HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/2016 Work Session City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday September 19,2016 at 6:00 p.m.,with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie,Ralston,Woodrow and Pishioneri.Also present
were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and
members of the staff.
Councilors VanGordon and Moore were absent(excused).
1. Springfield Police Advisory Committee (SPAC) Interviews.
Mike Harman,Police Associate Program Manager,presented the staff report on this item.
The Springfield Police Advisory Committee has one position open for a representative of the minority
community. The previous incumbent resigned when he moved outside the City limits.
The Committee received two applications for the open position. Both applicants were interviewed
during the regular monthly meeting on August 4th, 2016. The Committee reports that both are strong
candidates, and recommends that David Wyer be appointed to the Minority Community
Representative position.
The Committee was also impressed with applicant Sefiu Ballam, and would encourage him to find
opportunities to become involved with the City.
An appointment is scheduled for the September 19, 2016 Council meeting during regular session.
The Council chose the questions they would ask of each applicant. They introduced themselves and
interviewed the two applicants.
1. Why do you want to serve on the Springfield Police Advisory Committee?(Mayor Lundberg)
2. What do you enjoy about the City of Springfield?What concerns or suggestions do you have
for our community?(Councilor Wylie)
3. How do you think our City will change over the next 10 years?(Councilor Ralston)
4. What are the most important steps the Police Department should take to promote a positive
relationship with the Springfield community?(Councilor Pishioneri)
5. What do you think are the most important issues facing the Springfield Police Department
today?(Councilor Woodrow)
6. Do you have any questions for the Council?(Mayor Lundberg)
Council discussed the qualifications of each applicant and chose to appoint David Wyer during the
regular meeting.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 19,2016
Page 2
Councilor Woodrow noted Mr. Ballam's strong background and experience with FEMA and
emergency management. The SPAC thought it would be good to connect him with Ken Vogeney,the
City's Emergency Management Manager.
Mayor Lundberg asked Mr.Harman to connect Mr. Ballam with Ken Vogeney.
2. Initiate Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services
Plan(PFSP), Concurrent Amendment of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan), and Amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan and Springfield Development
Code(SDC), for EWEB Water Intake, a Water Treatment Facility and Related Infrastructure in
Glenwood.
Phil Farrington, Senior Planner presented the staff report on this item. Mr. Farrington introduced
Frank Lawson, General Manager of EWEB, Wally McCullough, Senior Engineer and Jeannine Parisi,
Intergovernmental Relations staff who were present in the audience.
Eugene Water&Electric Board(EWEB)proposes to construct a water intake,water treatment facility
and associated infrastructure,which requires amendments to the PFSP Project lists and Map, as
adopted into the Metro Plan, and changes to the Glenwood Refinement Plan and Springfield
Development Code to allow the proposed public utility facilities in the locations identified by EWEB.
EWEB's proposed water intake and treatment facility requires several land use applications including
annexation, Site Plan Review, and zoning overlay development approvals, in addition to the
amendments described above under Item Title and Issue Statement. The PFSP amendments will add
the new facilities to the project lists and map as required by state law. Statewide Planning Goal 11
requires that local governments have a"public facilities plan"for areas within the UGB describing the
water,wastewater,and stormwater facilities necessary to support the land uses designated in their
comprehensive plan. PFSP amendments must meet participation provisions of PFSP Chapter VI, as
well as the approval criteria for Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments in SDC 5.14-100 and
5.6-100,respectively.
Initiation of a PFSP and Metro Plan amendment is solely by formal action of one of the three
governing bodies subject to the Metro Plan. Because the property identified for water improvements
is located within Springfield's urban growth boundary, and associated land use applications, including
annexation,will be processed by the City of Springfield, it is appropriate for the Springfield City
Council to initiate these amendments.
Initiation is undertaken by the City Council without bias or commitment to a specific outcome,
including any subsequent appeals. EWEB will produce the required land use applications and
supporting materials and has conferred with the City of Eugene and Lane County about the proposed
water intake and treatment facility. After initiating, and once the applications for Plan and Code
amendments are submitted,review packages will be forwarded to the planning commissions of the
respective agencies for recommendations to Springfield, Eugene and Lane County elected officials for
a final decision on the PFSP and Metro Plan amendments. Springfield and Lane County elected
officials are responsible for final decision on proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan and SDC
amendments.
Questions and concerns of the Council were addressed in the Council packet.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 19,2016
Page 3
Councilor Pishioneri said that hill(proposed site)has a history of drug activity. It appears there is a
conflict south of the property in regards of use of the property and ownership. There is a lot of
pedestrian trespassing traffic. He understands EWEB has security,but they will not be able to remain
on site all the time. He is concerned about the amount of fencing, and how much the property will be
watched by EWEB. It is a very volatile spot.
Mr. Farrington referred to the map regarding the boundary and who owns the land in each area.
Councilor Pishioneri noted structures that were in the southern area that have encroached into the
northern area.
Mr.McCullough said there is a documented encroachment on the southern property line. If EWEB
were to acquire the property,they would address the encroachment at that time. EWEB is already
doing daily patrol through the lower piece of the proposed intake area and that daily presence on site
has removed a lot of issues. They would do the same with the larger property. If property were to be
developed,a lot of the issues regarding trespassing would be removed with regular patrols. They
would work with the City's Development and Public Works Department regarding fencing which
would likely be around the facilities,not the entire perimeter unless deemed necessary.
Councilor Pishioneri said he appreciated that and that they are aware this would be the entrance into
the City when looking at the design.
Mayor Lundberg said part of discussion is who initiates. Logic says Springfield initiates. She asked
what Springfield's role would be if Eugene initiates.
Mr. Farrington said the processes past initiation would be the same. Joint hearings of the Planning
Commissions from the City of Springfield, City of Eugene and Lane County, followed by joint
hearings of the Springfield City Council, Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of
Commissioners would be scheduled. This would allow all three jurisdictions to consider the PFSP
plan amendment process, and then proceed with annexation and site development. There might be
ways for inverting processes and design work up front. If a jurisdiction tried to say they would wait to
initiate the PFSP until the Refinement Plan and Code was amended, it would be very speculative and
would present more risk. The more logical way is with the PFSP plan amendment,teamed with the
needed amendments to the Code and Refinement Plan.
Mayor Lundberg said the discussion tonight is more about who should initiate. It wouldn't change the
City's ability to look at something and deny something.
Mr.Farrington said that is correct.Any of the three jurisdictions would have that opportunity.
Councilor Ralston asked if there is a cost if the City initiates.
Mr. Farrington said EWEB would be paying all planning fees to Springfield regardless of who
initiates. Because the facility is proposed in Springfield, all fees would come to the City of
Springfield.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if EWEB was a tax paying organization.No. He asked if there is a
potential of a tax paying entity developing there.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 19,2016
Page 4
Mr. Farrington said it is a difficult property to develop because of topography and access limitations.
This kind of use of a lower intensity of traffic generation would be suitable for this site,where others
might have a more difficult time in developing. The City has in lieu of fees provisions for utilities.
Councilor Ralston preferred the City not initiate the process. He has concerns about the amount of
water it could potentially remove from the river.
Councilor Woodrow said she didn't know that she wanted Springfield to initiate.
Councilor Pishioneri said he felt we should look at it like another project since it is in the City.
Mr. Farrington said initiating allows EWEB to start the process. If another body initiates,EWEB
would still come to Springfield to apply for the plan amendments. The only disadvantage with another
jurisdiction initiating the process could be in terms of time for the jurisdiction to schedule the process
of adopting the initiation resolution. The amendments needed for the Refinement Plan and code
amendment can be done at the applicant's initiative to the Director, Planning Commission or Council.
We package them all together in one request for initiation to bring to Council. If another jurisdiction
initiated,the City will still have EWEB initiate and apply for the Refinement Plan code amendment
process.
Mayor Lundberg said her concern is that it may appear Springfield is supportive if we initiate.
Councilor Ralston said initiating implies support.
Councilor Wylie said she agrees and feels uncomfortable with the project. She felt that if the City
initiated,we could decide when and how.
Mayor Lundberg suggested allowing Eugene initiate the project. Springfield will still have time to
weigh in on it during the plan amendment process. If we don't initiate,her preference would be to
send a letter to the City of Eugene asking them to initiate.
Mr. Grimaldi said it is different to have a city initiate when it is outside their limits, so sending a letter
is a good idea.
Councilor Pishioneri said he still preferred to keep it local.
Councilor Wylie asked if we had more say on the project if we initiate or someone else initiates.
Mr. Farrington said there is no pre-disposition to vote one way or another depending on who initiates.
They can vote on the merit of the proposal once applied for and whether or not it demonstrates
compliance with applicable criteria and standards of approval.
Councilor Ralston said water rights are a major issue.By taking away water rights on that section of
the river, it may limit what we can do.
Mayor Lundberg said that would be the bigger discussion after the process is initiated.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if this would be a quasi-judicial decision.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 19,2016
Page 5
Mr. Farrington said amending the plans is a legislative enactment. The criteria and standards would
fundamentally change. The questions posed by the Council are very valuable for EWEB to hear so
they can address their questions and concerns.
Councilor Pishioneri said if they comply,would the Council not be able to deny the request.
Mr. Farrington said it would authorize the project to proceed. They would then go through the
annexation process, site plan review and other development and site related reviews that would deal
with some of the other issues raised by the Council. It would authorize through the PFSP for this type
of facility to be placed in Glenwood. The decision to have the facility would be through the plan
amendment process.
Councilor Ralston asked why they don't put it on the Eugene side.
Mr. Farrington said speaking on behalf of EWEB,they have water rights on the Willamette River.
They had moved it from the location near their headquarters in Eugene to a place below the confluence
of the Middle and Coast Forks of the Willamette River,yet upstream from urban development. Their
intake is located in a place that would allow that water right to be utilized to get clean water.It is also
proximate to transmission facilities EWEB currently has in Glenwood. The site is on bedrock which
lends itself to stability for this type of facility. EWEB has looked at other sites in Eugene. They need
to demonstrate that they looked at other sites and why they are not feasible.
Mayor Lundberg said she is uncomfortable about the project and is more comfortable asking Eugene
to initiate. She asked the City Manager to write a letter to the City Manager of the City of Eugene
asking them to initiate. She will remove this item from the agenda during tonight's regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Minutes Recorder—Amy Sowa
Pta.t.4.:2-64.S1 2,10c/Dc
MaYer-
Council President
Attest:
Amy Sowac
City Recorder