERS OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
c. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-24 – A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD COMPETITIVE BIDS, REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS, OTHER PERSONAL
SERVICES CONTRACTS EXEMPT FROM BIDDING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PURCHASING REGULATIONS, AND APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC CONTRACTS IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS DURING THE PERIOD COMMENCING JULY 28, 2015 AND CONTINUING THROUGH SEPTEMBER 7, 2015 WHILE THE
COMMON COUNCIL IS IN RECESS.
4. Ordinances
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6340 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING SECTIONS 2.703, 2.708, 2.709, and 2.710 "PUBLIC
CONTRACTS" OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE.
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Acquisition Agreements for Property Interest for the Franklin Boulevard Project, City of Springfield Project P21066.
b. Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Sidewalk Improvements Along a Portion of Yolanda Avenue to the City of Springfield with Springfield Public School District on Behalf of the City.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 3
c. Approve Renewal of Liability, Property and Workers’ Compensation Coverage Contracts and
Authorize the City Manager to Execute Agreements. d. Approve the Subject Contract Amendment to the Mill Race Stormwater Facility Design
Services Contact with Amec, Inc. in the Amount of $66,700, Increasing the Total Approved Contract to $446,971.00 and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment. e. Allow Activities Outside of the Hours of 7am and 6pm for the Earthwork Related to the Mill
Race Stormwater Facility, Booth Kelly Trailhead and Mill Race Path Project (P21052). f. Award the Subject Contract to VSS International, Inc. for Project P21113, FY2016 Slurry
Seal, in the Amount of $134,231.00 and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the Contract.
g. Authorize City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Contract with PacificSource Health Plans, in the Amount of $870,000 to Provide 2015 Third Party Administrative Services for City Self-
funded Health Insurance.
h. Authorize City Manager to Negotiate and Sign an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with City of Eugene for Fire Logistics Services.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE 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. Mayor Lundberg said it came to their attention that the cell tower item listed under Business from the
City Manager needs to be moved to a public hearing. It was moved to the beginning of the public hearings.
Lauren King from the City Attorney’s Office said this was to be part of the public hearing. She explained the process and noted that the applicant had the final word for any rebuttal to information
submitted to the record. It was not intended for participation from the public.
1. Moderate Visibility Cellular Tower Application – SmartLink PCS on Behalf of Verizon Wireless
LLC, Cases TYP315-00003 and TYP215-00012. Mayor Lundberg said the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 6. The Council closed the
hearing and left the record open for an additional seven (7) days until July 13, 2015 for submittal for
additional testimony. The Applicant was then permitted the opportunity for rebuttal over the following seven days. For the purposes of disclosing ex parte contact, asking staff additional questions, and
allowing the Applicant final rebuttal, I ask if there is a motion to reopen the hearing and the record. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WYLIE TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Mayor Lundberg asked each of the councilors if they had any ex parte contact since the last public hearing.
None of the councilors had any ex parte contact since the last public hearing.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 4
Mayor Lundberg said she had received a call from Nancy Golden unaware that she was calling about this cell tower application. Ms. Golden expressed her concerns and care for the kids at the Relief
Nursery, and hoped something would be worked out. Mayor Lundberg asked the public whether anyone wishes to rebut the ex parte contact or challenge the
Council’s potential for bias.
There was no rebuttal on those items.
Andy Limbird, Senior Planner, said staff received five submittals from seven people during the
extended open record. There was a submittal from Nancy Golden, Cynthia Campbell, Hugh Hiller, a
letter co-authored by Kelly Sutherland, Jenny Ulum, Patty McConnell, and a packet of information from Jennifer Sullivan all on behalf of the Relief Nursery. The relevant concerns expressed in the
testimony regarded the specific placement of the cell tower. The suggestion reiterated in the testimony
was to relocate the tower 90 feet or more away from the common boundary between the Relief Nursery and the parcel proposed for the facility. Persons providing testimony had identified the
setback equivalent for the residential district. Staff reminds the City Council that this is not a residential district or residential use; however, the persons providing testimony are requesting a comparable consideration for the setback.
Mr. Limbird said the recommendation from staff that is included in the agenda packet is for approval of the application as it was submitted with the tower placed just under 54 feet from the north property
line (common boundary between the facility parcel and the Relief Nursery parcel) and for a three-branch per foot design. Should the City Council determine there is an impact to the Relief Nursery
property, and should that impact be mitigated through relocation of the tower, an alternate
recommendation to relocate the facility (tower) 90 feet from the boundary is available for Council consideration. Other minor typographical errors which were pointed out at the July 6 public hearing
were corrected, as were the dates of approval.
Mayor Lundberg asked Council if they had any questions at this time.
Mayor Lundberg invited the applicant forward for a final rebuttal.
1. Lauren Russell, SmartLink LLC, representing Verizon Wireless, Portland, OR. Ms. Russell
read from a letter from Verizon’s legal representative David, Wright, Tremaine, LLP that was distributed to the Mayor and Council. (letter attached to these minutes). The applicant was
willing to place the facility on the proposed site with a three-branch per foot monopine, but
does not support relocation of the facility no closer than 90-feet from the common boundary with the Relief Nursery to the north. The letter went on to explain why they did not support
the alternate condition. Councilor Moore referred to the fourth paragraph on page one of the letter where it referenced
Springfield Development Code and the 90 foot setback
Mr. Limbird said in a residentially zoned district, there would be occupied dwellings in which there
could be inhabitants 24 hours a day. On the Relief Nursery property, children may be present at different times during the day. That was identified as the public safety aspect.
Councilor Moore asked if the possible alternate condition was based on that statement.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 5
Mr. Limbird said it is based on mitigating an impact to the adjacent property based on the testimony that was provided by a number of people in support of the Relief Nursery, not to suggest there is a
residential facility on that site. It would be a way to address the concerns expressed by the Relief Nursery which were related to safety. The structure would be subject to building permitting, seismic studies, engineering analyses, so would have no greater chance of falling than any other structure. The
perception is that the 90 foot would allow a clear zone should the structure fall.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH SECOND BY COUNCILOR
MOORE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC RECORD AND PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Councilor Ralston said the applicant was in need of a new site for a facility and they chose a location that would be most optimal for future development. As long as the site follows rules, they are required
to approve. When attending a Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) meeting, they
serve as the SEDA Board. When sitting as a quasi-judicial body, they are serving as judges hearing the facts of the case and determining whether or not the rules are being followed. This application
meets all requirements and there is no evidence that cell towers have any adverse effects on people. If there was an environmental situation where the cell tower could come down, children would not be on the playground. He feels they are being asked to change their opinion on the application based on
what people feel. He is ready to approve the application as presented and would not support further modifications.
Councilor VanGordon asked staff what the criteria and operating characteristics encompassed and how it should be applied.
Mr. Limbird said the Code and provisions of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) preclude local jurisdictions from questioning placement of cell towers based on perceptions of risk
from electromagnetic radiation, which means that cannot be a determining factor in siting cell towers.
The only setback requirements the City imposes are physical setbacks to create a clear zone should the tower fall. It is not a setback for reduction of radiation.
Councilor VanGordon referred to the criteria under B1, Operating Characteristics and determining the safety aspect. He understood there was a difference in setbacks for residential and commercial, so
questioned the additional condition. Mr. Limbird said staff wanted Council to have an opportunity to respond to the testimony and
determine if the testimony has merit and if there is a way to achieve a win-win situation by relocating the tower away from the property line to alleviate those concerns. The applicant has not been receptive to this option.
Ms. King said Council has some deference to interpret their Code and how to apply the Code within
reason. This is important infrastructure that does have Federal laws that regulate it.
Councilor Moore said in the letter from the applicant they are requesting the tower be built in the
proposed location, but it is possible they could put the tower in the further removed location. She
asked if that was correct.
Mr. Limbird said at the time of the public hearing, there wasn’t information available from the property owner regarding that issue. Staff speculated that relocation of the tower could be resisted by
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 6
the property owners. It appears from the submittal (by the applicant) this evening, that the property
owner has expressed concerns about the relocation affecting future development plans. They are intending for the application to go forward as originally submitted.
Councilor Ralston said in looking at the map of site he can see why the property owner chose this location in order to allow development. The property owner expects it to go through as presented.
Councilor Pishioneri said he had no questions. It looks like the property owner is going to stay at the
proposed location. Staff made the recommendation to move the cell tower to the west, but the property
owner doesn’t want to go with that recommendation.
Councilor Woodrow asked what they could base a condition on the application in the original position.
Ms. King said that would be the alternate position presented by staff. The applicant would potentially
appeal that condition according to their letter. Staff interpreted the Code that based on the public
testimony and the criteria the Council can apply from the Code, a condition to move the pole about 36 feet for a total of 90 feet from the Relief Nursery boundary.
Ms. King said the applicant is saying the Council does not have the authority to interpret the Code in that way.
Councilor Woodrow confirmed that the Council was here to decide on the applicant’s application.
Ms. King said the Council can approve, approve with conditions, or deny the applicant based on application of the criteria in the Code.
Councilor Moore asked where the applicant would submit their appeal.
Ms. King said with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
Councilor Moore asked if there would be a cost to the City. Yes.
Councilor Wylie said she had not heard enough evidence to deny the application. The application is justified and their rebuttal to change makes sense. She is supportive of the application.
Councilor VanGordon said he was hoping the applicant would try to work on something to be good neighbors. Safety is a big concern for The Relief Nursery, but in looking at the criteria he can’t find
enough evidence to deny the applicant. Councilor Ralston asked if The Relief Nursery was a non-conforming use.
Mr. Limbird said they were rezoned from Residential to Commercial.
Councilor Ralston said they are in certain zoning which allows certain things to occur.
Councilor Moore said hearing that the applicant would appeal and likely win, she feels unable to deny.
Councilor Woodrow said she was hoping for a reason to deny, but they followed the rules and she
could not deny.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 7
Mayor Lundberg said she feels they would lose an appeal.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WYLIE TO APPROVE TYP315-00003 AND TYP215-00002, VERIZON WIRELESS’ APPLICATION FOR DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 4614 JASPER ROAD,
FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA AS SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD ANDADOPTING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SPECIFICALLY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1A
AND 2A. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 1. Building Safety Fee Increase
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-25 – A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF SECTION 6 OF THE
MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE FOR FEES, CHARGES, RATES, PERMITS AND LICENSES AS ESTABLISHED BY THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND
SPRINGFIELD BUILDING CODE. Matthew Ruettgers, Building and Land Development Manager, and David Bowlsby, Building Official,
presented the staff report on this item. The City of Springfield’s Building Safety Program is facing a number of challenges including
increasing demand for customer service and financial stability of the program. As discussed with Council during the May 26, 2015 work session on building fees, the City’s Building
Fund is facing a number of challenges, including minimal staff level and depletion of the Building Safety Fund (Fund 224) reserves as a result of low levels of new construction activity during the
recent recession. Staff presented four options for Council’s consideration to stabilize the Building
Safety Fund, which consisted of fee increases of 6%, 8%, 10% and 12%. Also, as noted in the work session, the last increase in building safety fees was in May of 2014, which consisted of a 2%
Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase.
During the May 26, 2015 work session, Council reviewed the proposals and recommended a 6%
increase, which based on a separate presentation, was also agreeable to the Home Builders Association of Lane County. This recommendation is also reflected in legislative format in the revised Section 6 (Building and Safety Fees) of the City of Springfield Master Fees and Charges Schedule.
The proposed 6% fee increase has been published with the State’s Building Code Division for the required 45 day notice prior to this public hearing with no known objections.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2015-25. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 8
2. Resolution to Authorize City Manager to Sell City Owned Glenwood Property.
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-26 – A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH ALPESH PATEL AND KOMAL PATEL FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY UPON THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH HEREIN DURING THE PERIOD COMMENCING JULY 28,
2015 AND CONTINUING THROUGH SEPTEMBER 7, 2015 WHILE THE CITY COUNCIL IS IN RECESS.
Courtney Griesel, Management Analyst, presented the staff report on this item.
In January 2015 the City received an offer for purchase of property located at 17-03-34-33-500. On
May 18th, the City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate a sale price. Based on these negotiations, staff has received a final offer which meets the Council direction received in May. Staff
requests Council’s authorization to finalize and execute a purchase and sale agreement while the
Council is in recess.
Tax lot 17-03-34-33-500 is currently under City ownership. On June 1, 2015, the City received an offer from Alpesh Patel and Komal Patel, to purchase tax lot 500 for $600,000 with concurrent conditions outlined in the proposed resolution:
• The City will provide any existing geotech, title, and environmental reports to Purchaser.
• The overhead powerline will be removed at the City’s expense, not to exceed $50,000.
• The City will reasonably work with the Purchaser to secure City Development Approval of a
driveway to the property.
• Purchaser shall settle all outstanding obligations and the payment in full of any amounts owned to City of Springfield by Alko Investments, LLC. This includes outstanding
obligations owed to the City as part of the property purchase agreement dated June 27, 2013 for land west of Candlewood Suites hotel.
Council is asked to adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the City Manager to finalize and enter into a purchase and sale agreement with Alpesh Patel and Komal Patel while the City Council is in
Recess.
Mayor Lundberg thanked Ms. Griesel for all of her hard work.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2015-26. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Peter Fehrs, Springfield, OR Mr. Fehrs said he was here on behalf of Springfield Library Board. He reported on the Summer Reading program and noted that there were 1900 children
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 9
and teens registered for this program. Over 2000 people have attended Library programs for
kids and teens since June. Teen participation was up by 40 and was currently at 223 teens participating. Library staff has solicited contribution valued at $60,000. They also had an
increase in the Adult Summer Reading program. He reported on technology and noted the new book app called “BookMind” that could be downloaded to SmartPhone. This app allowed people to go through the Library collection, renew books, and place holds on books. The
Library will be installing two self check-out machines in the Library which will help patrons avoid lines, allows them to use credit cards to pay fines or for lost items, and frees up staff to
do programs and other work they need to do. He reported on SpringFilm, a film series the
Library puts on in partnership with Willamalane, the Wildish Theater and sponsor PlankTown Brewing. This is a monthly film series in its second year, and they will continue again next
year. The last showing for 2015 is Thursday, August 6 for Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing”.
2. Stanley Lynch, Springfield, Or. Mr. Lynch distributed a set of photos of a vehicle parked in
front of a home. He said he had been trying to sell a piece of property about a block from the
property in photos. On the weekends, it seems to become the house for the Ranger Fire Department and a private police station without being authorized by the City. This type of
privilege has been revoked from towing services and no tow service can drive or park their truck at home even for a break. This has been brought to the City of Springfield’s attention and has been going on for 10 weeks. He has also brought this to the City Attorney’s office as
well. He knows Code Enforcement staff are overwhelmed, but they may need to take some personal time to go out on the weekends to see what is going on at this property. For ten weeks there has been a dryer in front of the Ranger Patrol truck and nothing has been done. He
asked that staff work weekends to check these out instead of driving together during the week. Mayor Lundberg asked if someone could talk to him personally. Chief Doney said he will talk to him.
3. Kallie Hodgson, Mill Manager for International Paper, Springfield Oregon Mill. Ms.
Hodgson thanked the Council for considering their Enterprise Zone application. This mill has
been an integral part of this community for over 65 years and they believe the application will make it a stronger mill and great neighbor. International Paper has a strong value in safety, has
been a good neighbor, a great environmental steward, and they look forward to continuing to
be a good neighbor.
4. Sandy Mann, Springfield, OR. Ms. Mann said she is a property owner and asthma and allergy
sufferer. She asked Council to delay the vote on granting International Paper a five-year property tax waiver until a study is done and paid for by International Paper. She asked that
the study include long-term medical costs to the Springfield area residents and what is in the
water. She said she lives in the Washburne neighborhood and the water tastes good, but it is not good out east. She offered to do the study and noted that she had done volunteer work and
a research assistant, including research for Pete Sorenson. She is working on climate change and has contact with agencies regarding that topic. She noted the severity of her allergies and feels it is from the emissions from International Paper. According to the Register Guard,
International Paper is seeking a five-year property tax waiver worth $8.56M for $100M+ upgrade to the facility, but they are not promising any new jobs in return and could actually
trim its current workforce. They are a Tennessee based company and she feels they don’t care
about what goes on in Springfield. The company shut down the Albany, Oregon mill in 2009 and she asked what would prevent them from doing the same here. She asked if the City
would raise property taxes again to make up the difference in the taxes. She said last year she
made $20,300 and paid $1500 in property taxes on her condo which is now worth less than
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 10
when she bought it in 2008. She noted that IP would still pay taxes on their current equipment,
but felt that was not enough and that they can afford more.
COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Springfield Police Advisory Committee (SPAC) Appointments.
Mike Harman, Services Bureau Manager, presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield Police Advisory Committee has two open positions available, one for a
representative of the minority community and one for a representative of the faith community. There are no current incumbents eligible for either position.
Scott Chase was interviewed at the July 6, 2015 Council Work Session, and Jose da Silva was interviewed at the July 13, 2015 Council Work Session. Staff recommends that Scott Chase be appointed to the Faith Community Representative position, and that Jose da Silva be appointed to
the Minority Community Representative position. Both appointments are for four-year terms, set to expire in August 2019.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO APPOINT SCOTT CHASE AND JOSE DA SILVA TO THE SPRINGFIELD POLICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH TERMS EXPIRING AUGUST 2019. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports
b. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 2. International Paper Company Request Regarding Enterprise Zone Extension in Springfield.
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-27 – A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
SIGN AGREEMENTS WITH LANE COUNTY AND THE INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY TO EXTEND THE ENTERPRISE ZONE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION TWO YEARS FOR A TOTAL OF FIVE YEARS FOR AN INVESTMENT IN ITS PAPER MILL IN
SPRINGFIELD.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 11
John Tamulonis, Community Development Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
International Paper has requested that both sponsors of the Springfield Enterprise Zone (City of
Springfield and Lane County) approve five-years of extended enterprise zone benefits though International Paper is not increasing employment. Its decision to replace two nearly nonfunctional and key components of its ongoing Springfield plant operations—a head box and boiler floor (current
value approximately $3-$4 million)—would allow the facility to continue operations, increase efficiency, and help maintain quality for critical world markets. The replacement equipment would
take nearly a year to install, employ about 400 additional contractors at its peak, and does not
anticipate reducing any of its current employment of about 260 through this project. International Paper is scheduled in the coming weeks to consider where to make upgrades to multiple
manufacturing facilities and these proposed upgrades could greatly enhance the long-term operations
of this Springfield plant. The EZ benefits could influence where International Paper chooses to make a major investment and they need to know if they will have the requested five-years of enterprise zone
benefits.
Mr. Tamulonis said IP would sign a first-source agreement with the Oregon employment division for
any open positions at the plant. They also need to have a minimum employment level to retain their EZ status. They currently employ 260 at the 42nd Street plant, but it was just learned today that their second facility in Glenwood increases that number. The resolution will be changed to reflect 80% of
that new figure. With removal of the equipment from the plant, the City asked that the firm provide the City and co-sponsors a total of $500,000 over the five-year period, paid in annual allotments. Once the agreement is signed, IP must report back annually regarding employment levels and explanation if
they differ from the agreement, and provide the $100,000 annual payment. If Council approves this tonight, staff will take it to the Lane County Board of Commissioners tomorrow morning at 10:30am.
Councilor Moore said she appreciates businesses making investments in Springfield. That says a lot to her about them seeing the future in Springfield.
Mr. Tamulonis said there is a motion with the employment number amendments for Council to consider.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENTS WITH LANE COUNTY AND THE INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, TO APPROVE A 3-YEARS ENTERPRISE ZONE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION, AND TO EXTEND THE ENTERPRISE ZONE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AN ADDITOINAL TWO YEARS, FOR A TOTAL OF FIVE YEARS FOR AN
INVESTMENT IN THE PAPER MILL IN SPRINGFIELD, AMENDING SECTION 2(D) TO READ “MAINTAIN A MANDATORY MINIMUM LEVEL OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES
EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 80% OF ITS ANNUAL AVERAGE FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF AUTHORIZATION APPLICATION, AT ALL TIMES DURING THE SPAN FROM THE AUTHORIZATION UNTIL THE END OF THE
ENTERPRISE ZONE EXEMPTION PERIOD. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
3. Fire Special Operating Levy Renewal.
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-28 – A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE
CITY A BALLOT MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A FIVE YEAR LOCAL
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 12
OPTION TAX FOR FIRE SERVICES TO STAFF A FIFTH FIRE ENGINE CREW IN THE
AMOUNT OF $0.36 OF ASSESSED VALUE BEGINNING IN 2016/17.
Bob Duey, Finance Director, presented the staff report on this item. The current Fire Special Operating Levy passed by voters in November of 2010 provides resources to
staff the personnel for one of the five fire engine crews deployed by the City. The levy also provides a partial amount of the material costs. This levy will expire on June 30, 2016.
Council has previously held two work sessions and conducted a public hearing on this topic and had requested of staff to prepare a resolution and ballot title directing that the renewal of the fire levy be
placed on the November 2015 ballot at a rate of $0.36 per thousand.
At the June 15 meeting of the Council the motion to approve the resolution was tabled until July 20, to
allow Council the opportunity to consider an alternative election date.
The City of Eugene is going to have a measure on the November ballot, but the cost to the City of
Springfield would still be about $60,000. At a rate of .36/$1000, the measure would generate about $8.3M over the five-year period. The cost of staffing Fire Station #5 at current levels is about $9.8M. Council has the option of adopting the resolution as presented, amending the resolution or not
adopting the resolution and bringing this back for the May 2016 election. Councilor Moore asked about the cost of the May election.
Mr. Duey said there would be no cost. It would be covered by Lane County with the Primary Election.
The advantage of the November election is that it gives more certainty in next year’s budget process
and the disadvantage is the cost. The advantage of the May election is that there is no cost and there would be more information on the budget. The disadvantage would be that the budget would be
further in the process without knowing the outcome of the election and if that funding would be
available.
Councilor Moore asked if they would be more aware of actual costs in May. Mr. Duey said he would know property taxes, better projections overall, and bargaining results. There
would be more certainty in the numbers. Councilor VanGordon said he is comfortable going with the November election. In looking at the pros
and cons, it will be more beneficial to have certainty about the levy. This is an important levy to our community and we need to take the opportunity to get the message out to the community prior to the budget.
Councilor Moore asked if they could put in on the ballot in May if it didn’t pass in November.
Mr. Duey said they could.
Councilor Woodrow said she is comfortable with going forward with the November ballot as it will
give them confidence in putting together the budget.
Councilor Pishioneri said he supports going with the November election so they have a clear picture of what is ahead of them, rather than waiting for the May election. He feels it will be money well spent.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 13
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO ADOPT/NOT ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2015-28. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 4. Bid Award for Project P21052 – Springfield Mill Race Stormwater Facility, Booth Kelly
Trailhead and Mill Race Path.
Ken Vogeney, City Engineer, presented the staff report on this item.
Four bids were received on this project. Contract award is now necessary to enable work to proceed.
The City has completed the necessary planning, feasibility, design and permitting phases of the
Springfield Mill Race Stormwater Facility Project and is prepared to initiate the construction phase. The construction contract award is the Project schedule’s critical path item in order to begin
construction in Summer 2015.
Identified in the Stormwater Master Plan and the Capital Improvement Program, this project is
necessary to enable the City to provide treatment of stormwater from a large urban drainage basin prior to discharge into the Mill Race. The project consists of earthwork and disposal of soil, a variety of flow control structures, a trailhead and multi-use path and landscaping. The City is partnering with
Willamalane to enable concurrent construction of the trailhead and multi-use path through the site. Schedule A is the City’s portion of the work and Schedule B is for Willamalane’s portion. The reimbursement for the Willamalane portion will be addressed through the Weyerhaeuser Haul Road
IGA that Council previously authorized staff to prepare.
The following bids were received and opened on June 30, 2015:
Schedule A Schedule B Total
Engineer’s Estimate $4,852,110.00 $1,017,294.00 $5,869,404.00
Delta Construction Co. $3,671,193.00 $886,599.00 $4,557,792.00
Pacific Excavation, Inc. $4,136,265.00 $894,603.00 $5,030,868.00
Wildish Construction Co. $4,354,977.50 $930,504.50 $5,285,482.00
K&E Excavating, Inc. $5,128,132.50 $1,098,738.00 $6,226,870.50
Delta Construction Co. is the low bidder on this project. Funding for this project is provided by the
Stormwater Revenue Bond sold in 2010, as well as System Development Charge Funds. Sufficient
funds are budgeted in the Mill Race Stormwater Facility Project account (850223) to allow award of the contract. There would be a number of dump truck loads taking away material from the site over the
next two years. The project will start this summer and continue next summer.
Councilor Ralston asked what routes the trucks would be using.
Mr. Vogeney said they would likely take the loads to their sand and gravel site on the Willamette River. They would follow the normal approved truck routes through town along Main Street, Pioneer
Parkway and Highway 126. There is a potential dumping site south of town in which they could use
the McVay Highway. They are being given two years to complete the project.
Councilor Ralston said that was a lot of truck loads and it would be best if they could keep it off of Main Street.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2015 Page 14
Mayor Lundberg said she is so thrilled to get to this end of the Mill Race restoration. This started before 1994. This will mean a place people can walk from downtown to a nice path. She agreed that
anything they could do to keep dump trucks off Main Street would be appreciated. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WYLIE TO AWARD THE SUBJECT CONTRACT TO BABB CONSTRUCTION CO. DBA DELTA CONSTRUCTION CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,557,792.00 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE CONTRACT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
Ms. Smith said the City Attorney’s Office would follow up with Mr. Lynch on his concerns expressed during his testimony tonight.
Mayor Lundberg said this was the start of Council’s summer break, other than the TEAM Springfield meeting next Monday. There are other meetings councilors will be attending, but no Council meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 8:27 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor Attest:
____________________
City Recorder