HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2006 Regular
,
.
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CIlY COUNCIL HELD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21,2006
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATIENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Lundberg, Woodrow, and Pishioneri. Also
present were Interim City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Finance Director
Bob Duey, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilors Ballew and Fitch were absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
.
Mayor Leiken recognized Fire and Life Safety Department for excellent service delivery. He
received a letter from Jay and Rachell Sardeson thanking the Department for assistance in
response to an auto accident on January 30, 2006. While Fire and Life Safety (F&LS) personnel
were on the scene, they were concerned for the Sardeson's safety and well being and exercised
professionalism. Thanks was conveyed to the Department.
CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT - Ballew and Fitch).
1. Claims
a. Approval of the January 2006, Disbursements for Approval.
2. Minutes
a. February 6, 2006 - Work Session
b. February 6, 2006 - Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
. 5. Other Routine Matters
ri
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2006
Page 2
a. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into Agreement No. 23,035 with the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) for Right-of-Way Services for the Construction of
Sidewalks at the Glenwood Boulevard and McVey Highway Intersection.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. Business License Program.
ORDINANCE NO. I - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL
CODE TO IMPOSE A FEE AND TAX UPON THE PRIVILEDGE OF DOING BUSINESS
WITHIN THE CIlY OF SPRINGFIELD. ADDING NEW SECTIONS 7.000 THROUGH 7.038.
REGARDING THE LICENSING AND TAXATION OF BUSINESSES: AMENDING
SECTIONS 7.000 THROUGH 7.808 ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
LICENSING AND REGULATION OF CERTAIN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES (FIRST
READING).
.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. Council requested that staff
bring before Council in a public hearing the previously proposed business license program.
Consideration would be given to dedicating any revenue in excess of cost to the operation of the
municipal jail. Research has been completed and an ordinance has been drafted to alter the City's
current business license program from a specific business license to general business license. The
Business Tax Ordinance would require that all businesses located in Springfield, unless
specifically exempted, be subject to an annual business license charge for the privilege of doing
business in Springfield. The charge would be comprised of a set fee to recover the administrative
costs of the program and an additional tax based upon the number of employees at each business.
If adopted, staff would conduct a public information campaign.beginning in the summer of 2006
with billings and collections beginning in December of 2006.
Councilor Ralston asked for clarification regarding exemptions to the proposal. Mr. Duey
clarified information regarding exemptions as well as noting the difference between commission
and a business license fee.
Councilor Lundberg discussed both business licenses and liquor licenses. The proposal may need
to include language to clarify that those with liquor licenses (selling alcohol) would need both a
business license as well as a liquor license. Mr. Duey will follow-up on this request and possibly
revise the ordinance language. Mr. Duey stated that this license would repeal and replace all
other existing ordinances that speak to the issue of business licensing.
Councilor Woodrow asked for clarification regarding exemptions for 50 I (c)4 organizations, such
as the Christmas parade. At this time the draft ordinance does reference exemption for Internal
Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) but is silent on 501(c)4 organizations. Mr. Duey will follow-up
on this.
Mayor Leiken opened the Public Hearing.
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2006
Page 3
1. Dan Egan, 830 N. 6th Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. Egan was representing the Springfield
Chamber of Commerce and spoke in opposition of the proposal. He provided a handout
of a survey that was conducted regarding the proposal. Mr. Egan said discussion on this
topic was held during the last Chamber Governmental Affairs Committee meeting. It is
recommended that the Mayor and others he might suggest, meet with
community/chamber members to discuss alternative proposals and identify other revenue
solutions.
2. Roxie Cuellar. 735 South 70th Street. Springfield. OR Ms. Cuellar spoke in support of
the proposal.
3. Fred Simmons. 312 So. 52nd Place. Springfield. OR Mr. Simmons spoke in support of
the proposal. He recognized benefits of the proposal. He said from a taxpayer stand
point, he recognizes the concerns. He said we should support the business license fee and
see that it is apportioned to the jail operation expenses. If it does assist with this need it
should not have the application of the indirect fee.
4. Gerv Vander Meer. 2604 J Street. Springfield. OR Mr. Vander Meer spoke in
opposition of this proposal. He said this proposal does not support Springfield as being
business friendly. There is no logical reason we should impose this restriction on the
people of Springfield.
.
Councilor Woodrow suggested that he participate, along with the Mayor and others as the
Mayor may recommend, to meet with Chamber representatives to review and consider
proposals to meet this need. It was suggested the public hearing remain open until March 20,
2006.
City Attorney Joe Leahy said their office would like the opportunity to further review this
proposal and evaluate it in more detail. Due to the directive to bring this topic back quickly,
there was not adequate time for a comprehensive review of the proposal.
Councilor Lundberg said there are a significant number of individuals that run a small
business and they may fall within the category of only 1-3 employees for the company. It is
possible that we might consider a sliding scale or lower license fee for this category of
businesses. It was suggested that the funding from this proposal be retained within the Police
Department (not General Fund), until all needed funding is secured for the public safety
Gustice center) proposal.
Interim City Manager Cynthia Pappas said under current structure, revenue would be
funneled into the General Fund and the General Fund supports the Police Department. Mr.
Duey can bring back a proposal to address the issue of where the funding would be receipted
in and tracked specifically for police.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW, WITH A SECOND BY
COUNCILOR LUNDBERG, TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL
MARCH 20, 2006. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0
AGAINST (2 ABSENT - Ballew and Fitch).
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2006
Page 4
Mayor Leiken referenced the Toxics Right-to-Know program and asked staff to provide
information regarding the number of businesses that were impacted or relocated from Eugene
as a result of the program.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
2. Five Year Jail Operations Local Option Tax.
RESOLUTION NO.1 - A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CIlY
A BALLOT MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A FIVE YEAR LOCAL OPTION
TAX FOR JAIL OPERATIONS PURPOSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.35 OF ASSESSED
VALUE BEGINNING IN 2008/09.
.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. A revised resolution was
provided to the Council. The Secretary of State made one revision of 'will' to 'would'. The
revised resolution reflects this change. At the February 6 public hearing on the May 2006 special
option levy, Council asked staff to complete additional analysis on an alternative proposal
presented by members of the Police Planning Task Force. This response and the remaining
options for a May 2006 special option levy are being brought back to Council for a second
reading. A decision on the May election is scheduled for this evening but no later than March 6,
2006. If Council's decision is to not hold an election in May, in order to provide the justice
center architects with adequate instruction, staff requests that Council reschedule the jail
operations funding decision for March 6, 2006 to discuss the Police Planning Task Force and
other alternatives for acquiring jail operations funding.
Mr. Duey discussed the different options Council could consider. He referred to Attachment C,
page I, included in the Agenda Packet, regarding review of the three levy proposals. He noted
that all the fees were included, but there were differences in when those fees would become
available. He discussed timing of revenue from fees being available and timing of when jail beds
could be leased. He discussed cash flow and the renewals of the Police levy and the Fire and Life
Safety levy. He further discussed the alternate levy options and the amounts for each. Tonight's
decision was whether or not to go out for the May ballot.
Mayor Leiken reconvened the public hearing from the February 6 public hearing.
1. Curtis Greer. 357 S. 55th Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. Greer spoke to the options being
presented to the Council for jail operations. He discussed cuts ratepayers had made to
their own budgets and noted that the City should do the same. He felt Council was
following a similar path as Eugene and would find itself in a similar situation. He was
opposed to a local option levy and felt the cost of the indirects could cover the costs of
operating the jail.
.
2. Roxie Cuellar. 739 S. 70th Street. Springfield. OR. Ms. Cuellar was opposed to putting a
levy on the May ballot because there would be no time for a strong campaign. She said
there was only a small gap of funding to fill and it could be filled without going out for a
levy. She voiced her concern that a 'no' vote on the levy in May would adversely affect
the Police renewal levy in November. She said a permanent funding source for the jail
needed to be found. If a levy was needed for start up costs, that could be done in
conjunction with the Police levy in November. She said that would allow time for a
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2006
Page 5
strong campaign, explaining to voters that a portion would be for one-time start-up costs
for the jail. She said it was important to establish a reserve fund for jail operations now.
3. Fred Simmons. 312 S. 52nd Place. Springfield. OR Mr. Simmons asked Council not to
forward the levy for a vote in Mayas he felt it would fail. He asked Council to look at
the numbers introduced by the Police Planning Task Force (pPTF) and the staff
memorandum on fees and charges that could be imposed. He said a reserve fund for jail
operations should be established now. He discussed using the reserve money to assist in
putting criminals in the Lane County jail until the Springfield jail was built. He said the
Council had the responsibility to defer the levy until November and exhausting all other
funding possibilities. He believed it could be done. He said the indirect fee on the jail
reserve fund should not be there.
4. Ed Bergeron. Chair. Springfield Chamber Government Issues Committee. 101 South A
Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. Bergeron said during a recent meeting of the Chamber
Government Issues Committee, they discussed this issue and came out with a split vote.
He discussed the importance of timing of such a levy and the lack of tiine for a successful
campaign if a levy was put on the May ballot. He referred to County measures that had
failed due to lack of time for a successful campaign. He also expressed concern that a
negative result in May could harm the Police and Fire and Life Safety levies in
November. He said he appreciated the Council, staff and the Citizen Advisory
Committee and their pledge of support for a solution, but he felt May was not the time for
this election.
.
5. Gerv VanDerMeer. 2604 J Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. VanderMeer distributed a
document titled "Springfield City Jail Funding, Income review and recommendations IT".
He asked Council not to put a levy on the May ballot. He said this needed to be further
analyzed and issues regarding leasing jail space addressed. He noted that the City was
currently paying $1.2M for people that failed to show up for court, yet in all the analysis
and proposals presented, none of that had been allocated to cover jail costs. He discussed
the cost of paying defense attorneys, court staff, police, and clerical staff when someone
doesn't show up for court. He said this was an opportunity to present a solid foundation
that would make sense to the community and would not include imposing additional fees.
It was an opportunity for the City to do something right. He said Council needed to
forego going out for the May election and focus on putting together a well thought-out
program to allow the jail to open. He suggested the City put a two-year cap on jail
operations costs and re-evaluate at that time for future costs.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
.
Councilor Lundberg said this dilemma was caused by not including jail costs in the original bond
measure. She noted that she did not like the words ')ail beds" and would like to see different
language used that would better portray the space used to house criminals. She said the public
needed to be told that the jail would keep criminals off the street. She discussed the Lane County
jail and the fact that it was not fully operational because the County did not have adequate
funding. She noted the good arguments for waiting until November to put a levy to the voters,
but she said it was important to put something out to the voters. She referred to Attachment B
and the technology fees. She said indirect charges needed to be discussed. She discussed the
Telephone Contract and the differences of estimated cost: $14,000 estimated by EcoNorthwest;
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2006
Page 6
$40,000 estimated by the consultant; and the compromise of $25,000 by the PPTF. She discussed
growth that was occurring in Springfield that could also be taken into consideration. She
questioned whether or not to include the Business License since Council had not yet approved
putting that in place. Councilor Lundberg asked about savings regarding costs associated with
failure to appear.
Ms. Pappas said that the $1.2M was a combining of the costs for our local costs such as police
officers, clerks, municipal judges, court paid attorneys as well as costs for the District Attorney
and circuit court. Certain real cost, such as the additional costs for attorneys and people
performing language interpretation that have been incurred because of the FT A issue could be
saved. The City would not be able to save the full $1.2M because those officers would still be
working, being back on the street rather than at the courts.
Mr. Olley said the figure of$1.2M came from the EcoNorthwest report and was a combination of
costs related to failure to appear for both Municipal Court and the Circuit Court. He said nearly
two-thirds of that $ 1. 2M was for Circuit Court and the opening of the Springfield jail would not
have an impact on those costs. The current proposals that the Council is reviewing does begin to
address the potential of savings from the reductions in FT A by recommending that the renewal of
the police special option levy in November decrease by 3 employees the numbers of police
officers being requested to be funded through the levy.
.
Councilor Lundberg said she didn't have an issue of waiting, but felt strongly that the City
needed to go out sometime to ask for part of the funding because fees and charges didn't cover all
the costs.
Councilor Ralston said the voters were clear regarding building and operating a jail. He agreed
that going out in May could be risky and felt the PPTF had come up with a solution without
having to go out for a levy. If needed, the City could go out in November for a levy for one-time
start-up costs for the jail. He said that would make sense. He agreed to go forward with the
PPTF suggestions. He said he did not want to go out for a May measure, but perhaps a
November measure to help with start-up costs.
Councilor Woodrow said Council had heard strong arguments against a May election. He would
agree with going out for a levy for start-up costs in November or next May. PPTF had good
recommendations. He said it would be best for the City to institute the fees and charges that
could be put in place and allocate those revenues to a dedicated fund for jail operations or police
service. He suggested setting aside technology fees as soon as possible. He asked if Springfield
could charge booking fees on criminals put into the Lane County jail by Springfield officers and
courts until our jail was ready to operate.
Mr. Leahy said he would check into that to see if it could be done.
Councilor Lundberg said she supported additional fees and looking at those fees to recoup costs.
.
Mayor Leiken said he had asked Bob Duey for some rough estimates on future property tax
revenues. Mr. Duey estimated that Royal Caribbean, the second phase of Symantec, Williams
Bakery and the Mountaingate subdivision would bring in approximately $2.5M in property taxes
by 2011. Mayor Leiken discussed the strategy Springfield had used in bringing in these large
developments knowing the taxes would be coming in the future. Trying to get the jail operations
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2006
Page 7
jump-started in November could be beneficial. He said eventually, additional tax revenues would
come in to sustain the operations. He said there had been great vision from the Council and staff
working together to put these things in place. He noted that the last measure Lane County passed
was for the construction of the Serbu Center in 1996. He discussed further cuts to the County and
that the idea of a jail in Springfield was more important now than ever. He said there were good
arguments against a May measure and agreed that looking to November for a possible levy to
jump start the operations ofthe jail could be a good idea. He thanked the PPTF for putting
together their proposal and encouraged them to continue looking for revenue. Council
represented citizens and liked to save taxpayers money.
Councilor Ralston said Council should make a clear statement now that the jail would be built.
Councilor Pishioneri said he had listened to a lot of arguments and figures. He said citizens that
voted against the jail may actually want a jail, but were concerned the City couldn't afford to
operate the jail. He said the voters were very insightful and he shared their skepticism. He said
this was a huge project and he wanted to be part of a team that was 105 percent there. He said the
Mayor brought up good arguments about future revenue coming into the General Fund, but we
needed to look at the money we have available now. He said he did not favor levies, but a start-
up levy made sense. He agreed with the arguments against a May election. He concurred that the
City should look at a levy down the road, but said the PPTF needed to get to work on other
revenue. He said that in November, ifhe was not completely sold, he would vote no.
.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO NOT ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.1. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT - Ballew and Fitch)
3. Vacation of Public Right-of-Way (Assessor's Map 17-03-26-13) Jo. NO. LRP2005-00037
(Hiatt).
ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANCE VACATING A TEN-FOOT WIDE PORTION OF Q
STREET IN THE CIlY OF SPRINGFIELD. LANE COUNlY OREGON (FIRST READING).
City Planner Sarah Summers presented the staff report on this item. The applicant, Bernie Hiatt,
is requesting the vacation. The subject right-of-way (ROW) consists of a lO-foot wide by 194.28-
foot long strip that was created with the Fuchsia Gardens Subdivision Plat as part of a 40-foot
wide ROW dedicated for Q Street. The Q Street ROW was dedicated to the City by the applicant
in 1963. The requested vacation area will become a Public Utility Easement (PUE) to
accommodate an existing underground natural gas line as well as any future extension of utilities.
. The extra 10 feet of site is proposed to be used as a bioswale for storm water since no buildings
would be permitted on the PUE. No objections to the proposed vacation were received because
the vacation area will be encumbered with a public utility easement. Public Works and
Development Services staff have determined that any appreciation in value would be diminimus.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 7, 2006 and has recommended that
the City Council approve the proposed vacation. As directed by the Planning Commission, staff
contacted ODOT to inquire about the existence of any planned 1-105 improvements that would
likely involve this application. ODOT does not have any concern with the subject vacation.
.
Ms. Summers noted the section of the Springfield Code regarding value of property to the
property owner when land was vacated. Staff from Public Works and Development Services
.
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2006
Page 8
found the value would be diminimus and an assessment on the property would not seem to be
appropriate. She discussed the criteria for vacation and noted that the subject property was in
conformance of the criteria of approval.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
(Note: The next 5 public hearings for Ordinance Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 regarding Water
District Withdrawal were held at one time.)
4. Rainbow Water District Withdrawal EC SP 05-31, Journal Number LRP2005-00018
(Symantec ).
ORDINANCE NO.3 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERlY
KNOWN AS SYMANTEC CORPORATION. LOCATED IN NORTHWEST SPRINGFIELD.
NORTH OF GAME FARM ROAD EAST. SOUTH OF INTERNATIONAL WAY. EAST OF
GAME FARM ROAD NORTH/GA TEW A Y STREET AND INVOLVING APPROXIMA TEL Y
14.68 ACRES IDENTIFIED AS TAX LOTS 500. 600 AND 800 T17S R03W Sl5 MAP 30.
HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CIlY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW
WATER DISTRICT (FIRST READING)
City Planner Sarah Summers presented the staff report on this item. Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS 222.520) require that territory located in the Rainbow Water District, which is annexed to
the City of Springfield, be withdrawn from that district to prevent double taxation. ORS requires
withdrawal prior to March 31 st of each calendar year. The owner requested annexation in order to
prepare for expansion of an existing building. The subject property was annexed to the City of
Springfield effective onJuly 25,2005.
Once a year, the Council is asked to approve the withdrawal of all properties within the Rainbow
Water District which were annexed during the past calendar year. This is done so that the
properties are located only within the Springfield Utility Board's (SUB) assessment area.
Approval of the withdrawal prevents the owner of the annexed property from being assessed by
both Rainbow Water District and SUB. The requested action is a routine procedure which
follows annexation and will have no fiscal impact on the City.
Legal notice was published in the Springfield News as required by ORS 222.520 and notices were
posted in five public places. A second reading and adoption is scheduled for the March 6, 2006
consent calendar.
. NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
5. Rainbow Water District Withdrawal EC SP 05-12, Journal Number LRP2005-00032
(Proden).
~t
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2006
Page 9
ORDINANCE NO.4 - AN ORDINANCE WiTIIDRA WING CERTAIN REAL PROPERlY
KNOWN AS PRODEN LOCATED IN NORTH SPRINGFIELD. NORTH OF YOLANDA
AVENUE AND DELROSE AVENUE. WEST OF GRAND VISTA DRIVE. WEST AND EAST
OF VERA STREET AND INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY 5.45 ACRES IDENTIFIED AS
TAX LOT 500 T17S R03W S24 MAP 31: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CIlY OF
SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT (FIRST READING)
City Planner Sarah Summers presented the staff report on this item. Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS 222.520) require that territory located in the Rainbow Water District, which is annexed to
the City of Springfield, be withdrawn from that district to prevent double taxation. ORS requires
withdrawal prior to March 31 st of each calendar year. The owner requested annexation in order to
prepare for a residential subdivision. The subject property was annexed to the City of Springfield
effective on May 23, 2005.
Once a year, the Council is asked to approve the withdrawal of all properties within the Rainbow
Water District which were annexed during the past calendar year. This is done so that the
properties are located only within the Springfield Utility Board's assessment area. Approval of
the withdrawal prevents the owner of the annexed property from being assessed by both Rainbow
Water District and SUB. The requested action is a routine procedure which follows annexation
and will have no fiscal impact on the City.
4t
Legal notice was published in the Springfield News as required by ORS 222.520 and notices were
posted in five public places. A second reading and adoption is scheduled for the March 6, 2006
consent calendar.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
6. Rainbow Water District Withdrawal EC SP 05-05, Journal Number LRP2005-00026
(Summers Development).
ORDINANCE NO.5 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERlY
KNOWN AS SUMMERS DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN NORTHWEST'SPRINGFIELD.
EAST OF GAME FARM ROAD. SOUTH OF DEADMOND FERRY ROAD. WEST OF
BALDY VIEW DRIVE AND INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY .43 ACRES IDENTIFIED AS
TAX LOT 1500 T17S R03W SI5 MAP 40: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CIlY OF
SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT (FIRST READING)
City Planner Sarah Summers presented the staff report on this item. Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS 222.520) require that territory located in the Rainbow Water District, which is annexed to
the City of Springfield, be withdrawn from that district to prevent double taxation. ORS requires
withdrawal prior to March 31 st of each calendar year. The owner requested annexation in order to
prepare for medium density residential development. The subject property was annexed to the
City of Springfield effective on February 1,2005.
41
Once a year, the Council is asked to approve the withdrawal of all properties within the Rainbow
Water District which were annexed during the past calendar year. This is done so that the
properties are located only within the Springfield Utility Board's assessment area. Approval of
the withdrawal prevents the owner of the annexed property from being assessed by both Rainbow
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2006
Page 10
.
Water District and SUB. The requested action is a routine procedure which follows annexation
and will have no fiscal impact on the City.
Legal notice was published in the Springfield News as required by ORS 222.520 and notices were
posted in five public places. A second reading and adoption is scheduled for the March 6, 2006
consent calendar.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
7. Rainbow Water District Withdrawal EC SP 05-16, Journal Number LRP2005-00008
(Myers/Rogers).
ORDINANCE NO.6 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERlY
KNOWN AS MYERS/ROGERS. LOCATED IN SOUTHWEST SPRINGFIELD. NORTH OF
KELLOGG ROAD. EAST OF ANDERSON STREET. WEST OF OAK MEADOWS PLACE
AND ASPEN STREET AND INVOL VING APPROXIMATELY .52 ACRES. IDENTIFIED AS
TAX LOT 916 T17S R03W S34 MAP 22: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CIlY OF
SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT (FIRST READING)
.
City Planner Sarah Summers presented the staff report on this item. Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS 222.520) require that territory located in the Rainbow Water District, which is annexed to
the City of Springfield, be withdrawn from that district to prevent double taxation. ORS requires
withdrawal prior to March 31 st of each calendar year. The owner requested annexation in order to
prepare the site for additional residential development. The subject property was annexed to the
City of Springfield effective on June 2, 2005.
Once a year, the Council is asked to approve the withdrawal of all properties within the Rainbow
Water District which were annexed during the past calendar year. This is done so that the
properties are located only within the Springfield Utility Board's assessment area. Approval of
the withdrawal prevents the owner of the annexed property from being assessed by both Rainbow
Water District and SUB. The requested action is a routine procedure which follows annexation
and will have no fiscal impact on the City.
Legal notice was published in the Springfield News as required by ORS 222.520 and notices were
_posted in five public places. A second reading and adoption is scheduled for the March 6, 2006
consent calendar.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
8. Glenwood Water District Withdrawal EC SP 05-43, Journal Number LRP2005-00005
(Tumck Tonsh Investment Co.).
.
ORDINANCE NO. 7 ~ AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERlY
KNOWN AS DND LAND COMPANY LLC. LOCATED IN GLENWOOD REGION OF-
SOUTHWEST SPRINGFIELD. SOUTH OF JUDKINS ROAD. NORTH OF INTERSTATE 5
AND INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY 0.34 ACRE IDENTIFIED AS PART OF TAX LOT
600. T17S R03W S33 MAP 44: HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CIlY OF SPRINGFIELD
FROM THE GLENWOOD WATER DISTRICT (FIRST READING)
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2006
Page 11
City Planner Sarah Summers presented the staff report on this item. Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS 222.520) require that territory located in the Glenwood Water District, which is annexed to
the City of Springfield, be withdrawn from that district to prevent double taxation. ORS requires
withdrawal prior to March 31 st of each calendar year. The owner requested annexation in order to
develop the property for urban use. The subject property was annexed to the City of Springfield
effective on August 29, 2005.
Once a year, the Council is asked to approve the withdrawal of all pr~perties within the Rainbow
Water District which were annexed during the past calendar year. This is done so that the
properties are located only within the Springfield Utility Board's assessment area. Approval of
the withdrawal prevents the owner of the annexed property from being assessed by both Rainbow
Water District and SUB. The requested action is a routine procedure which follows annexation
and will have no fiscal impact on the City.
Legal notice was published in the Springfield News as required by ORS 222.520 and notices were
posted in five public places. A second reading and adoption is scheduled for the March 6, 2006
consent calendar.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing for Ordinance Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
9. Springfield Municipal Code Chapter 5 Amendment.
ORDINANCE NO.8 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5. "PUBLIC
PROTECTION" OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING A NEW ARTICLE
"DRINKING WATER PROTECTION" (SECTIONS 5.800 ET SEQ.) SECTION 5.800.
"INTENT". SECTION 5.810. "USES PROHIBITED". SECTION 5.820. "ENFORCEMENT".
AND AMENDING SECTION 5.604(1)(A), "APPLICATION AND AMENDMENT" AND
SECTION 5.606. "INFRACTION PROCEDURES" OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL
CODE.
City Attorney Joe Leahy said as a result of the testimony from the January 17,2006 Council
meeting, Bob Unahan, General Manager of the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and the Board
members wanted more time to work with the City, SUB staff and property owners to determine if
some of the concerns could be eliminated. SUB didn't want to be under a deadline and wanted
time to discuss this issue. At this time, Mr. Leahy said staffwas withdrawing this ordinance.
SUB will re-notice when it comes back to Council this summer or early fall.
Councilor Lundberg said it was much appreciated that more time was being taken on this item to _
address those concerns.
.
Mr. Leahy also noted that Ordinance Number 9, listed under Ordinances on the agenda this
evening, would be pulled and rescheduled to a later date.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2006
Page 12
Councilor Lundberg referred to Ordinance NUmber 9 atid asked if the person damaging City
property would still be liable under this ordinance.
Mr. Leahy said that was correct.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Scott Olsen. 1137 B Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. Olsen thanked Council for their time. He
said he was a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Justice Center Siting and
felt compelled to be here. He said he was unhappy with where we were in the project. He
said he wanted to see the Justice Center and Jail built and in downtown. He thought it
presented an opportunity to contribute to the downtown and believed that was possible within
budget. He was, however, opposed to closing any streets in order to proceed with this
project. He said he had been involved with building public projects that had involved closing
streets in nearby communities. He discussed the criteria needed to vacate streets and that this
project would not be able to meet that criteria. He said he didn't want to put up barriers for
the project, but the City needed to work within the context of the plans already in place. He
discussed reclassification of B Street if the vacation was to occur, putting us out of
compliance with the TransPlan.
Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Olsen ifhe could provide his comments in writing.
.
Mr. Olsen said he could do that. In conclusion, Mr. Olsen said there should be one option
that was within budget and fit within the Comp Plan.
2. Jim Womack. 1363 Windsor Court. Springfield. OR. Mr. Womack is co-pastor of the First
Christian Church in Springfield. He noted that the church had long and cordial relations with
the Police Department and he had a great appreciation for the Police Department. He said the
church had used the Police services frequently. Mr. Womack said he and his wife were also
citizens of the community and had followed this project. He said they had no objections with
building a jail a block from the church, but had concerns about the entrance to the jail directly
across 4th Street from the church's main entrance and sanctuary. He said the church would be
affected in a serious way by those coming and going to the jail. He noted the many activities
that occur at the church including many weddings. He noted that closing 4th and B Street
would also impact the church negatively. He said the churches discussions had been on other
options rather than closing the streets. He commended Mr. Tamulonis for making himself
available and working with the church. He said he realized it had been pointed out at
previous meetings, but wanted to reaff1rm that the parking shown on the option maps as
public parking was, in fact, church and Carter property parking. He said any separation of the
church parking and the church building would be fought against by the church.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
.
I. Correspondence from Dan Rupe, President, Lane County Veterans Day Parade Association,
P.O. Box 42147, Eugene, OR Regarding the 2006 Veteran's Day Parade Location.
2. Correspondence from Bill Dwyer, Chair of Lane County Board of Commissioners, 125 East
8th Avenue, Eugene, OR Regarding the Justice Center Site Options.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2006
. Page 13
Councilor Lundberg said she would like to pull the ietter regarding the Veteran's Parade for
further discussion.
Councilor Woodrow said he would contact the Veterans and talk to them about the parade. He
said he would report back to Council.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT - Ballew and Fitch).
BIDS
ORDINANCES
1. Rewards in Connection with Damage to City Property.
(This item was pulled by Joe Leahy - see discussion after the last public hearing.)
.
ORDINANCE NO.9 - AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CIlY MANAGER AND THE
COUNCIL TO OFFER REWARDS IN CONNECTION WITH DAMAGE TO CIlY
PROPERlY. AND ADDING SECTION 2.800 THROUGH 2.804 TO THE SPRINGFIELD
MUNICIPAL CODE (FIRST READING)
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
BUSINESS FROM THE CIlY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Library Board Appointment.
Library Director Bob Russell was not present for this item. His staff report on this item was
listed on the Agenda Item Summary in the Agenda Packet and is as follows: The Library
Board has one vacancy, due to the expiration of the term of Dorothy Velasco. Ms. Velasco's
term expired December 31, 2005, and she was not eligible for reappointment.
To be eligible for appointment to the Library Board, applicants must be registered voters and
live within the city limits. (One member of the board may live outside the city ifhe or she
oWns property within the city.) Both applicants are registered voters living within the city
limits.
There were two applicants for this position. The Library Board interviewed both applicants
at its February 9 meeting. The Board felt that both candidates were well-qualified, but after
lengthy discussion voted to recommend Trevor Lian for appointment. The Board asked staff
to encourage Mr. Bunde to apply for the next Board opening, and/or to become involved with
the Library Foundation or Friends.
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2006
Page 14
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY
COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO APPOINT TREVOR LIAN TO THE LffiRARY
BOARD WITH A TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31,2009. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT - Ballew and Fitch)
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Woodrow said he met with members of the Kennel and Breeders Clubs to
discuss the animal control issues. Police Chief Smith had also attended the meeting
and would be working on this issue. Councilor Woodrow also spoke with three
veterinarians to ask if they would be willing to provide license applications when
they give rabies vaccinations and most have said they would be willing to do that at
no additional cost to the City. He said the Kennel Club members would work with
the veterinarians as well and would work on putting on a low-cost or free spay and
neuter clinic.
2. Mayor Leiken said he had received a request from Jim Johnson, to attend a Lane
County Public Task Force Reunion on March 9 from 6:00-8:00pm. He also noted
that the Lane County Board of Commissioners planned on doing a twelve city tour to
provide updates on their Public Safety proposal that they are planning to put on the
November 2006 ballot.
.
BUSINESS FROM THE CIlY MANAGER
1. Justice Center Site Design Selection - P50434.
Project Manager Carole Knapel presented the staff report on this item. On November 28,2005,
the Council approved an Agreement with Robertson Sherwood for the design of the Justice
Center facility. The first step in the design process is the development of the site use concept.
Once this is developed, the design of the facility can begin.
When the City selected the architect for the Justice Center project, the selection criteria addressed
the importance of this project and the impact that this facility would have in the downtown area.
The architect has developed four site options based on the approved Functional and Space
Program. The site options were developed to combine the functionality required for a cost- .
effective operation and to allow for a facility design which would reflect and enhance the
downtown area.
The four options have been reviewed by City staff and by the Community Advisory Committee
(CAe). In addition, the CAC has hosted two Public Forum/Open House events. The fIrst of
these was conducted on January 18,2006. On that date, the architect did a brief presentation of
the four options. Following the presentation, participants had the opportunity to discuss the
options with the architect and with members of the CAC. The second event occurred on February
9,2006. Notices of this event were mailed to all property owners and residents of the Washburne
District and to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the perimeter of the project. .
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2006
Page 15
At this event, participants were able to review the options and discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of each option. Participants were asked to provide written comments and to rank
the options. Based on their own review of the options and the input received in these forums, the
CAC has developed a recommendation regarding the selection of a preferred site option.
(Attachment C).
Because some of the options involve the vacation of streets, a traffic study has been conducted.
The study concludes that the street closure scenarios are feasible from a traffic operations
standpoint without major mitigation. A summary of the impacts is provided in Attachment A.
The project schedule has been developed to allow for construction to commence in early 2007. In
order to meet this goal, the architect must be given direction regarding which option should be
used for development of the schematic design.
Mayor Leiken declared that he was currently serving on the Board or Trustees of Northwest
Christian College (NCC) and Pastor Womack was the past president ofNCC. He said it would
not affect any decisions or his judgment.
.
Ms. Knapel pointed out the display of the site options and reviewed each option. Council had
asked about other locations for the facility and she noted that the bond measure passed by the
voters had identified the project be located at the site of the existing facility. Traffic impacts were
researched including closure of 4th and B Streets. The closure of 4th Street would have no
significant impact. The closure ofB Street alone or in conjunction with the closure of 4th Street
would have an impact on the neighborhood streets, however there would be no capacity problems
at the intersections. She said there would be an increase on 5th and A Streets, however it would
not be significant due to the classifications of those streets. She said p.m. peak traffic on C Street
between 5th and Pioneer Parkway would increase from 50 to 100 vehicles during peak hours,
increasing the daily traffic from 500 to 1000 cars per day. Other options were identified during
discussion with Council. These additional options were titled 2A and 2AX. Option 2A would
involve the purchase of the Carter Building and switching parking areas with the existing church.
Option 2AX looked at relocating the church to another area. She said the options, other than
Option 2AX, had been reviewed by the Community Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC had
a couple of public forums and invitations were sent out to property owners and residents in the
Washburne District and anyone located within 300 feet of the perimeter ofthe project. Some
people that attended the public forums ranked the options. Those that ranked the options, ranked
Option 2 as the highest. She introduced the CAC Acting Chair John Tuttle and CAC Vice Chair
Maren Tomblin. She said they helped put together the recommendation that was included in the
Agenda Packet. .
Ms. Tomblin, CAC Vice Chair, residing at 532 5th Street in Springfield. She said the CAC agreed
that Option 3 was the preferred conceptual design. The CAC would like to know the costs
involved with purchasing the Church and Carter properties. If purchasing those properties was
not a viable choice, the CAC selected Option 2, with the condition that design options were
explored that kept B Street open. She referred to the design criteria the CAC had when looking at
the options, including not closing streets. If a street had to be closed they would prefer 4th Street
rather than B Street. They wanted to put buildings along A Street to create the civic street and did
not want to push parking or traffic into the Washbume neighborhood. Option 3 satisfied the
needs for both the neighborhood and the downtown and provided a functional, cost-effective
solution that left room for future expansion. She said Option 3 did that by not closing B Street,
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2006
Page 16
.
placing buildings along A Street, utilizing parking to act as a buffer to residential areas and
utilizing the prominent corner on 5th and A to create a civic space. She said Option 3 satisfied
functional program needs, allowed phased construction so the police did not need to relocate and
allowed room for future expansion. She said personally it was important for the City to take
action now to put the pieces in the proper, best locations that would serve the community for
years to come. She said the additional costs with Option 3 would seem slight 50 years from now
and it was easier to explore the best solution now than to repeat this process in a few years.
John Tuttle, CAC Acting Chair, residing at 656 D Street in the Washburne neighborhood. He
said the CAC all agreed that Option 3 provided the best flexibility in the design of the Justice
Center. The CAC wanted to look more closely at the costs associated with that option to see if it
might fall within the budget. He asked Council to look further into that option to make that
determination. If that was not realistic, the CAC agreed Option 2 would be the best leaving B
Street open.
Councilor Lundberg asked the architect, Carl Sherwood about the entrance into the jail in Option
2. She asked how that entrance would work once in operation.
Mr. Sherwood explained that it would be gated with a wall blocking the view. He said it was a
function necessary for the jail. The architects could explore another location for the entrance and
it could perhaps be placed on A Street.
.
Councilor Ralston discussed the option of moving the church. He asked about the possibility of
turning the church rather than moving it.
Ms. Pappas said the costs would be about the same as moving it.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the only activity at the entrance would be vehicle traffic with the
arrestees. The foot traffic would be off of A Street. He said the foot traffic would not be high,
especially on Sundays. The side of the jail for vehicular traffic only could be prohibited to foot
traffic.
Councilor Woodrow said any decision would not make everyone happy. He referred to
Councilor Ralston's comment that the Council needed to decide ajail would be built and he
agreed. He agreed with the Washburne neighbors about not wanting to close 4th and B Streets,
but he didn't see any other option. Option 2 was the baseline and was set within the budget. He
discussed the church parking. He said he hoped staff and the architects could get better direction
and move forward to bring Council additional information. He said Option 2 seemed to be the
only choice at this time, but staff could continue to look at other options to keep B Street open.
Staff had looked at options of moving the church and buying the Carter property, but that would
drain the City's reserves.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE SITE OPTION #2 FOR THE SPRINGFIELD JUSTICE
CENTER, LEAVING IT OPEN THAT STAFF AND THE ARCIDTECTS BRING
IMPROVEMENTS BACK TO COUNCIL. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4
FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT - Ballew and Fitch).
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2006
Page 17
.
2. Social Games - Texas Holdem Tournament Style Poker Games Update.
Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. Council requested a six month
report from the Police Department on problems with the ordinance and associated activities
related to permitted gambling. The Police Department has received no complaints of gambling
associated with the Texas Holdem games authorized by City Ordinance since it was enacted.
Council adopted an ordinance in August, 2005 enabling taverns to engage in a specific game of
Tournament style Texas Holdem under the City's Social Games Ordinance. The ordinance
specifically describes the game and requires a license be obtained by the business and the
tournament organizer and that the ordinance be posted on the premises conducting such games.
Since adoption of the ordinance, the Police Department has received no complaints from citizens
regarding the operation of the games.
Nine establishments have obtained a City of Springfield license to hold Texas Holdem
tournament games. Eight are Taverns open to the public, five of which are not conducting
tournament games at this time. Shakers, the Pour House and the Woodsman taverns are
conducting the games.
Upon inspection of these establishments, we discovered that Shakers, located at 1836 S. A Street
was in violation of not having a licensed tournament organizer on site as required by ordinance
and that the ordinance was not posted on the premises.
.
The Pour House at 444 42nd Street did not have the ordinance posted as required. The
Woodsman, located at 117 S. 14th Street was in compliance.
All were in compliance with regard to the "buy in" limitations. The businesses in violation of the
ordinance were advised of the noted violations and a follow-up to ensure compliance will occur.
Chief Smith noted that a tavern owner asked that the ordinance be modified to allow family
members, employees, the owner of the establishment and the organizer to be able to play the
game. He said according to state statute, that was prohibited under state law.
Mr. Leahy agreed and said it was consistent with the advice of the counsel at the time to have a
game that passed the legal test.
Councilor Lundberg said she understood Eugene's ordinance allowed those members to
participate in the game. She understood the reasoning and explained. She asked staff to look into
it further.
Mr. Leahy said he felt it was in violation of state law. He said the current ordinance did have an
issue with state law in that it did allow the organizer to collect $5 for the buy-in. He said he had
received calls from the State Attorney General's Office saying Springfield was in violation of the
law. He asked the Attorney General's Office to send him a letter stating that. He asked Council
if they wanted him to look further into that. He said he recommended running as clean an
operation as possible.
.
Councilor Lundberg discussed the $5 buy-in.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2006
Page 18
Councilor Woodrow said he would lIke to look into the violation Mr. Leahy spoke of.
Councilor Lundberg would like to look at Eugene's ord,inance and State statute.
Chief Smith said the organizer cannot be paid by the business, so the only profit allowed by our
ordinance was the $5 buy-in fee from the player to the organizer. He said the business cannot
make a profit directly from the game or pay the organizer.
Mr. Leahy said he didn't want to field complaints from people who didn't get a fair game because
there was a member of the establishment who won.
Chief Smith said he had received no complaints from citizens with the current ordinance.
Councilor Pishioneri said he voted against this because the ordinance was countering the state
statute. He said the City needed to have high integrity and needed to follow the law. He said
Council was approached by the business owners saying that allowing the tournaments would
bring in more money by increased business, but now they are asking to participate in the game.
He proposed to change Springfield's ordinance to make it compliant with state law and then
check to see if the other change could be made. He encouraged staff to check into Eugene's
ordinance and notify the Attorney General's office if it was out of compliance with state law.
.
Councilor Ralston said he did not want to participate in anything illegal. He asked staff to look at
the other communities and their ordinances. He said it seemed reasonable to allow family
members of the owners to join the games. He said he would rather have people come to
Springfield to participate in the tournaments rather than going to Eugene. He said the buy-in
could be considered the cost of doing business. He said he did not oppose someone getting paid
for providing a service and he didn't have a problem with the owners joining the games. He
would like the definitive answer whether or not it was legal.
Mr. Leahy said he would provide Council with a defInitive answer regarding the owners playing.
He said they do have the definitive answer regarding the $5 for the organizer and it is not legal.
He said that would be removed from the ordinance as per the Attorney General.
Discussion was held regarding the buy-in.
Councilor Woodrow said the City had to be in compliance with state law. He asked Mr. Leahy to
bring the modified ordinance back to Council.
Mr. Leahy said when he requested a letter from the Attorney General's office regarding the buy-
in, they said they would not send a letter, but informed him that they had received a number of
complaints, a number of those from charitable organizations who sponsored gambling because of
the competition. Technically, the $5 buy-in was not consistent with state law.
Councilor Pishioneri said it may be all right for the establishment owner to pay for services of the
organizer as a set fee, not on winnings. If it did not come out of the player or the play, it should
be fine. If the owner wanted to put on a tournament, they could pay the organizer.
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2006
Page 19
BUSINESS FROM THE CIlY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9: 10 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Attest:
Ci~d~
.
.