HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2016 Regular City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY APRIL 4, 2016
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday,April 4, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.,with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie(by phone), 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.
Councilors VanGordon was absent(excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Mayor's Recognition
a. Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation.
Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation calling upon all citizens, community agencies, faith
groups, medical facilities, and businesses to increase their participation in our efforts to support
families,thereby preventing child abuse and strengthening the communities in which we live. Katy
from Court Appointed Special Advocates(CASA) came forward to accept the proclamation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Claims
3. Minutes
a. February 16, 2016—Regular Meeting
b. February 22,2016—Work Session
c. March 21, 2016—Regular Meeting
4. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06—A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CITY PROJECT P21108-2;
CITY HALL PLAZA RENOVATION.
5. Ordinances
6. Other Routine Matters
a. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with John and Christa
Brombaugh, Trustees of the John and Christa Brombaugh Revocable Trust for Property
Located at 17-03-34-41-00800.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 2
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
MOORE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT—VANGORDON).
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS -Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available
at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may
not yield their time to others.
1. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield—Annex 0.93 Acres of Property Located at 597
and 687 Aspen Street, Springfield.
ORDINANCE NO. 6350—AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, AND WILLAMALANE PARK
AND RECREATION DISTRICT; AND WITHDRAWING THE SAME TERRITORY FROM
THE RAINBOW WATER AND FIRE DISTRICT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Andy Limbird, Senior Planner, presented the staff report on this item.
A request for annexation to the City of Springfield has been received from Debra Jean Hudson, owner
of properties addressed as 597 and 687 Aspen Street. The subject annexation territory is two adjoining
residential parcels that each contains an existing single family dwelling. Annexation is requested to
facilitate connection to the City sanitary sewer line due to a failed septic system on the property. The
nearest public sanitary sewer connection is along the property frontage on Aspen Street.
The City Council is authorized by ORS Chapter 222 and SDC Article 5.7-100 to act on annexation
requests. In accordance with SDC 5.7-155 and ORS 222.040, 222.180 and 222.465, if approved the
annexation will become effective upon signature by the Mayor and acknowledgement by the State.
The subject property is currently zoned Low Density Residential(LDR)with an Urbanizable Fringe
Overlay(UF-10)applied and is located inside the City's Urban Growth Boundary. According to the
2015 Lane County Assessment and Taxation records the subject properties have an aggregate assessed
value of$303,790.
The territory requested for annexation is within an established residential neighborhood and urban
services are available along the frontage of the subject site. Staff is recommending concurrent
annexation of a segment of Aspen Street right-of-way along the property frontage in order to provide
contiguity with the City limits.
An existing public sanitary sewer line is located along the west side of the Aspen Street right-of-way
and the applicant has obtained necessary permits to connect the existing homes to sanitary sewer.
Consistent with Council direction regarding annexations due to a failed septic system,the applicant
will be allowed to connect to City sanitary sewer immediately upon payment of required fees. Staff is
recommending adoption of the annexation ordinance by emergency clause in order to expedite the
request for connection to public sanitary sewer because it would abate a potential health hazard.
The annexation area can be served with the minimum level of key urban facilities and services as
required in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. The attached staff report also
confirms the request meets the criteria of approval for annexations established in Section 5.7-140 of
the Springfield Development Code(SDC). The applicant has executed an Annexation Agreement
with the City that outlines the financial responsibilities for provision of urban services to the property.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 3
The subject properties, including the Aspen Street right-of-way, comply with the standards and provisions
of the SDC and applicable ORS for annexation; Council approval annexing these properties to the City and
Willamalane and withdrawing same from Rainbow Water and Fire District is consistent with all applicable
laws.
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
MOORE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6350. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5
FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT—VANGORDON).
2. Amend the Springfield Development Code to Regulate the Time,Place and Manner by which
Land and Buildings may be used to Produce,Process, Sell Wholesale and Sell Retail Recreational
Marijuana and Recreational Marijuana Products.
ORDINANCE NO. 2—AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CODE SECTION 3.2-310 AND 3.2-410 ADDING VARIOUS RECREATONAL MARIJUANA
BUSINESSES TO SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS;
SECTION 4.7-177 ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES; SECTIONS 3.2-210, 3.2-415, 3.2-610, AND 3.4-
255 PROHIBITING RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES; SECTION 6.1-110 ADDING
APPLICABLE DEFINITONS; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Greg Mott, Planning Manager presented the staff report on this item.
On March 21,2016 the Council voted to remove the proposed 1,000 foot buffer between Marijuana
Retail Outlets and requested that staff provide additional information about siting certain marijuana
businesses in the Light Medium Industrial(LMI)District. As a result,the ordinance was amended and
staff has drafted a Council Briefing Memorandum addressing Council's request.
The March 21, 2016 public hearing on proposed regulations of the production,processing,wholesale
and retail trade of recreational marijuana was the culmination of three Planning Commission work
sessions, a public hearing and two Council work sessions in the preceding 5 months. Various
individuals and representatives of the marijuana trade provided testimony, generally in support of
these proposals; one person was opposed to any regulations that would allow marijuana as a permitted
use. The Council voted 5-0 to delete the proposed 1,000 foot buffer between Marijuana Retail Outlets
(but change no other buffers)and requested that staff provide additional information about a
suggestion from a member of the public to allow marijuana businesses in the LMI District. As a result
of the change in the ordinance and request for additional information,the City Attorney recommends
the City Council conduct another"first reading" of the amended Ordinance and hold a public hearing.
Mr.Mott said in addressing the question regarding marijuana businesses being allowed in the LMI, a
comparison of the zoning districts was included in the agenda packet. If Council goes forward with the
recommended buffers between residential and production,the map shows the effects of indoor(500
feet)and outdoor(1000 feet)buffers between LMI and residential. All of the LMI would not meet that
City of Springfield
• Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 4
standard. If Council is interested in allowing marijuana production in the LMI,they would need to
reconsider what the setbacks should be, and if the setbacks will be different in the other allowed zones.
Mayor Lundberg asked if it would require another public hearing if they changed it again.
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said it would warrant another reading, not necessarily another
public hearing.
Mr. Mott said Council will have a second reading and possible vote on this ordinance on April 18. The
comparison report done by staff is part of the record. He noted correspondence which was received by
Casey Houlihan from the Oregon Retailers and Cannabis Association regarding maintaining the 1000
foot buffer between retailers. Since March 21,the only other correspondence received was from Karl
Mueller submitted on behalf of Brett Barkley which was received tonight and will be entered into the
record.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
1. Karl Mueller, Springfield, OR. Mr.Mueller apologized for getting his information in too late
for the Council to review. He noted five specific issues with the ordinance as written.
• They would like to propose amending the ordinance to allow indoor Tier 1 and 2 in LMI,
but not outdoor. They share the concern regarding odor in the LMI zone. The remainder of
the impacts is appropriate for the LMI zone. The closest use in the Code is pharmaceutical
manufacturing which is permissible in the LMI zone. 100% odor control is anticipated
through proper filtration and the buffer is not required by State law.
• They are proposing to amend the special use standards to eliminate the 500 foot buffer on
indoor production in any zone for the same reason. The odor will be controlled 100%, and
other impacts are completely negligible compared to any other industrial zone. This is a
legal business. They would propose to retain the buffer on residential for production
because of the solvents.
• They are proposing to amend the special use standards to eliminate the minimum lot size
requirements for indoor production. These lot sizes are 170%larger and 2170% larger
than the canopy area of indoor production. There is no basis for that lot size requirement
and is not a requirement of State law.
• They are proposing to get rid of the special buffer with residential for outdoor production
in the HI or SHI zone. Far more noxious uses are permissible without buffering.
• If they do not agree to the change proposed in#4,they would request the special buffer be
removed at least in the SHI zoned.
He noted that scientific research facilities are listed in the marijuana businesses section of
the ordinance,but there is nothing in the ordinance about where they are permitted. He
would like clarification on that.
Ms. Smith said while the Council hears additional testimony, she will review the ordinance
with Mr. Mott.
2. Jeff Schlageter,Veneta,OR. Mr. Schlageter said he took over Cannabis LLC, located at 1936
Main Street on February 1, 2016. He currently employees 19 people with a starting wage of
$12/hour,with most of his employees living in Springfield city limits.Payroll for the 11-
month period of February 1, 2016 through December 31, 2015 was over$300,000 with
payroll taxes. A large percentage of this was not able to be written off, as it would be with
City of Springfield
• Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 5
another industry. He hopes people take into consideration that the concept of free market has
yet to be applied to this industry. They are subject to some of the heaviest tax rates,but are
operating in an ever shifting regulatory climate. He is not afraid of competing with other
businesses, but hopes for a level playing field compared how alcohol is sold. These are
extremely expensive businesses to run, and they are not rolling in dough as some believe.
Since January 4, Cannabis LLC had generated close to$60,000 in sales tax revenue. His
concern is that without the appropriate time, place and manner,too many outlets will choke
each other out. By including a 1000 foot buffer between recreational shops as they did with
medical,this will insure a competitive and healthy market. He hopes the Council takes these
facts into consideration.
3. Casey Houlihan, Executive Director of Oregon Retailers of Cannabis Association. Mr.
Houlihan referred to the testimony he provided that was in the Council's agenda packet which
included a statement in favor of the 1000 foot buffer between all types of cannabis retail
businesses. There is a concern about the amount of interest they are seeing at the national level
and in Oregon specifically because there are no residency requirements. They want to make
sure when that wave of businesses hits as the OLCC rolls out the licenses,that the businesses
already established can continue their work. They would like to make sure the out of state
retailers can benefit from the local regulations that are in place in their localities are in place
locally. The hardship some of these businesses are facing is highly disproportionate compared
to other types of businesses. They appreciate that the Council is approaching this in a business
friendly standpoint. The OLCC regulates the sale of retail liquor differently than how they
regulate in stores, and have strict geographic regulations on where they are allowed based on
population. The OLCC would never allow a retail store next to another retail liquor store.
They would encourage the Council to consider grandfathering in existing production facilities
in commercial zonings as well.A lot of businesses in the City are set up that way now. With
the limited amount of space available for commercial production after the ordinance is
enacted, growers will realize they will not be able to bring in their businesses. He noted that
the first month of sales tax,they were able to bring in about$3.5M in tax revenue for the
State.
4. Jessi Preston, Springfield,OR. Ms. Preston said she wanted to address the buffer zone and
whether or not it was fair to place those types of limitations on businesses,when not placed on
most other businesses. She agrees and didn't want to limit this for outside businesses that
could bring money to our economy. She also thinks not having buffer zones makes it easier for
people already here to open businesses and compete. If there are too many restrictions on
where people can open up shops, not enough people will be able to open up shops. In order to
make sure people who will do business right from out of state or in state,we need to be
business friendly for both.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
Ms. Smith referred to Mr. Mueller's comments regarding research,testing and laboratories which are
listed in the definitions of the ordinance. This is the only place in the ordinance that research is found.
She felt the definition could be more expansive. A research or lab facility in our Code would be
similar to a processing facility and fall under the processing standards. There is no need to change the
ordinance.
Mayor Lundberg asked about the 10 acre and 1 acre references.
City of Springfield
• Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 6
Mr. Mott said the minimum lot size only applies in HI and SHI zones for Tier 1 or Tier 2 operations.
In particular,the large lot size is to allow an outdoor operation to occur. He did not recall the
discussion or review of other communities and the effects.No one on staff is an expert on odor; rather
their expertise comes from their experience from complaints of a number of odors. We don't have a lot
of control on odors, although it is addressed by the Code. For the most part, except for the random
industrial activity that is permitted, odors are not expected. The only opportunity to address odor is
during review of a discretionary use. It is not the same thing as noise or dust. The best way to mitigate
odors in indoor facilities is to use air scrubbers. An overly large lot size may not make a difference for
outdoor facilities.
Mayor Lundberg said no matter how hard people try,there are complaints about odor.
Councilor Moore said she was told there are cities that have enacted a 1000 foot buffer between retail
facilities such as Portland.
Ms. Smith said they have heard that other communities have the buffer in place.
Mr. Mott said communities don't have to have that separation standard. If they choose to impose that
standard, it cannot be more than 1000 feet.
Councilor Moore confirmed that State regulation requires a 1000 foot buffers between dispensaries.
Mr. Mott said that was correct. Also, dispensaries and grows cannot be at the same address.
Councilor Ralston said there are a lot of things we aren't experts at yet. At a future date we may get
the information that would allow them to revisit these issues. He would like to get more educated and
get some experience and then look at this again.
Ms. Smith suggested Mayor Lundberg close the record as well as the hearing. If Council has no
recommended changes to the proposed ordinance, a second reading will be scheduled on April 18 and
would go into effect 30 days after adoption.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public record on this topic.No action is requested as this is a first reading.
3. Licensing Fee for Recreational Marijuana Businesses.
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07—A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING THE MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE
AS ESTABLISHED BY THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE BUSINESS
LICENSE FEES FOR RETAIL AND NON-RETAIL RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA
BUSINESSES.
Mary Bridget Smith, City Attorney, presented the staff report on this item.
Under House Bill 3400(2015), local governments may pass ordinances relating to and governing the
production, use, sale, and licensing of recreational marijuana. The city seeks to adopt a licensing fee
applicable to recreational marijuana businesses in the City of Springfield.
Medical marijuana dispensaries are currently required to obtain a business license and pay a fee from
the City under SMC 7.600 et seq. The City Council has already held a first reading on the business
City of Springfield
•
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 7
license and associated regulations with recreational marijuana businesses and City staff is proposing a
license fee pertaining to those businesses. If this Resolution is adopted,this fee would be incorporated
into the City's Master Fees and Charges Schedule and updated as per Council direction in the future.
A staff review of business license fees charged by other cities including Portland,Eugene, Gresham,
Corvallis, Bend and Medford for recreational marijuana businesses showed a wide range of fees from
zero to $5,000 per year. Springfield currently charges medical dispensaries just over$1,000 per year
(recently adjusted for inflation). Council indicated at their November 9, 2015 work session that staff
should recommend a fee that distinguishes the production and sales activity of recreational businesses
from medical dispensaries and is in line with what other cities charge. Staff recommends a fee of
$2,000 annually. Council may adjust this fee as it feels appropriate now and each year thereafter.
The financial impact is unknown because it is not currently known how many retail and non-retail
recreational marijuana businesses will locate in the City of Springfield.
Councilor Moore asked if this was an annual fee. Yes. She asked if medical dispensaries selling
recreational marijuana would they have to pay the additional license.
Ms. Smith said she would check.
Mayor Lundberg asked about reducing the license fee for those who wanted to stay a medical
dispensary only.
Ms. Smith said they could look into reducing the medical marijuana dispensary fee at a later meeting.
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
MOORE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2016-07. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT—VANGORDON).
4. Liquor License Endorsements for the Renewal Period of 2016-2017.
Sophia Seban,Property Management Specialist, presented the staff report on this item.
The attached list of 164 businesses will likely be applying to the Development and Public Works
Department for their 2016-2017 liquor license endorsements prior to June 30, 2016.
On December 19, 1994, Council approved Ordinance No. 5768 that established specific criteria to be
used when reviewing an application for a liquor license endorsement. Council may recommend denial
based upon reliable, factual information as it relates to any of the criteria listed in Section 7.302 of the
Springfield Municipal Code.
Some of the required information for liquor license renewal, i.e., ownership of the establishment,
cannot be determined until staff receives the actual application. However, some determination about
meeting the listed criteria can be made now since the criteria relates to the level of police activity
City of Springfield
•
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 8
associated with the establishment. In the Activity Summary Report, police responses are roughly
comparable to the same time period from the previous year.
The public hearing this evening is scheduled for Council to receive community testimony relative to
the liquor license renewal endorsement. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council is requested
to provide one of the following recommendations to the Oregon Liquor License Commission for the
license renewal of the listed establishments: I. Grant; 2.No Recommendations; 3. Do Not Grant
Unless(applicant demonstrates commitment to overcome listed concerns); or 4. Deny. At this time,
staff has no information that would tend to support negative recommendations on these renewals.
Accordingly, subject to any public input received at the hearing, and final submission of applications
meeting all of the criteria, staff recommends that the Council provide a positive recommendation for
renewal to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.
Ms. Seban noted that Albertson's 3332 recently submitted an application to Safeway.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
MOORE TO GRANT THE LIQUOR LICENSE ENDORSEMENTS FOR THE RENEWAL
PERIOD OF 2016-2017. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0
AGAINST (1 ABSENT).
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE- Limited to 20 minutes. 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. Mariah Leung, Eugene, OR. Ms. Leung said she was here to speak on the ban on motorists to
pedestrian panhandling donations. She does not see this ordinance has anything to do with
safety, since laws are already in place for obstructing traffic. She has never witnessed safety
hazards or delays at intersections with panhandlers. It would be interesting to document with
video how often and for how long a driver is delayed due to panhandlers. She would think the
Springfield Police have better things to do than ticket those drivers and passengers who donate
on public property. She asked if the $50 fine would go to help the unhoused. This appears to
be another hateful attempt to banish those deemed unwanted and possibly unsightly to the
outskirts of town like our history shows we did to people of color. To hear Springfield
Councilors talk in the past about all of the services they provide for the homeless, is an
attempt to cover this negative law. Some supporters of the proposed ordinance imagine that all
donations go for drugs or alcohol. As adults, we know some of those funds could possibly be
used for those purposes, but don't need the City to make that decision for us. She noted the
privileged attitude that only those that are housed can self-medicate.
2. Donna Riddle, Springfield, OR. Ms. Riddle said she opposes this proposed ordinance because
there are laws to deal with activities that impede traffic. She had not seen or read about any
pedestrian injuries or accidents related to panhandling. She has seen them related to people
speeding and pedestrians not being able to see cars. She has not experienced her driving being
impeded by panhandlers whether by the Breast Cancer volunteers or the homeless. She has
seen risky situations when the police pull over a car to give someone a ticket, and had scary
interactions when the people pulled over didn't think properly about getting out into traffic.
Our public safety department has better things to do than ticket those trying to help others. She
appreciates our public safety. She noted a time when her car was hit in a parking lot and the
police were able to track down the person that had hit her car enabling her to work with the
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 9
insurance to get her car fixed. She appreciated the Police having the time to do that type of
work.
3. Leonard Stoehr, Springfield, OR. Mr. Stoehr said whether they regard this ordinance as
addressing a traffic issue or a homeless issue, it's important to remember that most cities that
have passed a similar ordinance have faced a long legal battle on free speech grounds. At the
end of the legal battles,the cities have lost. He noted that this ordinance would prevent
firefighters and other charitable organizations from raising funds at intersections. He asked the
Council to consider the potential expense of adoption to the City and the taxpayers.
4. John Thielking, Eugene, OR. Mr. Thielking,said during the work session, discussion was held
regarding a HUD funded low-income housing project going in soon. HUD is changing their
rules regarding a question on the application about whether or not the City is working to end
criminalization of homelessness in your community. If answered incorrectly, points are
deducted. That is something for the Council to consider when they are looking at criminalizing
the act of handing someone a donation from a car. There are other ordinances on the books to
address traffic safety, such as the child getting out of their car to give a donation.
5. Isa Aviad, Springfield, OR. Ms. Aviad said she has an emergency services background as a
call-taker with 9-1-1,volunteers at a food pantry, is a faith based member and believes in
being philanthropic and helping those in need. She endorsed the proposed ordinance based on
experience. Several people have said they have not encountered any issues with people asking
for donations, but she has it happen to her each week. There is a time and place to give, and in
our community there is a multitude of ways to give to people in need without interrupting
traffic and causing dangerous situations. Drivers who want to give would at most be
inconvenienced by finding another way of being philanthropic,while everyone else around
them may not only be inconvenienced,but far worse. People that give, can and do impede
traffic flow. By asking for handouts, people can put themselves in danger and have done so by
stepping into the roadway and sometimes crossing into the second lane of traffic. She had
been distracted by reading the signs or from a dog that lunged at her car. This is another
distraction for her daily driving. There are other ways to give.
6. Michael Williams, Springfield, OR. Mr. Williams asked how necessary this ordinance was,
and feels it would harm those who rely on the generosity of fellow citizens.It is already an
offense for a motorist to obstruct traffic. He asked how many citations there had been for
generosity induced traffic violations or accidents caused. This ordinance is aimed at
panhandlers. Motorists would need to find a place to park before acting on a generous
impulse, so panhandlers would need to find places where motorists could park first. He is not
sure where those places are located. He asked Council to think about where they would
panhandle if drivers had to park first. He asked them to think about who was really affected by
the ordinances—not the drivers, but the person panhandling who is once more pushed aside.
Too much attention is being paid to symptoms and not enough to causes. A Shelter First
Program would help alleviate the panhandler population, and solve real problems rather than
hypothetical traffic problems. The City is to be commended for taking some beginning steps
to address the problems of the unhoused, unemployed and partially employed, but this
ordinance is a large step backward. He asked them to vote no on this ordinance.
7. David Strahan, Springfield, OR. Mr. Strahan said this ordinance isn't about the heart of
Springfield,but is so we don't have to look at the needy. He could see himself getting a ticket
because he hands things out. Giving to those along the side of the road is not going to stop
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 10
traffic, but maybe slow it down. There are laws that deal with impeding traffic and position in
the roadway. He asked that they don't fine people for giving to others. There aren't parking
places near where people panhandle. He has seen Springfield's heart at Thurston after the
shooting. He knows the City gives to agencies that help the unhoused, but he asked that they
not penalize people's hearts.
8. Sarita Lief, Springfield, OR. Ms. Lief said she is speaking in opposition of this ordinance.
She is deeply troubled by this ordinance and feels this is not about public safety or traffic. She
asked where the figures were for traffic violations and accidents caused by roadside
panhandling. Our vehicle code already regulates drivers. There are plenty of places in
Springfield that need better enforcement of already existing traffic rules. She noted several.
She is ashamed the Council is considering using the excuse of public safety to vilify the most
vulnerable amongst us, and to demean our drivers who are responsible for exercising their
judgment to give or not give to panhandlers in a safe manner. The true ambition of this
ordinance is to get panhandlers out of site and out of mind. She asked where the concerns are
for the unhoused and undernourished and their children. She asked the Council not to disgrace
themselves or the City with a vote for this unnecessary ordinance.
9. Sue SierraLupe, Eugene, OR. Ms. Sierra Lupe said she is a business owner in Springfield.
She comes from a long line of women who help the unhoused with no accidents from their
giving. She helps the unhoused by giving them rescue packs(she displayed). The reason why
the women in her family, including her children, give to those in need is because they work for
agencies that give to those in need and they know it is not enough and people fall through the
cracks. They have nowhere else to go besides the street corners. At Occupy Medical they see
malnutrition every week. She passes the rescue bag out the window of her car. Perhaps 5
seconds of helping her fellow citizen inconveniences someone, but it is not a safety issue. The
safety issue is the increase in residents in Springfield. Accidents are actually happening along
Main Street,not from panhandling.
10. Danielle Smith, Springfield, OR. Ms. Smith said she didn't come to pledge allegiance to the
corporatism or discrimination or anything that would cause another economic hit against the
poor class in our area, but to ask the Council not to pass this ordinance. She didn't want to see
Police looking for good Samaritans to see if they are handing something out the window.
Saying there are enough resources for the homeless is wrong; sometimes they just need to
have some cash. They can't get cash from a charity or a place to sleep. She asked them to
remember the oath of the constitution the Council took. It's a shame to see this happening and
she hopes they will consider that if they pass this ordinance,they will be affecting poor people
repeatedly. Our area is a magnet for middle and upper class people, not the poor. She asked
them to please take care of the poor first. The people in the Glenwood area living in trailer
parks are facing homelessness and having nowhere to go. She hopes they begin discussions as
to how the City might be able to assist with that.
11. Debra Jean Hill, Springfield, OR. Ms. Hill said the other day she saw a man who looked
down on his luck and she thought she should give a hot food item she had purchased to him.
She knew this ordinance was being considered, so she tried to think about how to give it to
him safely. She had two sleeping children in her car, so walking to him was not an option.
Parking her car and calling to him so he could cross traffic didn't seem like a safe option
either. The safest option was to follow the flow of traffic, stop at the stop sign and hand it to
him quickly. She circled the block twice until the flow of traffic flowed appropriately. She
has seen panhandlers cross traffic to get cash from a driver, and she didn't feel that was right
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 11
for the driver to make someone cross traffic. That person is impeding traffic,but taking a few
seconds to hand something out the window for someone is not impeding traffic. She opposed
this order and asked the Council to let charity be.
12. Brian McDermott, Springfield, OR. Mr. McDermott said he is a recent transplant to the area.
Over the past 6 months, he has started a website and gathered donations. Twice a week he
delivers bananas to the poor in the Eugene and Springfield area on his bike and he volunteers
to help the needy. He thinks the concern for public safety is a ruse. There are outlets for the
homeless,but proposing an ordinance that punishes those who want to be charitable nullifies
any good that is being done. It is a violation of first amendment rights. Punishing those
handing out to the less fortunate goes counter to what this country stands for. It is important to
show the value of charity to young people. He has taken his children with him to deliver to the
homeless and also gives when he is driving. If this ordinance goes through, it will be hard to
tell his son why he can't give any more. He noted a large fundraising event at Pennsylvania
University. During fundraising time, students were out in traffic collecting donations and they
had no accidents.
13. Steven Dear, Eugene, OR. Mr. Dear said he and his wife moved here from North Carolina
and they love it here. It is a wonderful place with kind people and incredible beauty. They will
be buying a home and are looking in Springfield. They want to move to a community that
values imagination, compassion and responsibility. There are wonderful people in this
community doing great things, but this ordinance does not reflect those values. There are other
laws already on the books that address these things. Springfield could set an example by being
imaginative in handling this issue and he encouraged them to do that. He wouldn't want to
move to Springfield if this ordinance passes.
14. Shari Walton, Springfield, OR. Ms. Walton chose not to speak.
15. Terra Williams, Springfield, OR. Ms. Williams said Chapter 6 in the Municipal Code already
addresses the concerns of safety, so this ordinance seems superfluous. She feels this is as a
traffic safety concern. Originally,this amendment included a fine for the panhandler, but that
was removed. That seems like a move to repackage this amendment as altruistic. Her family
has lived in Thurston for a decade. Main Street has long stretches without lights or signals,
and there have been numerous accidents. If the City cared about traffic safety,they would be
more concerned about deaths caused by reckless driving.
16. Anna Chorlton, Springfield, OR. Ms. Chorlton said there are other laws that address
impeding traffic. She asked if there was evidence being relied upon to support this ordinance.
With a background as a legal assistant, she saw an increase in homeless clients due to
reductions in services. They did lose clients to traffic deaths,not from panhandling but from
crossing the street and getting hit. She feels this ordinance is trying to cover up a bigger
problem. It would not address the root causes of this issue, and was a waste of time and
resources. They had already addressed that they would not fine the panhandlers themselves,
yet there has been discussion about whether or not to have allowances for certain charities.
That would institute a two-tier system which is discriminatory. As a homeowner and taxpayer,
she has concerns about poor risk management by the City. We need to be thinking ahead. She
urged them to vote no on the ordinance.
17. Shannon Mudge, Springfield, OR. Mr. Mudge said he owned the store Dragon Vine on
Pioneer Parkway. Panhandling is a constant concern in this area. He noted an example of drug
City of Springfield
•
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 12
deals occurring at the intersections with panhandlers. The panhandlers then turn the money
over to another person.Police have been notified and they have documentation. It is a
common practice on Pioneer Parkway and he has also seen it occur downtown. This is a traffic
issue. One third of people hit in New York City in 2013 were panhandlers, and according to
US studies, 80% of people that panhandle have been known to commit crimes. Typically, any
panhandler in the Pioneer Parkway area goes to a store to do Keno lottery. He sees it every
day, many times a day.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
ORDINANCES
1. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 6, Vehicles and Traffic,Adding Section 6.112 to the Springfield
Municipal Code,Unlawful Transfer on Vehicular Portion of the Right-of-Way.
ORDINANCE NO. 6351 —AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6,VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC,ADDING SECTION 6.112 TO THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE,
UNLAWFUL TRANSFER ON VEHICULAR PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Mary Bridget Smith, City Attorney, presented the staff report on this item.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit motor vehicles from stopping in the roadway for the purpose
of transferring property to pedestrians and does not exempt situations where drivers or passengers
donate to persons asking for charitable contributions under a pedestrian activity permit.
Ms. Smith said the version focuses on the driver, and does not exempt charities. Councilors had asked
staff to check with the charities about this ordinance. Chief Doney spoke with someone from the
Cancer Society,who would prefer to have the exemption for their charity because it is profitable, but
understands the public safety issues and will work with the City if it passes.Ms. Smith spoke with the
IAFF Firefighters Union and they do not object to not including the exemption. They understand the
traffic safety issues and will be focusing on other types of fundraising.
Councilor Moore said it had been mentioned that posting this ordinance is very effective in other
cities. She asked if posting signs regarding the existing ordinance for improper position or impeding
traffic might be effective. It is a much steeper fine.
Mr. Doney said the baseline for that State statute is $110. Improper position on the highway would be
for the pedestrian, and impeding traffic is on the driver.
Councilor Moore said it sounds like there is no law for staying on the sidewalk and impeding traffic.
Mr. Doney said we have laws that are similar. This particular ordinance is clearer than the other laws.
Councilor Woodrow thanked everyone for testifying, and appreciates their awareness and points of
view and their care in giving to pedestrians and panhandlers. She noted that not everyone is as careful
and diligent as they are and that is what is trying to be addressed. The City is addressing this from a
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 13
safety issue and it is not a ruse. She has heard from at least a couple dozen people who support this
ordinance. She appreciates their testimony. The Council is truly concerned about safety.
Councilor Wylie said she has done some studying of this issue,trying to understand where someone
could park to give a donation. It would be far less safe to find a parking place,than handing something
out the window. She appreciated everyone's comments, and thinks looking at the safety issue,parking
is less safe. She feels this ordinance is petty and she will likely vote against it.
Mayor Lundberg said when Council first asked about the ordinance, it was with safety in mind. What
is being discussed is a much bigger issue. The reason people are on a street corner is because they do
need help. She would rather address helping the homeless from another perspective and the Council is
dedicated to doing that. This ordinance was set up with safety in mind and falls in line with her
commitment to the Mayor's Challenge for Safe Streets.
Councilor Moore said she appreciates people coming to speak, and all of the calls and emails she had
received. She cares about people in need, and her family goes to where people are and hands out food
and socks. She is a caring person,but sees this as a safety issue. The current laws do not address all of
the issues.
Councilor Pishioneri said whichever way people vote,he wants those that testified know that they
heard each of them.He reminded them that the Councilors are not getting paid, and are doing this as
volunteers. They know the issues and work hard every week to try to make things better for the entire
community.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
MOORE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6351. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4
FOR AND 1 AGAINST (WYLIE)AND 1 ABSENT (VANGORDON).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
i. Councilor Moore reported on the League of Oregon Cities(LOC)committees on
which she serves: Community Development Committee and Energy Committee. She
noted that she sent information to the rest of the Council regarding those meetings.
Planning Manager Greg Mott also attended those meetings.
Councilor Woodrow thanked Councilor Moore for the information she provided.
b. Other Business
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 4,2016
Page 14
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Strategizing for Long-Term Fiscal Health.
Bob Duey,Finance Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
The City is beginning its third year using the methodology of priority-based budgeting as a tool to help
focus the allocation of available resources to those services that help most to advance Community and
Council goals. For this annual budget process to prove successful, it is important that the City has
established long-term fiscal targets or performance measurements that support the long-term fiscal
stability for both a consistent level of base services year after year and plan in advance for expanded or
new and innovative services. At a recent work session, Council reviewed three proposed financial
policies concerned with defining the elements that make up a fiscally healthy organization. Council is
being asked to adopt the proposed financial policies.
Transitioning from traditional to priority-based budgeting involves learning curves for annual
budgeting as well as strategic planning, performance measurement, and evaluating long-term fiscal
health of the organization. The ultimate goal is to be able to provide consistent services to City of
Springfield citizens, now and in the future. In order to realistically assess that possibility,the City
needs to objectively identify and establish its long-term fiscal health goals for 5, 10 or 20 years into
the future.
Mr. Duey noted that other policies would come to Council for consideration and approval in the Fall.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
MOORE TO ADOPT UPDATED VERSIONS OF THREE CITY FINANCIAL POLICIES
THAT INCLUDE A RESERVE POLICY,A REVENUE POLICY AND AN ACCOUNTING,
AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORTING POLICY. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(1 ABSENT—VANGORDON).
2. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 8:40 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
•
41&
Christine L. Lundberg ,
Mayor
Attest:
J-(TLS`&
City Reco er