The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 06 Council MinutesAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 11/21/2016 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa Staff Phone No: 541-726-3700 Estimated Time: Consent Calendar S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate ITEM TITLE: COUNCIL MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, approval of the attached minutes. ISSUE STATEMENT: The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes: a. September 19, 2016 – Regular Meeting b. September 26, 2016 – Work Session c. October 3, 2016 – Work Session d. October 10, 2016 – Work Session e. October 17, 2016 – Work Session f. October 17, 2016 – Regular Meeting g. October 24, 2016 – Work Session h. November 7, 2016 – JEO Regular Meeting i. November 14, 2016 – Work Session j. November 14, 2016 – Special Regular Meeting DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday September 19, 2016 at 7:05 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie (by phone), 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). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Mayor’s Recognition a. Distraction Free Driving Awareness Day Proclamation. Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation and proclaimed September 20 to be “Distraction Free Driving Awareness Day” in Springfield, Oregon and encouraged all residents to join in this observance. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims a. Approval of the July 2016, Disbursements for Approval. b. Approval of the August 2016, Disbursements for Approval. 2. Minutes 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Authorize City Manager to Sign Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Lane County for $165,426 and Execute all Documents Required to Effect the Transaction. b. Authorize City Manager to enter into an Agreement with Hartford Insurance Company in the amount not to exceed $135,000 Annually for Group Insurance Services. Services include Employee Group Basic Life, Accidental Death & Dismemberment and Long Term Disability Insurance. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2016 Page 2 IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – VANGORDON AND MOORE). ITEMS REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. 1. Collection of Transient Room Taxes from Booking Agents for Short Term Rentals. ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 7.700 ET SEQ TO ADD DEFINITIONS AND CLARIFY DUTIES FOR OPERATORS OF SHORT TERM RENTAL LOCATIONS Courtney Griesel, Community Development Manager, and Kristina Kraaz, City Attorney, presented the staff report on this item. The City of Springfield, through a voluntary agreement has authorized the City of Eugene to collect and distribute transient room taxes (TRT) received from overnight stays booked through the internet-based platform, Airbnb, Inc. Collection of TRT through Airbnb requires amendment to Springfield Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 7 to clarify that booking agents and hosts of short-term rentals are subject to the TRT. Under the agreement with Airbnb, collection of TRT begins October 1, 2016. Ms. Griesel noted this was voluntary and the National Airbnb had signed on to pay those taxes. Through this adoption process, our code amendment would go into effect October 3. Staff feels the existing code covers Airbnb, although they feel it is better to be more specific in the code. Councilor Ralston confirmed that those types of facilities don’t currently pay the taxes, but if they sign up with Airbnb, they would be required to pay. He asked if other agencies pay the tax or if private citizens could pay. Ms. Griesel said Airbnb is a third party platform and doesn’t include the single homeowner. Mayor Lundberg said Travel Lane County was happy with this tax, and it would generate transient room tax funds to the City of Springfield. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. No action requested. First reading only. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2016 Page 3 Mayor Lundberg asked if those here to speak on one subject could select 3 or 4 people to speak on behalf of the full group in order to keep the time to the limit of 20 minutes. 1. Frank Lawson, Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) General Manager, Eugene, OR: Mr. Lawson thanked the Council for their consideration and deliberation on the topic of EWEB’s process to initiate land use changes necessary for a secondary water intake treatment plant in Glenwood. Eugene is the only major city in the Northwest without an alternative source for drinking water. It is something EWEB has been working on for many years. Independent of the number of residents, if there is a failure of their system they would be required to turn to their neighboring utilities, including Springfield, for assistance. This is done through the mutual aid agreement. The new plant built to current standards would not only be a major step in relieving the burden on their neighboring utilities, but would also put EWEB in a position to help others around them in the region. Independent of who initiates the process, EWEB is looking forward to working with the City on the project. They do recognize that a new treatment plant was not originally contemplated in the Glenwood Refinement Plan. They support the City’s vision for the area, and want to be a good neighbor and be a responsible party in the area. They had already been working with City staff to manage litter, help with illegal camping, and doing other things to improve the property they already own at that location. EWEB is looking forward to answering all of the questions of the Council. 2. Josh Bruce, Director of Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Mr. Bruce said he lives in Eugene and is on retainer with EWEB and the City of Eugene. He has worked with both the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield over the last seven years on a wide range of issues related to resilience in the metro area. Part of the role of the partnership is to help communities all around the state consider natural hazards and vulnerabilities and how to address those. They have helped the cities of Eugene and Springfield in updating and keeping current the cities multi-jurisdictions Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan adopted by the City of Springfield about 18 months ago. Part of that process included the partnership leading an effort to assess vulnerabilities across a wide range of public infrastructure and non-infrastructure systems. They determined through that assessment that Eugene and EWEB sole source is a significant vulnerability, not just for the City of Eugene, but for the entire region. Because so many sectors rely on water, not just for drinking but for doing business and generating economic development, if water is not available to the jurisdiction it has significant and wide ranging impacts. There are public safety issues as well. He is here to advocate for initiation of this second source. When talking to jurisdictions about resilience, one of the key things is diversity and redundancy. Not having redundancy is a liability and detrimental to the whole county. One of the other principles is thinking about jurisdictions working collaboratively on these issues. He would like to leave a vision of Springfield, Eugene, SUB and EWEB working together on this issue. 3. Tasha Briquet, Springfield, OR. Ms. Briquet said she felt it was not uncalled for to increase time for the audience to speak. She said she is a history major and provided some historical context of Columbus Day. She read an excerpt from a letter from Christopher Columbus which said he took Indians by force. She referred to his first voyage in 1492 where he landed in what is currently the Bahamas. On his first voyage, he brought back 10 to 25 natives as slaves and only 7 or 8 of them survived the journey. On his second trip to the Caribbean, he was appointed Governor of the Indies and ruled from 1495 to 1500. During his time as Governor, he demanded whatever he wanted from the native people including goods and slavery of native women and girls. He ruled with cruel veracity, forcing the native people to mine for him and become slaves. Many would not survive. When the population of native City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2016 Page 4 people dwindled, Europe went to other sources for slavery including West Africa. Christopher Columbus helped create the slavery we fought a Civil War over. He was a vile monster contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of natives. She read further from his journal regarding the native people and that they had no worth. She asked if those are the words they wanted celebrated by their children in this city. She asked them to not celebrate the life of this monster, but rather celebrate the life and culture of the Indigenous people. 4. McKayla Figueroa, Springfield, OR. Ms. Figueroa said she is of Puerto Rican heritage, descended from the people of Puerto Rico who also inhabited Cuba, Jamaica, and Hispaniola (modern day Dominican Republic and Haiti) where Christopher Columbus was Governor. For about 150 years, Columbus Day has been celebrated on the second Monday of October. She asked who they were really celebrating. In reality, Christopher Columbus didn’t accomplish anything besides coercing her ancestors into mining gold and farming cotton through enslavement and cruelty in the Caribbean Islands. He is celebrated for discovering America, but you can’t discover a place where an estimated three million people were already living. Also, he was not the first to arrive here. Research has shown that Lief Erickson and his Vikings landed in what is now modern day Canada 500 years before Columbus. Also, mathematicians had proven over a thousand years previous to Columbus sailing that the earth was round, and only the Catholic Church thought it was flat. Experienced explorers for the most part already understood the earth was round, but didn’t know what was on the other side of the Atlantic because the voyage was long and dangerous. Columbus was trying to find a faster route to Asia to help European countries make more money. Americans have been desensitized to the stories of blood, cruelty and tragedy of Native and Black lives in the 15th Century onward. There is nothing left to celebrate about Columbus – he was a lucky, ignorant fool who stumbled onto an island by mistake. She proposed celebrating Indigenous People’s instead so we can celebrate peoples and cultures actually relevant to the history of our nation. 5. Leilani Sabzalian, Springfield, OR. Ms. Sabzalian said she wanted to give some context for their proposal. She is Alutiiq Alaska native and a member of the Chifin Native Youth Center community in Springfield. She asked everyone that supports a resolution to change the second Monday in October to Indigenous People’s Day to stand. The people in this room are citizens and residents of Springfield or community members involved in the Chifin Native Youth Center. They are proposing that the City of Springfield recognize on the second Monday of each October, Indigenous People’s Day. They recognize that the State of Oregon does not actively observe Columbus Day, but given the history of genocide, they believe that a passive stance of not supporting Columbus is not enough. They believe we must actively support Indigenous Peoples in our community. In order to insure that genocide doesn’t happen in the future, they don’t need bystanders to injustice. They had a very strong movement at the Chifin Native Youth Center of a meal, speaking of the legacy of Columbus, speaking of their presence of Indigenous People, and when she came here she felt that powerful and positive momentum was deflated. They had talked to all of the youth about being civically engaged, who their ward representative was, how to reach out to City Council, so they came here for this moment that was so important to them. She knows there are many of them, but she wanted the Council to know this is a very important date for people. People are heartbroken and flustered they will not be able to speak. She continued by saying they can’t be silenced or passive to injustice or oppression; we must be fully aware, not as bystanders but as upstanders and willing to speak up in support of Indigenous issues. Columbus is not history as a colonial legacy that we live with, and history is not even about the past, but about moments that people are faced in the present. The Council is faced with a moment right now where their constituents are telling them, and will be telling them, that Indigenous People’s Day is City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2016 Page 5 important to them. She hopes the story told of this moment is of the City’s courage, integrity, and respect for diversity, all professed City Council values. 6. Sammy Flores, Springfield, OR. Sammy said she attended Thurston High School, was a member of citywide MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlán), and lives in Ward 4, which is represented by Dave Ralston. Indigenous People’s Day is important to her because being indigenous is something she values. It is a day that should be acknowledged, a day where Indigenous people should be recognized. It is important because it represents her and her family. To her, knowing that she is part of an indigenous background makes her value all of the sacrifices her indigenous people went through when Spain colonized them. Everything they went through should never be forgotten; they should be remembered and not buried under white history once again because without them, she wouldn’t be who she is. She is proud to be indigenous, and is from an indigenous tribe from Mexico, part of this whole indigenous land mass. This is something she will never deny, but expose herself and identity. Erasing Columbus Day would help expose true history, their history. She is tired of hearing the history they want them to hear; they want to be acknowledged and their history to be acknowledged. By doing this, they would have the opportunity to retroact a 400 year mistake. 7. Carlos Garcia, Springfield, OR. Carlos said he is a student at Springfield High School and is involved in citywide MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlán). He was born in East Los Angeles California where there are beautiful Indigenous People everywhere. Celebrating Indigenous People’s Day is important to him because it is special for his people. It’s who they are and sadly it got destroyed by European people and Christopher Columbus. Erasing Columbus Day does make his people feel better by not celebrating a day of someone who killed their people. It benefits the community of Springfield by celebrating Indigenous People and showing respect to the elders. Mayor Lundberg reminded the audience that they can attend any Council meeting every other week to speak. There is also the option of writing to the Mayor and Council. She was presented with a resolution earlier today that they will send to the Diversity Committee to review and provide input. She gave her card to Ada and Leilani which includes her phone number. She thanked them all for coming. The City is looking carefully at what the resolution or proclamation would be. It may not be the next week or two, but will be well thought out so it is something everyone can be happy with. She appreciated everyone for coming. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence from Elizabeth Lyon Regarding Cascade Health Solutions and the Springfield Municipal Jail (with attached response from Police and the City Attorney’s office). 2. Correspondence from City Prosecutor Matt Cox Regarding General Order 2016-2, Alternative Payment Policy. Mayor Lundberg said the first letter was from a mother of an inmate at the Springfield Municipal Jail that appeared to have mental health issues that we were not equipped to handle. Interim Chief Lewis said he, Lieutenant Boring and City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith met with the author of the letter, along with Cascade Health. He feels comfortable with the solutions from those meetings. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2016 Page 6 Ms. Smith said the woman’s son was in the Springfield Municipal Jail, but is not currently incarcerated. Ms. Lyons brought to their attention the State bill about the ability to charge private insurance. They looked into that and were grateful for the information. Ms. Lyons also had some ideas about Cascade’s service, and submitted the paperwork. Councilor Ralston said some people have medical needs and are incarcerated. That has been a concern and he asked if it was being addressed. Ms. Smith said the Jail contracts with Cascade Health Solutions who has a nurse practitioner, several EMT’s and mental health professionals (counselors) available to the Jail to help people get their medications. Over time, Cascade Health has developed a good process. Councilor Pishioneri said he was concerned that Cascade Health Solutions (CHS) was unable to provide reports regarding their activity on a regular basis. He thought that would be part of the Request for Proposals (RFP) requirement. Ms. Smith said there is a reporting requirement. CHS’s records are not electronic so it is difficult to pull the statistics together. They do keep HIPAA certified documents of people in the Jail. Ms. Lyon was referring to other facilities such as Lane County Jail, which provide a higher level of services than a municipal jail. They do provide some reporting. Councilor Pishioneri said he understands the difference in operations and level of care, but it is concerning if we aren’t able to get documentation about level of care per circumstance. He asked if they could put in the RFP that we want electronic record keeping so we could have some access and timestamping to give a higher quality of care. Interim Chief Lewis said he could review the contract and discuss setting that standard in the next RFP process. Mayor Lundberg referred to the second letter from City Prosecutor Matt Cox and said she likes the alternative payment process, allowing people to work off fines. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – VANGORDON AND MOORE). BIDS ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments a. Springfield Police Advisory Committee (SPAC) Appointment. Mike Harman, Police Associate Program Manager, presented the staff report on this item. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2016 Page 7 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. David Wyer and Sefiu Ballam were interviewed at the September 19, 2016 Council Work Session for the Minority Community Representative position. The Springfield Police Advisory Committee recommends that David Wyer be appointed to the position, to expire in October 2020. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO APPOINT DAVID WYER TO THE SPRINGIELD POLICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SPAC) FOR A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 2020. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – VANGORDON AND MOORE). 2. Other Business i. Councilor Pishioneri spoke regarding the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) meeting which included funds transferred to the capital fund and equipment replacement funds. They are looking at putting a new pump station in Glenwood. Amber Fossen is moving from MWMC to the City Manager’s Office. ii. Mayor Lundberg said they are working on a fuel tax for the benefit of the community. A committee has been formed and she has handouts to get out to everyone. Mailer and lawn signs will be going out, as well as letters to editors. She thanked all who had been helping. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. 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. This item was removed from the agenda. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:48 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY SEPTEMBER 26, 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 26, 2016 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Arts Commission Interviews. Kristen Cure, Librarian, presented the staff report on this item on behalf of Thea Hart. In response to a press release in July 2016, the Arts Commission received six applications for two vacancies. The Arts Commission interviewed five applicants during its September 13, 2016 meeting. Applicant Robert Green did not attend the meeting. Council Operating Policies state in Section IX, Subsection 1.3) Springfield's boards, commissions, committees, and task forces bring together citizen viewpoints which might not otherwise be heard. Persons of wide-ranging interests who want to participate in public service but not compete for public office may choose to be involved in advisory boards, commissions, committees and task forces instead. They also help fulfill the goals of the City’s adopted Citizen Involvement Program to have an informed and involved citizenry. The Arts Commission requests that two candidates be interviewed by the City Council. The Arts Commission recommends that Jodie Davaz be appointed to the Arts Commission to fill one vacancy to complete the partial term that expires December 31, 2018 and that Andrew Drake be appointed to the Arts Commission to fill the vacancy to complete the other partial term that expires December 31, 2018. The Arts Commission believes the candidates are eligible and qualified to serve on the commission. Following the interviews, the Council will formally ratify the appointments during the Regular Meeting on October 3, 2016. The Council selected which questions each would ask. They introduced themselves and interviewed Jodie Davaz and Andrew Drake. 1. Why do you want to serve on the Arts Commission? (Mayor Lundberg) 2. Have you attended an Arts Commission meeting? If so, what were your impressions? (Councilor Moore) 3. Outside of the monthly Arts Commission meetings, what amount of volunteer time do you have to offer for work involving the Arts Commission? (Councilor VanGordon) 4. Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become an Arts Commissioner? (Councilor Woodrow) City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 26, 2016 Page 2 5. What initiatives are you interested in working on if you are appointed as a Commissioner? (Councilor Pishioneri) 6. Can you give us an example of your experience working with a committee? (Councilor Ralston) 7. Please name one way you would help inform our community about the Springfield Arts Commission and/or Arts Commission’s projects. (Councilor Wylie) Council discussed the applicants and chose to appoint both applicants to the Arts Commission. Formal appointments will be made at the October 3 Council meeting. 2. Safety Grants for City and ODOT Streets. Brian Barnett, Traffic Engineer, and Tom Boyatt, Community Development for Transportation Manager, presented the staff report on this item. He distributed mock checks in the amount of each project. City of Springfield has been awarded safety grants for seven improvement projects to City of Springfield streets and ODOT streets. The program separates funding into “hot spot” and “systemic” projects. Overall, there is a $6.9M allocation into the City of Springfield for Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facilities and City facilities. That is nearly 11% of the allocation for Region 2, which is significant. Overall, the cost/benefit ratio of all seven projects of 8.59/1. The true benefit is the reduction in fatalities and property damage to vehicles. Traditional safety projects sought high crash locations at specific points, i.e. “hot spots” on the street or road. This method is useful to correct problems with a specific, narrowly defined site. Examples are the installation of a curve warning sign with a speed feedback indicator to help drivers reduce their speed enough to negotiate the curve without leaving the roadway or installation of a roundabout or traffic signal to manage vehicle flows through an intersection. “Systemic” safety programs recognize that some crash types are spread along a street and are not associated with a specific site but rather the character of the corridor. In these cases a system wide intervention is needed. Examples of a systemic improvements are adding reflectorized back plates to all signal heads in an urban area or placing center line rumble strips on a rural road when cross-over crashes are prevalent. Of the seven sites funded in the City of Springfield five are “hot spot” and two are “systemic” although the distinction is not rigidly applied. The largest of the awarded projects is for raised safety median treatments along Main Street. An in depth public involvement process to analyze potential economic benefits and impacts of safety medians, by location along the street, is required by state law prior to any final decisions on design or construction. This publicly guided analysis could take one to two years to complete and could be expected to delay final resolution of the Main Street EmX Locally Preferred Solution that is currently underway with the Main-McVay Transit Study, so that design for the two projects is coordinated and complimentary. Councilor Ralston asked if he would review the projects. Mr. Barnett said there is an outline in the council agenda packet, but he could go through them. Councilor Moore asked about the timeline for the projects and the approval process. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 26, 2016 Page 3 Mr. Barnett said all of the projects will be part of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The funding starts in 2019. There will be an opportunity to process some of the projects more vigorously. Others, such as signal changes, are straightforward and can start as those funds are available. Councilor Ralston spoke regarding a raised safety median and said he is not supportive. The businesses along that corridor would agree. Mr. Barnett said it provides benefit and safety. When Mr. Boyatt discusses Senate Bill 408, he will go over the community’s interests and the benefits and challenges. Councilor Ralston said that is a big project. Councilor VanGordon asked about Pioneer Parkway and Q Street and if that project included the westbound I-5 offramp that is in close proximity. Mr. Barnett said it does not include that offramp. Councilor VanGordon asked if that was something to look at for safety in the future. Mr. Barnett said the overall program is driven by benefit/cost ratio. Evidently, the intersection with the ramp at Q Street did not have enough accidents to drive the benefit/cost ratio. When they do start looking at the Q Street and Pioneer Parkway intersection, and see something that the other ramp is integral to that project, he will discuss it with ODOT to determine how it could be addressed. Councilor Wylie asked if there were further descriptions of the projects in the packet. She has a lot of questions about design and the medians. Mr. Barnett said there will be a lot of project development for each of the projects. Mayor Lundberg said these were simply noting which projects were identified. There are no specifics at this time. She asked if the flashing beacons at Gateway and Kruse were the yellow flashing. Mr. Barnett said that would be the yellow crossing signal. Mayor Lundberg said these are projects that are part of this grant, and will have to go through an entire planning process. Mr. Boyatt said the significant award to construct raised medians is conceptual. In 2013, the State passed legislation referred to as Senate Bill 408 which was access management legislation. There are multiple provisions of this bill that gave ODOT further guidance on how to affect accesses. A raised median does not preclude right in/right out so legally doesn’t impact access, but the State understands that a large median project will have real or perceived impacts on how driveways function and businesses perform. ODOT said they needed to do a facility planning effort to figure out where the medians would go, if there are any breaks in the median, what it will ultimately look like, and that it is a well-directed process based on the corridor. There is quite a bit of analysis to see if it would be an economic detriment or benefit. There are some places in the country where business activities goes up when a median is installed, but it can also cause a negative effect. It is a defined process that works with the corridor, the businesses and property owners, develops key principles and goes through an intentional planning process to see if the effective and immediately impacted community can come to City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 26, 2016 Page 4 agreement. The process can take one to two years, and ODOT has pledged they will fund that process. They have brought in their on-call consultant to meet with City and Lane Transit District (LTD) staff to look at what a scope of activity would look like. They want to do it right and in a way the City of Springfield wants. If the Council doesn’t want to move forward with a median study, ODOT would redirect those funds to other Region II projects. Main Street is in the top 10% of very hazardous arterials. Mr. Boyatt noted that it is important to understand we would need to coordinate two projects: transit improvements and median treatments. For that reason, the bulk of the effort going forward would be to get the intergovernmental agreements (IGA) with ODOT for the consultant services, get the work plan together and start looking at the median. With that, the City would not be in a position to approve a locally preferred solution to the transit study until this process was complete. That is the trade-off. There are two choices: first to do the safety work and take pause on the transit; or to decline the offer and keep going with the transit. Councilor Wylie said the design would need to meet the needs of the area. There needs to be flexibility in the median designs with our needs in mind. If that is done with some sensitivity, it will promote the establishment of the safety median. The City has to have input. Mr. Boyatt said if Council wants to explore the design possibilities, they would relay that to ODOT and engage the SB408 process. If they don’t want to see the outcome of that work, they would let ODOT know. It would be corridor based. Councilor Ralston said he feels LTD is doing enough work in the corridor to solve the problem and doesn’t see the need to take funds that could be used somewhere else. Councilor Pishioneri said SB408 is a good bill which requires integration of business and property owners affected by the project. He asked if the process would stop if a segment of the group affected believes they are not being appropriately represented. He has heard similar issues with the LTD process. He wants to make sure people are heard (business and property owners) and he doesn’t want to see any of them negatively impacted. He suggested moving forward with caution, keeping a close eye on the process. Some people feel they aren’t being heard. Mr. Boyatt said ODOT learned a long time ago that they aren’t going to force things on Main Street. They are asking for a Transportation System Plan (TSP) amendment that adopts this process. Tracking a process to make sure it’s fair and transparent becomes everyone’s job. His understanding is that they don’t want to pursue a failure, which raises sensitivity to doing it the right way. If the Council feels the process is adequately conducted and the outcome is acceptable, even if some feel they did not get their way, they will have to work through that and decide how to address that. Councilor Pishioneri said he was fine moving forward with this as long as they could stop it if it starts to negatively impact businesses. Mr. Boyatt said staff would keep Council updated and ODOT will also be at the table. Councilor Woodrow said she had two issues with Main Street: safety; and maintaining traffic flow and accommodating businesses. They blend. She doesn’t think is any business on Main Street that isn’t concerned about safety. When they look at his type of project, they are all looking at it from the same perspective – benefits for businesses, and safety. Sometimes it will be either/or, but usually they can find common ground. She could see some safety benefits of medians, and sees that through this City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 26, 2016 Page 5 process there could be places it is beneficial. They need to be conscious of where it would provide safety and where it would impact businesses. The only way to find out is through this conversation with everyone at the table to put together an analysis of what will and won’t work. She is fine moving forward with the study, but wants to hear the input from everyone and see the outcome. Councilor VanGordon said he is willing to move forward as long as they have another opportunity to say yes or no. He is also concerned about the businesses. This has been a challenge for our community and how to address it one step at a time. They need to determine the communication plan and how to be transparent to businesses about all of the projects. Mr. Boyatt said there would be coordination and they are still figuring out the best way to do that so they can have both sets of conversation at the same time. One influences the other. Councilor VanGordon said that is critical because this is a big project. Councilor Ralston said this should all be done at the same time and LTD should be included. Councilor Moore said she is impressed that ODOT is willing to pay for this process. She sees a lot of staff time involved. Mr. Boyatt said the award for median is a construction award, yet he hasn’t seen the IGA for the funds yet. Councilor Moore said she agrees with Councilor Woodrow that businesses and citizens of Springfield are concerned for safety, but also their businesses. Some people do avoid Main Street due to the safety issues. She wants to see businesses and people on Main Street involved in the process. She is looking forward to success. Mayor Lundberg asked ODOT Area 5 Manager Frannie Brindle if she had comments. Ms. Brindle said Mr. Boyatt had done an excellent job explaining the process and SB408. It is a good idea to take the time to do the study, work with the community, and then decide. Other communities have wrestled with pedestrian medians, worked through a long process, and are now happy with the medians, so it could be a win-win. They know that pedestrians don’t necessarily cross where crosswalks are located, but where it is most convenient. Through the study, they will identify places that meet most needs and will be safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. Mayor Lundberg said if the Council agrees to this process, it affects the LTD transit study. For the good of the order it makes sense to coordinate the projects. This corridor has potential to be a stellar point of contact in the community. LTD’s General Manager Aurora Jackson said typically they are very concerned when they can’t submit an application, but they are currently in the beginning of the Fast Act which is a better position in the cycle of funding. This does change when they will need to submit the application, but could potentially make them more competitive since other agency funds are being leveraged. LTD has been the national model for bus rapid transit and now other communities are their competitors. This is an opportunity to step it up and show more and stronger partnerships, and a different model. She is excited for the different pieces the State is bringing forward. If they were at the end of the funding process, they would be candid about their concerns. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 26, 2016 Page 6 Mayor Lundberg said this process will need us to use the “Springfield Way” to get to agreement. There are big concerns from businesses and they need to have a place at the table where their concerns are addressed. We also need to have safety addressed. She envisions a beautiful corridor that is enticing for businesses and visitors. Whatever can be done to improve the corridor is welcome. Mayor Lundberg said Council was fine moving forward with all of the projects and studies on their own pace. She thanked ODOT for submitting the application and LTD for accommodating the City. Mr. Boyatt said it would take a bit of time to get up and running, so staff will communicate with all stakeholders. They will develop a scope of work for the IGA, accelerate and start in January. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY OCTOBER 3, 2016 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:15 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were Acting City Manager Anette Spickard, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilors VanGordon and Ralston were absent (excused). 1. Downtown Parking Enforcement One-Year Project Update. Courtney Griesel, Economic Development Manager, presented the staff report on this item. The Park Downtown program is key to providing support and amenities to Downtown businesses, residents, employees and visitors. As identified in the 2010 adopted Downtown Vision Plan, the availability and management of publically owned on and off-street parking infrastructure has a direct value to businesses and residents who require access to those spaces. Maintaining a healthy turnover of parking spaces during peak demand hours allows visitors and patrons to access Downtown businesses with ease. Park Downtown program amenities in Springfield include; Free On-Street Parking; 2 & 3 Hour Free Off-Street Parking; 3 Hour Monthly and Quarterly Permits; On and Off Street Areas Residential Permits Special Event Permits Ability to Contest Tickets in an Administrative Setting Opposed to Court Setting The initial first year of the Park Downtown program implementation was focused on education and orientation for Downtown visitors, businesses and residents with an intention to approach enforcement with a soft ‘hand.’ For this reason, forecasted revenues anticipated light enforcement activities, leniency in granting citation voids and a slow rate of permit program adoption, estimating total revenue to approximately $45,000 in the first year. The program carries an annual contracted enforcement cost of $94,164. In anticipation of low revenues in initial start-up years, an additional $50,000 was budgeted in Downtown urban renewal funds to support any projected gap between program revenue and program cost. Due in great part to a higher than anticipated permit program adoption, the Park Downtown program generated approximately $57,400 in the first year ending June 30, 2016. These revenues, including an overview of other program activities like enforcement and permit activities, will be discussed so that Council might provide feedback as staff work to further improve the program in the second year. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 3, 2016 Page 2 Ms. Griesel said she wanted to hear feedback and input the Council has received so they can further enhance the program. Businesses have come together with their neighbors to change their 3-hour parking to 2-hour parking, which is a positive trend. One of the goals is to have the office remain open more hours than currently open. They are currently open three days a week from 8:30am – 5:30pm, taking their lunch in off hours. Additional hours would be more convenient for the customer, but they are trying to balance the cost of the program. She referred to a map showing all of the permit area. The parking spaces are split fairly evenly between Zone A and Zone B with about 350 free spaces in both areas. Zone A has very little residential, other than multi-housing living on Main Street, so staff works with those people often. They manage the Library and Main Street lots offer 3-hour parking off- street (about 70 spaces) and also manage just over 300 permittable spaces. The Main Street Lot 53 has shared parking with long-term permits and 3-hour free spaces. All spaces are free on the weekends and not enforced, although they are still enforcing on the weekends for illegal parking. We do not have RV parking in downtown, but people can pull into a space with the trailer taking up the space behind as long as it is not blocking a driveway or alley. Ms. Griesel reviewed the paying and contesting tickets in Springfield which is different than other communities based on information gathered from other cities and talking with our Court staff. People do not need to go to Court to appeal. The appeal process is done by contacting Republic Northwest and filling out a form. If the appeal is not granted, another form is filled out which goes to the City Manager’s Office for an administrative review. If that second appeal is not granted, it would be filed with the Court and the person could see a judge face-to-face. Filling out the form at each step allows the City to track the process from start to finish. To date, no citations have gone to Court. She has reviewed 6 appeals in the last year through the Administrative Appeals process. Ms. Griesel said the Main Street lot which has a mix of permit holders and free parking has a higher monthly violation trend than any other lot, indicating that better communication is needed. They have been lenient on voiding citations in that lot, and have been aggressive in re-signing and striping. Early in 2016, the citations seemed to drop off so they are feeling better about their communications in that lot. Citations given are more for people who aren’t backing into the spaces. Ms. Griesel noted the Main Street and Library lots in which citizens and visitors generally park. Those lots are watched carefully. There are some ebbs and flows in the enforcement staff which makes it difficult to track consistently. There are some faded lines in the Library parking lot which is problematic making it difficult to park correctly. There are also people parking for long periods of time in the Library parking lot. She referred to on-street areas in Zone A and B. They found that the enforcement officers were not going out to Area B, so after some conversations they have stepped up communication and enforcement in that area. Ms. Griesel said the first six months of the program included a lot of education, flyers and warnings. Things normalized in about January as people became more familiar with the program. She noted the number of voided tickets. They are happy to work with people who call to void their citation. They have been mainly focused over the past year on having a point of contact with those who need permits, have questions or receive citations. Ms. Griesel said we are nearly at 100% in permit sales, with 4 spaces available in the Main Street lot and all other lots sold out. There is a waiting list for people who want a permit in a lot. Ms. Griesel spoke regarding revenue targets. The program is not yet cost neutral and is being subsidized by SEDA Funds which was expected. They are looking at ways to improve the program and close the gap. She discussed other things they could do to close the gap and increase revenues. Over the last year, costs have remained fairly constant. They are focusing on program improvement. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 3, 2016 Page 3 Councilor Woodrow said she had heard concerns from Downtown businesses regarding lack of consistency, which sounds like it is tied into staffing changes. The businesses had noticed cars parked for long periods of time without getting ticketed, while others get ticketed right away. Another concern was having a space for a work truck that might be a contractor working on the property. She asked how they would notify the parking staff. Ms. Griesel said one concept is to include a contractor’s permit with a cost per day, giving them the ability to park on the street while doing the work, although it may be cost prohibitive. One of the business owners she has talked to with that concern said they had attempted to park in a certain space for six months. They are looking into that issue and what other jurisdictions are doing. Councilor Woodrow asked if they had considered offering a one-day pass at no charge. Ms. Griesel said they could apply for a special event pass. They would not encourage that to occur in Zone A on the street because it crosses over the line of taking customer parking away. The Zone B on-street permit is $10 per month, so it is not cost prohibitive. One of the businesses who was most concerned with access for contractors is one intersection from Zone B. Staff is trying to look at how to create a response to someone who legitimately needs it, to someone that just wants a parking space. They are looking into the contractor permit which was not an original permit. If it is something amenable to the Council, staff would propose adding it to the manual and fee schedule. Ms. Griesel said when they initially rolled out the program, they did not oversell any lots. They have been doing occupancy counts daily to help determine whether or not there is an opportunity to sell extra permits in a lot. One way to know is to determine how many spaces are open on a given day. We actually have a relatively high occupancy rate with City Hall north the highest at 79%. One recommendation is to oversell at a rate of 10% as none of the permit areas show less than 20% open at any given time. That could create an additional $4,300 per year. Another element of the program is the monthly special event permit. Based on concerns from surrounding businesses, an opportunity was created for people to apply to use the Main Street lot for special events free of charge. The Library Lot is also used to accommodate larger events. To date, only one small event was rejected because we were already full. The Emerald Arts Association is the heaviest user of special event parking. Currently, those special event passes are free and have been provided as a response to their concerns. Ms. Griesel said as the program has been in place for a year, people do need to start paying attention to their citations. They are still seeing a large percentage of open citations, but would like to have that decrease. Some of that will include continued education and time. She hopes to know more about trending after the next six months. The first batch of ticket holders has been sent to collections. Councilor Moore asked about permit costs for each lot. Ms. Griesel noted the different charges per month for each area. There are no permits in Zone A on- street parking. Councilor Moore said she would like to see an example of a ticket to see how it is written up. She asked about the students and employees of the high schools, and the district office. It would be nice if the City educated students about the parking permits. She asked if the City had reached out to the school district. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 3, 2016 Page 4 Ms. Griesel said the school district had been a great partner and the City had been working with them to communicate to their employees and students. She had also worked with them to get them on the wait list early so most have been accommodated for the move Downtown. Some off-site options were also considered and the district chose to handle most of their parking needs on their site and through the wait list. A3 operates under a separate Board and bylaws from the Springfield School District. The Director of A3 has not been interested in any partnerships or communication to students regarding parking. The Director has communicated to parents, but information has not always been accurate. Staff has done their best to work with parents when they do make contact. Councilor Wylie asked if City employees have to purchase permits and if there was a lot of complaints. Ms. Griesel said they do need to purchase permits, although some opt to park in the Zone B areas. Ms. Spickard said there were some complaints at the beginning, but Ms. Griesel has been very helpful and patient in working with employees. Councilor Wylie asked about schools events. Ms. Griesel said most of their events are in the evening. The parking program works with the events planning if parking on-street or off-street are affected. They are quick to get word out to permit holders. If a group is scheduling an event, they go through the event approval process. There is not a fee to close a parking lot for an event. Ms. Spickard said Development and Public Works handles requests for use of the street or right-of- way, working with the City Manager’s Office on special events. Mayor Lundberg said consistency is an issue they need to focus on. It is legitimate for contractors to have to pay for long-term parking. She thought the oversell concept was fine and made sense. It could be a good idea to charge a minimal amount ($1 or $2 day) for special event parking passes. If it is for classes, they could just add that to the class fee and then pay the City. She does want them to close the gap on open citations. A3 has an attitude she doesn’t like, especially since the City used Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the parking lot improvement giving them parking spaces. That is a discussion she may have with Superintendent Rieke-Smith. Ms. Griesel said Gateways High School is part of the Springfield School District, but A3 is a Charter School. Councilor Pishioneri asked if they kept a list of past voided citations. Ms. Griesel said during the first year, each person got two. In the coming year they will get one. Councilor Pishioneri said there is a long history in Eugene of a parking program for employees. Each employer was to provide a list of employees that worked in the downtown area so they could monitor when they were problematic using the free parking. Licenses were run, and citations were issued. It was very effective and pushed all employees to comply with the parking rules consistently in the years after. He is fine with tracking of noncompliance going to collections. He also noted the Block Face enforcement which could be a great tool. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 3, 2016 Page 5 Ms. Griesel said the cars are not allowed to park in the same block face, but can park one block away. They are using photos to track that people are moving to a different block. They need to allow people to move one block away in case it is a shopper going to a different store. They do not have a high tech program and don’t have license recognition. Councilor Pishioneri said he is fully on board regarding fees for event parking, passing along the cost to the users. That also includes contractor parking. He felt overselling by 10% would be the minimum. Council thanked Ms. Griesel for her work on the Parking Program. Springfield Flame Ms. Griesel and Mr. Laudati displayed a power point showing the Springfield flame sculpture. He reminded the Council that it was fabricated so the contractor paid electricians, steel workers, truck drivers, lift truck operators, crane operators, and many others from Springfield. They have heard some good comments about the flame. In a week from now, they will pour the disc for the lights. An event will be planned in two or three weeks when it is final. The lights in the basket are LED. The artist, Devon Lawrence, designs, produces and installs the sculpture. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY OCTOBER 10, 2016 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday October 10, 2016 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Planning Commission Interview. Greg Mott, Planning Manager, presented the staff report on this item. One candidate has applied for a Planning Commission vacancy created by the term expiration of the position held by Commissioner Steve Moe. Mr. Moe has completed his second (4) year term and is not eligible to apply for a third term. The expiration date of his position was May 5, 2016. The City received one application for this vacancy during a three - month recruitment process: Troy R. Sherwood, who resides at 280 S. 35th Street, Springfield 97478, and is a Telefund Supervisor at the University of Oregon. The Springfield Planning Commission is a seven member volunteer Commission appointed by the City Council. Positions are “at-large”, and do not represent specific geographic areas. The members serve four-year terms that are staggered to avoid more than two positions expiring at the same time. Of the seven members, two appointments may live outside the City limits and two appointments may be involved in the Real estate profession. At present, only Commissioner Nick Nelson is involved in the Real Estate profession; all commission members currently reside within the city limits. The Council decision on this appointment is scheduled for the Regular Meeting of Monday, October 17, 2016. Mr. Mott clarified Mr. Sherwood’s occupation and his academic pursuits. The Council introduced themselves to the candidate and asked the following questions. 1. Why do you want to be on the Planning Commission? (Mayor Lundberg) 2. Based on your own observations and opinions, please describe the type and rate of growth and development that is in the best interests of the City of Springfield? (Councilor Wylie) 3. What is your understanding of the relationship between the Planning Commission and the City Council; and between the Planning Commission and City Staff? (Councilor Ralston) 4. The Planning Commission generally meets two evenings each month and additional evening meetings are sometimes necessary. There are also materials to be reviewed in advance of these meetings that may take a couple of hours to read. Given your work and/or family obligations, will you be able to commit to these new demands on your time as a Springfield Planning Commissioner? (Councilor Pishioneri) City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 10, 2016 Page 2 5. Many of the laws applied by the Planning Commission to evaluate a land use proposal are state or federal pass-through laws; do you believe the Planning Commission should be able to approve alternatives to these laws if the alternatives meet the spirit of the law? (Council Woodrow) 6. How familiar are you with the land use plans and codes the Planning Commission relies on to make land use decisions? (Councilor VanGordon) 7. What do you think is the proper role for the Planning Commission regarding the initiation of new land use policies or development regulations? (Councilor Moore) Council discussed the qualification of the applicant. They chose to appoint him to the Planning Commission during the Regular Meeting on October 17, 2016. 2. Developing an Affordable Housing Strategy. Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager, presented the staff report on this item. The City recognizes that there is an affordable housing issue within the larger community. Staff analyzed the current situation to better understand the extent of the problem and to provide Council a framework for discussing potential strategies the City can employ to improve the situation. We did not attempt to update the analyses prepared for the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis - 2011 or the Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan – 2015. In our analysis, staff narrowed the lens on Springfield and the current housing problems faced by Springfield residents. First, we conducted an analysis of the City’s progress in implementing adopted policies. Then we undertook a quantitative data analysis followed by interviews with a variety of people who work with some aspect of the provision of housing. This work session is an opportunity for the City Council to review the data, discuss the issue of affordable housing and identify desired outcomes. Staff will return in a future work session with potential strategies the Council can explore to foster housing choice and affordability. The financial impact will depend on what Council ultimately includes in the affordable housing strategy. It must be recognized that addressing the affordable housing issue is a complex problem that Springfield does not face alone. The housing market is a regional market, the City does not directly provide housing, and the City must operate within the framework of Statewide Planning Goals, statutes, and rules. However, Council has an important role to play in setting priorities for how staff and resources are used to support efforts that improve housing affordability in our community. Ms. Belson provided a power point. She referred to a series of maps that were developed and included in the agenda packet. One of the main points was the idea of a housing continuum. As people make choices, if something in the continuum is missing, people are stuck where they are located. Without those steps, the gaps become wider. Springfield has done a good job of providing a variety of housing. Factors for housing include: income, assets, demographics, and geography. Ms. Belson said most homes in Springfield are single family detached, but also include some apartments, some duplexes, and mobile homes. Currently, there is a shortage of housing of all types (rental or for sale). In looking at the housing cost burden (paying more than 30% on housing and necessary utilities), there is a large number of households in Springfield spending more than 50% on housing. The cost burden is more for renters. Those most affected are low income households with children, those living on limited or fixed incomes (senior and disabled), and special needs populations (homeless, traumatized, mentally ill, City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 10, 2016 Page 3 developmentally disabled, youth, ex-offenders). Housing costs are increasing faster than incomes. Since 2000, the median house value has increased 43%, median gross rent has increased 39%, and median household income only increased 20%. Another issue is that Springfield has only been building single family homes in recent years. Up until 2015, no apartments had been built since 2008. Mayor Lundberg asked what factors contributed to the lack of apartment complexes built. Ms. Belson said during the interviews, the number one concern was that the system development charges (SDCs) and cost of land were too high. With those costs, projects were not penciling out given the income levels in Springfield. Councilor Ralston says Eugene has done land banking for a long time, buying up inexpensive land. Springfield hasn’t done that and now property is too expensive. Ms. Belson said other issues contributing to the housing shortage include insufficient public subsidy to fill the gaps for low-income housing. Wait lists for public housing are closed or are years long, Section 8 wait list is closed, and over 300 people are on the waiting list for the Royal Building. The waiting lists are the longest for the smallest units. Councilor VanGordon said in reading the packet, it indicates that this is not just an affordable housing issue, but a housing issue as a whole. She asked if the issues she just spoke of relate only to affordable housing or to all housing. Ms. Belson said some of the issues are specific to subsidized housing, but some of their complaints are the same as the market rate apartments. If we don’t have housing at each step, we are going to have problems. Councilor VanGordon said the message is that we are short on housing across the board. Ms. Belson said it will have the biggest impact on lower income housing. Mayor Lundberg said part of the difference is that Eugene has a lot of student housing. She asked if we have people coming to our front counter asking about building apartments. Ms. Spickard said people are looking at parcels in Springfield, and getting information about what it would take to develop. Currently, the City has only has one new market rate apartment being built. Staff doesn’t always know why they don’t go through with a project. We haven’t had an issue with residential in general and have a lot of plotted subdivisions. Mayor Lundberg said we are low in multi-unit housing at all levels. Some retirees or seniors want condominium at market rate. Ms. Spickard said when staff talks with developers they do tell people about the available incentives, although we don’t currently have much. Staff is interested in hearing from Council on where to target incentives. Councilor VanGordon asked if people were finding that projects were not penciling out. Ms. Spickard said some people have said that was the issue. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 10, 2016 Page 4 Councilor Wylie spoke regarding the lack of rooms for single people and recalled how there used to be multi-unit housing with separate sleeping rooms and shared baths, kitchens and living spaces. There isn’t a model for that right now. It would allow more people on each floor and would be a different way to house more people comfortably. Ms. Belson said ways to improve affordable housing include constructing new units in a variety of housing types in a range of price points, maintaining current housing, and providing targeted populations access to housing. From July 2015 through August 2016, the City has paid for repairs on 52 homes of low-income homeowners, assisted 3 low-income households with down payment to purchase a home, and allocated money through the HOME Consortium to assist with the acquisition of the Shady Loop Duplex for a homeless family with a developmentally disabled family member. Construction of Myrtlewood on Main Street is in the process. Next steps as they move forward include determining the outcomes the City wants to achieve, identify and evaluate the tools needed, and develop an affordable housing strategy. Councilor Ralston said Springfield needs more smaller units. Dan Bryant, a pastor at a local church, has been pushing the idea of very small homes for the homeless or very low income. He would like Springfield to get in on the ground level with those. He noted that 30% of the SDC’s goes to Willamalane. Mr. Grimaldi said when comparing the SDCs for Willamalane they are comparable with other communities. The City has high SDCs for stormwater, etc. If the City’s SDCs were more in line with other cities, we would be more comparable. The fact we are comparable to another city, may not mean we have housing that is profitable in this area because of our population. Councilor Ralston said that is one of the subsidies we can consider. He asked if people have to pay the Willamalane SDCs when they get a building permit. He feels the City needs to revisit that topic. He noted that he has been a supporter of Habitat for Humanity for many years and he feels we need to encourage that as well. He doesn’t want to give up on the program of assisting low-income families with down payments to buy a home. Councilor Pishioneri said the Housing Policy Board makes funding recommendations, and since we pulled out of that Board, we are missing out. They also look at identifying grant opportunities that we are missing. He would like to look at the Housing Policy Board to see if it is now a better fit for Springfield and consider getting re-involved. He understands that the Code for accessory building prohibits dwelling units that are less than 800 square feet. That puts a stop on very small places. We also have a prohibition of accessory dwelling units having wheels. He would like to look at some parts of our Code to see what we can do to drop some of the barriers to some of this type of development. He is concerned that builders are building here when the market is so positive. We need to reach out to developers to find out what the City can do to make them want to build here. He wants to create an environment where projects can pencil out and move forward. We may have to be innovative and be an advocate for the project as opposed to a governing body with road blocks. He is happy with the Planning Department, but feels we need to promote the tools we have which will make it better for the City and the developers. He asked if the residential land studies were accurate in showing we had adequate residential land. We could also approach Willamalane about cutting SDCs to help stimulate development. He felt more could be done through our codes. Councilor VanGordon said this is very complicated. It is important to note that the biggest driver to get people out of poverty is to focus on economic development to employ people and give them good wages. The Council has a role in advocating for a legislative agenda as this is a huge topic statewide and nationwide. Last year a pilot program was started to bring in more land as long as it was used for City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 10, 2016 Page 5 affordable housing, and that is something the City should stay on top of. If the pilot results are positive, he might be interested in looking into something like that or anything else that would help with housing. There are more partnerships involving the homeless such as RV parking on industrial sites, but they need to expand those programs. He would like the City to look into the mini homes, and maybe find a partner to start a pilot project. He is concerned with why people are not building multi-family homes with the current economic climate. It may be worth coming back to discuss what a rate is for rentals and see how to make that pencil out. That could help design the appropriate incentives. He liked the SDC waiver that was implemented several years ago, but wanted to look at why it may not have been effective at that time. He is also good with looking at zoning changes, and comparing the data regarding housing with the land study. He is also open to looking at a land banking model. Councilor Moore referred to a statement in the Policy Analysis, that “We have not taken any recent proactive measures to educate people about the requirements for fair housing, nor have we been made aware of any claims of housing discrimination”. The City doesn’t license housing for rentals. It would be good to meet with the landlords and renters, and let renters know their rights. As she has been out in the community, she has seen a lot of needs in some of this housing. Perhaps they need to raise the standards for landlords. She referred to Councilor Wylie’s idea of a boarding house option and noted that she and her husband rent out bedrooms where they have a shared bathroom. They considered expanding, but there were some restrictions in the Code. She feels the Code needs to be reviewed. Councilor Moore continued that Rotary was in the process of doing a tiny temporary house at Catholic Community Services which is being designed by Gateway. There needs to be some small permanent quality housing now that the interest rates are so low. The City has emphasized ownership which may have been to the detriment of rental housing. Habitat for Humanity builds great houses that are well insulated, taking advantage of implementing measures to keep costs for utilities down. When development of low-income housing is encouraged, she would want the standards to stay high so they would be built to last and benefit the person living there. She thanked Sandy for the comprehensive information. Councilor Ralston feels the City needs to know the footprint of a 50-unit apartment complex so we can identify sites and let possible developers know. We need that information ahead of time. Councilor Woodrow said she would like to see how they could match rental and mortgage costs by using incentives to the needs of the community. For example, what is affordable for a family of four, and what do we have to offer. She would like to see the land study revisited, and also look at information on land banking. She also doesn’t understand why we aren’t getting more development when the market is so strong. She would like to see what they can do to encourage development. Councilor Wylie said in the 1980s and 1990s, the non-profit she worked for had homes they were trying to rent as apartments to low-income people. She feels the rise of homelessness came along with the rise of code enforcement. They had to take five of their apartments out of circulation because the ceilings were too low. We have a homeless problem, and also very high code standards. We need to decide how strict we are with our codes. She asked if we could look at our codes to see if they have to be so strict, so we can allow these types of apartments. Councilor Moore said some people not aware of the zoning of their property or the requirements, but she is not sure how to let people know. It might be beneficial for people to know and for developers to know. This is a complicated issue. She wants to encourage people to live in our community. Councilor VanGordon said there needs to be better communication between non- profits and people waiting for low-income housing regarding the programs and incentives. It is not always clear about City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 10, 2016 Page 6 whether or not they get the deposit back, etc. Whatever strategy is chosen, they need to send some talking points back to the HOME Consortium so everyone is aware of the programs and incentives and how they work. Mayor Lundberg said there were CDBG funds and they didn’t have anyone step forward. Communication was an issue. Councilor Pishioneri wants solutions from staff and a list of recommendations from staff to help Council make some policy decisions. Staff are paid and are the experts, and he would like them to come up with a list of solutions including the trade-off for each. Mayor Lundberg said the first thing is for the Council to choose who they want to target. The cost burden in Springfield is lower than in Eugene. They need to determine what problem they are trying to solve, who is the target population and why, and what sort of housing is the most appropriate. She pointed out that they placed all of their high density housing in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, so there is a lot of opportunity there. We have to provide people with the opportunity to move up and to move down on the housing continuum. Councilor Pishioneri said based on the housing continuum, if we create a pocket, we cause a pocket. We need to provide a culture of development, and supply and demand will take care of the housing types built. Mayor Lundberg referred to the affordable housing project that was supposed to go into Glenwood. Ms. Belson said funds were allocated to Housing and Community Services Agency (HACSA) of Lane County to assist with the purchase of property and they are still hoping to build that facility. They decided not to apply for low-income tax credits this round as they are working on the Bascom Village project currently. They would like to apply in the future. HACSA’s Board is meeting this month to discuss extending the option for purchase with the property owner. The proposed development is around 100 units. Mayor Lundberg asked what would be the most helpful for staff so the Council could make the policy choices to accommodate the needs. She agrees with Councilor Pishioneri about accessory dwellings and homes on wheels. She referred to a program being started in Oakridge where they will be taking uninhabitable mobile home frames and building homes on them for about $30,000. They just need places to locate the houses. She feels revisiting the residential land study may be too much at this time. Councilor VanGordon said right now they should compare the information on the residential land study with this information, look at what is happening and what has changed. He wants to understand the two of them together. Mayor Lundberg said it would be good to compare it with what’s different today. Councilor Woodrow referred to the cost burden and that with whatever they do, they want to look ahead to the future and have the cost burden go down. Councilor Moore said rents have increased exponentially in Portland. She asked if there was a potential of that happening in Springfield. She asked if there was a way to counteract that type of thing. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 10, 2016 Page 7 Mayor Lundberg said that would be rent control and the Council is not interested in getting involved with that. She asked Ms. Belson if she had a sense of direction. Ms. Belson said what she heard was that they have a lot of ideas in different areas. She said she could categorize what the Council has given her, helping them understand the impacts of some of those suggestions, and providing options of what could be done. Mayor Lundberg said she wants to make sure they look at land banking and what that would take, and to review our residential lands study and compare it with what we have. A residential land inventory would be included in the study. She noted that the study was done in 2009 and we haven’t had any multi-family housing built since 2008, the study should be fairly accurate. Councilor Pishioneri said he knows investors who are interested on accessory dwellings, but there are things in the Code that hold them up. He wants to get something done as soon as possible. He suggested holding some workshop with developers. Mayor Lundberg said they have another round of HOME funds and there was money for Springfield. Because it was the first year of the new process and no one was ready. A lot of the subsidy style housing will be based on the Consolidated Plan, and Springfield still has home ownership as a slightly higher percentage than rental. Councilor Ralston said we need to look at zoning. Mayor Lundberg said it may be worth checking with those that are starting to build units, why they decided to go forward. Mr. Grimaldi said they may want to look at short-term and then long-term strategies. It may take a couple more meetings to cover everything. Mayor Lundberg said this topic is very important, and they need to do something to address growth. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY OCTOBER 17, 2016 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday October 17, 2016 at 6:28 p.m., with Council President Marilee Woodrow presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Council President Woodrow and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Mayor Lundberg was absent (excused) 1. Amendment of Springfield Development Code Standards, Section 5.15 Minimum Development Standards, Specifically Sections 5.15-100- Purpose and 5.15-110- Applicability; Expanding the Size and Type of Development Projects Eligible for Ministerial Processing in the City of Springfield, Case TYP416-00002. Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor, presented the staff report on this item. This is a revisiting of a ministerial code standard that was reviewed with Council and sent to the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) for further review and drafting of recommendations. The purpose was to make Springfield more competitive in development. Councilor VanGordon served as the liaison to that committee. A work session is scheduled for February to give the Council a report on the rest of the work done by the DAC. The amendment being discussed this evening is something they felt could be addressed now as a tool for making the development process more efficient. Mr. Donovan referred to the recommendation in the proposal regarding the size limitations of the affected sites, both of which were proposed to be doubled. The proposal under review is to amend Sections 5.15-100, specifically Section 5.15-105(D) to enlarge the sites eligible for consideration from 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet of new impervious or gross floor area under Minor MDS review procedures and from 25,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet of new impervious or gross floor area under Major MDS review procedures; and expand the Applicability standards at Section 5.15- 110(A)(3)(a-d) to include all Commercial, Industrial, Medium and High Density Residential Zoning Districts to list of eligible zones. Sections 5.15-110(A)(3)(a-d) will continue to provide the applicability, location and public notice standards within the applicable zoning districts with minor revisions. This proposal for minor changes to the existing MDS standards only streamlines the review process for minor or simple development proposals and does not reduce any development or public notice standards. However, the minor revisions proposed may have significant efficiencies in terms of cost and timing for the development community. Mr. Donovan reviewed the criteria: A.1 Conformance with the Metro Plan A.2 Conformance with Applicable State Statutes A.3 Conformance with Applicable State-Wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 17, 2016 Page 2 Council was scheduled to hold a public hearing on the criteria. The Planning Commission vetted the criteria during a public hearing, and has included their unanimous recommendation of approval on the criteria. The criteria are in conformance with the Metro Plan, with applicable State statutes, and with applicable State-wide planning goals and administrative rules. The staff report includes the following: “neither the metro plan nor state planning goals reaches down to this level of a ministerial process”. He discussed the findings and how they applied to the Metro Plan, and State statutes, goals and rules. Staff feels this efficiency measure provides flexibility yet retains standards. Staff feels the ordinance and the minor revisions comply with the Metro Plan. Public notice was provided for this process and they have had an extensive public involvement process with the DAC, which includes members of the development community and the public at large. He continued to explain how the proposal complied with State goals and statutes. Councilor Pishioneri asked what the pluses and minuses were for development with the proposed amendments. He wants to know if the City is giving up anything through this change. Mr. Donovan said our interests are overlapping with the development community. The tool does provide a ministerial review that can be done concurrently with the building permit. The DAC was looking for procedures that could be done in approximately 30 days, similar to the MDS process. Staff feels the complexity should allow us to stay within 30 days. MDS is a tool that is subsidized by the City and we don’t recover all costs. That was a decision by the Council as it helps both small businesses and other businesses. At this point, this change is a time saver rather than a money saver. The possible downside will be the initial roll-out and education. There will be times when people want to use MDS, but because the site may require further infrastructure, etc. it may require a site plan review. Staff will not always be able to use MDS. There are times now when they have some flexibility in using MDS, but still provide public notice to the neighboring properties. Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted to continue to look at ways to make the process more efficient. Mr. Donovan said he would bring the rest of the DAC’s recommendations to the February13 work session. This was the DAC’s recommendation on this particular process. Councilor Moore asked if this process was only for an addition to a property and not a new development. She gave the example of someone wanting to make a duplex into a four-plex. Mr. Donovan said it is correct that this process could be used in that situation. If they have a large expansion of multi-unit residential and multi-unit design standards which could warrant a site plan. If an existing multi-unit residential building wanted to put in additional multi-unit housing and the utilities were in place, this process could be used. Councilor Moore said she owns property in medium density zoning, and knows there are limitations on what can be done. This process could save some costs in the appropriate situation. Councilor VanGordon said he sat through all of the DAC meetings and felt this was a good change, making Springfield more competitive. It helps with certainty and timing and he is fully supportive of this change. They still need to do more and those conversations are underway. Councilor Wylie asked if they could make the language easier to understand. It is difficult to share with people who are not in government. She understands it has to meet legal requirements. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 17, 2016 Page 3 Mr. Donovan said they have put in a four step process at the beginning of the MDS information to help simplify it for the developers. Mr. Grimaldi said over time our Code has gotten bigger and bigger. They are looking into whether or not they want to spend significant time to make it more user friendly. Councilor Ralston said it needs to be specific enough to cover all the technical aspects. Mr. Donovan said staff tries to explain this to those coming in to the counter. Councilor Woodrow agreed that this is the first step and the first tool. She looks forward to getting more done. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY OCTOBER 17, 2016 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday October 17, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., with Council President Woodrow presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Council President Woodrow and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Mayor Lundberg was absent (excused). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council President Woodrow. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims a. Approval of the September, 2016, Disbursements for Approval. 2. Minutes a. September 6, 2016 – Regular Meeting b. September 12, 2016 – Joint Elected Officials Work Session c. September 12, 2016 – Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing d. September 19, 2016 – Work Session e. October 3, 2016 – Regular Meeting 3. Resolutions a. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-26 – A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CITY PROJECT P21063; GLENWOOD CONNECTOR PATH EXTENSION. b. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-27 – A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CITY PROJECT P21093; GATEWAY PAVEMENT PRESERVATION 4. Ordinances a. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 17, 2016 Page 2 b. ORDINANCE NO. 6358 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, “GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION” SECTION 2.340 “RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE” OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE (SMC) TO MATCH UPDATED OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND UPDATING THE DEFINITION OF CITY RECORDS. 5. Other Routine Matters a. Approval of the Brand Name Specification Exemption Request for Street Light Poles, LED Retrofit Kits, Cobra Head LED Fixtures, Decorative LED Fixtures, Powder Coating and Photo Electric Controls Authorizing Brand Name Merchandise to be Specified in Future Street Lighting Projects. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM 4.A. REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ITEMS REMOVED 4. Ordinances a. ORDINANCE NO. 6357 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 7.700, 7.706, 7.708, and 7.726 TO ADD DEFINITIONS AND CLARIFY DUTIES OF BOOKING AGENTS AND HOSTS OF SHORT TERM RENTAL LOCATIONS. Councilor Moore said because she rents out part of her home as an Airbnd, she would recuse herself and not be voting on this item. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO APPROVE ITEM 4.A. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST AND 1 ABSTENTION (MOORE) 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. Amendment of Springfield Development Code Standards, Section 5.15 Minimum Development Standards, Specifically Sections 5.15-100- Purpose and 5.15-110- Applicability; Expanding the Size and Type of Development Projects Eligible for Ministerial Processing in the City of Springfield, Case TYP416-00002. ORDINANCE NO. 3 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.15 MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS 5.15-100- PURPOSE AND 5.15-110- APPLICABILITY; EXPANDING THE LOCATION, SIZE AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR MINISTERIAL PROCESSING; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor, presented the staff report on this item. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 17, 2016 Page 3 Shall the City of Springfield amend Minimum Development Standards, Springfield Development Code Section 5.15-105(D) to enlarge the sites eligible for consideration under MDS standards from 25,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet of new impervious or gross floor area; and expand the Applicability standards at Section 5.15-110(A)(3)(a-d) to include all Commercial, Industrial, Medium and High Density Residential Zoning Districts in the list of zones where qualifying projects may submit for MDS review procedures. The Director of Development and Public Works initiates this request pursuant to City Council’s direction to assist the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and bring forth Development Code revisions recommended by the DAC to improve the efficiency, and thereby the competitiveness, of Springfield’s development review procedures. After consideration of ministerial and quasi-judicial review procedures in the course of their work the DAC recommends the attached code revisions for Planning Commission and City Council review and consideration. Specifically, the proposed Development Code text amendments would double the size of development sites eligible for consideration under the MDS standards and expand the Applicability standards at Section 5.15-110(A)(3)(a-d) to include all Commercial, Industrial, Medium and High Density Residential Zoning Districts in the list of zones where qualifying projects may submit for ministerial review procedures. If the proposed Development Code text amendments are adopted, developers may request to submit developments approximately one acre in size under ministerial review procedures. The Springfield Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments, conducted a public hearing and forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval on September 20th, 2016. The Staff Report and Planning Commission recommendation address the Criteria of Approval for Amendments of the Springfield Development Code and Staff’s recommendation of approval. Staff recommends the City Council conduct a public hearing and consider any testimony received along with the proposed changes, the Staff Report, the Planning Commission Order and Recommendation in reaching a decision to approve, approve with revisions or deny the proposed amendments. A draft Ordinance is attached for Council consideration. Councilor President Woodrow opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Councilor President Woodrow closed the public hearing. NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY. 2. Supplemental Budget Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-28 – A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING FUNDS: GENERAL, STREET, SPECIAL REVENUE, TRANSIENT ROOM TAX, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, BUILDING CODE, FIRE LOCAL OPTION LEVY, POLICE LOCAL OPTION LEVY, BANCROFT REDEMPTION, BOND SINKING, REGIONAL WASTEWATER REVENUE BOND CAPITAL PROJECT, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CAPITAL, DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, REGIONAL WASTEWATER CAPITAL, STREET CAPITAL, SANITARY SEWER OPERATIONS, REGIONAL WASTEWATER, AMBULANCE, STORM DRAINAGE City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 17, 2016 Page 4 OPERATIONS, STORM DRAINAGE OPERATIONS, STORM DRAINAGE OPERATIONS, STORM DRAINAGE OPERATIONS, STORM DRAINAGE OPERATIONS, BOOTH-KELLY, REGIONAL FIBER CONSORTIUM, INSURANCE, VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT, AND SDC ADMINISTRATION FUNDS. Budget Officer Paula Davis presented the staff report. At various times during the fiscal year, the Council is requested to adjust the annual budget to reflect needed changes in planned activities, to recognize new revenues, or to make other required changes. These adjustments to resources and requirements change the current budget and are processed through supplemental budget requests scheduled by the Finance Department on an annual basis. This is the first of three scheduled FY17 supplemental budget requests to come before Council. The supplemental budget being presented includes adjusting resources and requirements in General, Street, Special Revenue, Transient Room Tax, Community Development, Building Code, Fire Local Option Levy, Police Local Option Levy, Bancroft Redemption, Bond Sinking, Regional Wastewater Revenue Bond Capital Project, Development Assessment Capital, Development Projects, Regional Wastewater Capital, Street Capital, Sanitary Sewer Operations, Regional Wastewater, Ambulance, Storm Drainage Operations, Storm Drainage Operations, Storm Drainage Operations, Storm Drainage Operations, Storm Drainage Operations, Booth-Kelly, Regional Fiber Consortium, Insurance, Vehicle & Equipment, and SDC Administration funds. The City Council is asked to approve the attached Supplemental Budget Resolution. The overall financial impact of the Supplemental Budget Resolution is to increase capital projects by $2,586,953 and the unappropriated ending fund balance by $31,373. These effects are offset by beginning cash adjustments of $11,684,061, reserve increases of $10,730,115, revenue erratum of $360,989, decreases in operating expenditures of $1,914,570, and decreases in interfund transfers of $57,088. Ms. Davis said changes to the budget included in this request fall into three general categories: reallocation of existing resources, re-appropriations or carryovers, and new appropriation requests. Reallocations move existing approved budget authority between funds or between departments. These adjustments can include reallocating reserves within a fund and beginning cash adjustments. Re-appropriations or carryovers represent money that was committed by contract in the previous year but the contracted work was not completed within the fiscal year. The prior year’s remaining budget amount needs to be appropriated into this year’s budget to allow final payments to be made in the current year. Re-appropriations also may include money for capital projects that were planned but not completed in the prior year. The projects are still scheduled and funds are being carried forward to the current year’s budget. Ms. Davis reviewed the changes being presented in the supplemental budget. Councilor VanGordon asked what GEMT stood for. Fire Chief Zaludek said it stands for Ground Emergency Medical Transport, which is Medicaid assistance to fire crews that are preparing patients for transport in an ambulance. Oregon just signed the law in March to allow the fire service to bill for work done prior to transportation in an ambulance, similar to Washington and California. Consultants walked the process through this at the legislative City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 17, 2016 Page 5 level. This first legislation gives them the ability to participate at a small level and then help with the rule writing next year. Rules will be written by this time next year and will be retro to July 2017. Ms. Davis continued with review of the new requests. Councilor Pishioneri asked about an expense for Fire Station #5. Ms. Davis said it was for general maintenance throughout the building and in the landscaping. Mr. Grimaldi said it is for things that are worn out. The station is about 16 years old. Council President Woodrow opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Council President Woodrow closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2016-28. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS 1. Downtown Lights Phase 2 Authority to Award Bid. Brian Barnett, Traffic Engineer, presented the staff report on this item. Staff requests Council authorization for the City Manager to award the bid for project P21102 Downtown Lighting – Phase 2 to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder upon expiration of the bidders’ protest period. This Downtown Lighting project is the second phase of the downtown lighting improvements effort that began with Phase 1 in January 2015. This second phase consists of the installation of pedestrian level street lighting on Main Street between approximately Mill Street and 8th Street, with the possible expansion to 10th Street dependent on the costs associated with the bids received. Staff estimates the cost of this project to be between $375,000 and $425,000 if all aspects of the project are awarded. The bids for the subject project are scheduled to be opened on October 13, 2016, so the lowest responsive bidder and the amount of the requested bid award is unknown. In an effort to maintain the current project schedule staff is requesting that Council authorize the City Manager to award the bid to the lowest, responsible bidder once it has been determined. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 17, 2016 Page 6 The Municipal Code sets administrative limits on the City Manager’s signature authority to award bids where cost exceeds certain limits imposed by the Code except in certain cases of City Council approval. For this project to proceed at an accelerated pace, the Council may choose to authorize the City Manager to award this bid. If Council moves to authorize the City Manager to award the bid subject to normal bidders’ protest procedures the bid award could be approved by the City Manager on October 21, 2016 and start the process for ordering materials. In the alternative if Council elects to award on the ordinary schedule, bid award would be requested at the November 21, 2016 Council Meeting delaying the ordering of materials. Materials ordered late in October or in early November are likely to be delivered by the end of December since manufacturers are motivated to meet sales goals by year end. The reduction in time from bid opening to bid award is valuable to achieving the goal of beginning in-street construction in early January. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD THE BID FOR PROJECT P21102 DOWNTOWN LIGHTING – PHASE 2. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ORDINANCES 1. Proposed Text Amendment to Section 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 of the Springfield Development Code. Greg Mott, Planning Manager, presented the staff report on this item. The applicant has submitted a request for a Development Code text amendment to expand the type of WTS facilities allowable within the PLO District. The requested text amendment proposes to add the Public Land and Open Space District to the list of zoning districts where stealth, low visibility, and moderate visibility WTS facilities are allowable. The proposed Development Code text amendment would expand the provisions for WTS facilities within the PLO District. Currently, only stealth and low visibility WTS facilities are allowable within PLO zoned properties. The requested amendment affects Section 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 of the SDC and would move the PLO District from the third (bottom) tier to the second (middle) tier of zoning districts listed in Table 4.3-1. A footnote also would be added to Table 4.3-1 specifying that the provisions for moderate visibility WTS facilities within the PLO District are limited to properties within the City limits only. The applicant is requesting the expanded list of WTS facilities allowable within the PLO District because these properties are usually adjacent to residentially-zoned land and are well-distributed throughout the city. A map showing the location of PLO zoned properties within the city has been provided for context. If the Development Code text amendment is adopted, moderate visibility WTS facilities proposed within the PLO District would be subject to standard Type III Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review proceedings in accordance with SDC 4.3-145.H. The height of WTS facilities in the PLO District would be limited to 150 feet high, or not greater than the horizontal distance between the base of the tower and the nearest residential district, whichever is less. At the public hearing meeting on October 3, 2016, the City Council requested additional information on the potential effects of the requested text amendment, including increased development setbacks City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 17, 2016 Page 7 and distribution of potentially eligible sites relative to residential land uses. The City Council voted to keep the public hearing record open until October 10 for submittal of additional information. The applicant has provided an evaluation of development setbacks and the Discretionary Use review and approval process. Staff has reviewed and concurs with the applicant’s summary of the Discretionary Use process that serves to regulate the location and design of moderate visibility WTS facilities within the city. During the open record period a written comment was submitted by Robert Drake. Mr. Mott referred to maps provided to the Council. He noted that Code required a 2000 foot separation between cell towers. There is an exemption to that, but it requires a significant amount of data and justification. Councilor Ralston said the map shows two cell towers within that distance so there must be ways for them to locate closer than 2000 feet. He asked if that was being prohibited, or allowed under certain circumstances. Mr. Mott said when those went in the City didn’t have an ordinance requiring a 2000 foot separation. Council subsequently adopted that standard, although there are exemptions which may allow them to be closer. The objective in preparing the map was to show the sites where the moderate visibility tower could be located. By virtue of some of the existing poles, some of those sites would be eligible and some would not. Under normal circumstances, the City doesn’t see a lot of property rezoned PLO. Councilor Pishioneri noted the locations on the map zoned PLO in which they could request siting a pole. He is fine moving forward with this particular request, but wants to look at the Code in terms of distance of towers from boundaries. He wants to look at that limitation as he has concerns about placing those towers in some of the PLO’s in the City with only the height of the tower as a setback. He would like to look at doubling the setback, which would minimize the number of towers allowed on PLO sites. Mr. Mott said maximum height of towers is currently 150 feet. Councilor Pishioneri said the setback issue is not applicable for this location, but looking at other sites it may be pertinent. Councilor VanGordon said there is already a restriction of not being 2000 feet of each other. Mr. Mott said he couldn’t say with certainty how many would be eliminated with a larger setback. Councilor Pishioneri said he wants to address the concerns from neighbors who live near PLO land about having a cell tower in nearby parks. Mr. Mott said all sites may be able to accommodate shorter towers. Discussion was held regarding the concerns and the implications in other areas around the City if the ordinance is adopted. Councilor Moore said she appreciated the letter from Verizon answering their questions, as well as the letter from Mr. Blake. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 17, 2016 Page 8 Ms. Smith said if the Council adopted the ordinance before them, it would open it up to all PLO lands. The next discussion would be on the other topics Councilor Pishioneri referred to regarding setbacks. Adopting the ordinance tonight would make it effective in 30 days. The most conservative path would be not to act tonight and schedule a work session on November 7 to discuss the other issues. Councilor Moore said she is comfortable going forward knowing that PLO sites are publicly owned. Councilor Woodrow said she is comfortable taking a vote on the proposed ordinance tonight, and scheduling a work session to discuss the other concerns. Discussion was held regarding what would happen if they adopted the ordinance. Anyone applying for a cell tower would have to go through the process and abide by whatever standards were in place at the time. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON ORDINANCE NO. 6359. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR AND 1 OPPOSED (PISHIONERI). BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments a. Planning Commission Appointment. Greg Mott, Planning Manager, presented the staff report on this item. The seven-member Planning Commission has one vacancy: Mr. Steve Moe served two four-year terms and by Municipal Code rules is not eligible for a third term. The City received one application for one position. Mr. Sherwood was interviewed during the October 10, 2016 Council work session. Upon conclusion of the interview, Council reached preliminary consensus regarding Mr. Sherwood, subject to formal appointment during a Regular Meeting of the City Council. The Springfield Planning Commission is a seven member volunteer Commission appointed by the City Council. Municipal Code rules allow two appointees to live outside the city limits and up to two appointees to be involved in the real estate profession. All positions are “at-large” and do not represent geographic areas. Currently the Planning Commission has no members that live outside the City limits, and one member, Commissioner Nelson, who is in the real estate profession. Formal appointment is requested for Mr. Troy R. Sherwood, a Telefund Supervisor with the University of Oregon. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO APPOINT TROY R. SHERWOOD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A TERM EXPIRING MAY 5, 2020. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 17, 2016 Page 9 2. Other Business i. Councilor Moore said the EmX Steering Committee was cancelled this month. She attended the First Friday Community of Color social event in Eugene. She would like to see more involvement from Springfield in that organization. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:43 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY OCTOBER 24, 2016 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday October 24, 2016 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri (6:00pm). Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Joint Historic Commission Meeting. Mark McCafferey, Planner, presented the staff report on this item. City Council Operating Procedures Section IV 6.4 states that Commission member liaisons are responsible for making an annual report of the Commission’s activities to the City Council. This meeting fulfills that requirement. In 2009, the City Council and Springfield Historic Commission established a new schedule for communication to better align Commission activities with Council goals and other City initiatives, resulting in biennial joint work sessions. During the last biennial joint work session in October 2014, the Commission presented the findings of a community survey on Historic Preservation and initiated a conversation regarding observed limitations of Springfield’s Historic Overlay District in ensuring efficient and effective implementation of the City’s historic preservation policies. For this year’s joint work session, the Commission will share findings from a recent reconnaissance level survey focusing on structures outside of the Washburne District that were constructed prior to 1915. The Historic Commission applies for Certified Local Government grant funding from the State Historic Preservation Office to support its activities and matches that financial support with in-kind staff and volunteer time. The Historic Commission applied for and received $12,000 in grant funds to support its activities from April 2016-August 2017. The Commission will share with the Council the work items the grant will fund, including but not limited to continued research and documentation of the lumber industry history and related resources of the City. Mr. McCafferey said tonight they would be reviewing the Reconnaissance Survey, which was an assessment of properties outside the Washburne Historic District. The other item in the agenda packet which they may not discuss in detail is the Lumber Heritage Context Statement. This statement analyzes the importance of the lumber industry since the 1850’s and how the industry evolved over time. As part of the new grant, the Historic Commission would continue the work done by a consultant from 1900’s-1970’s. The following Commission members introduced themselves: Tim Hilton is the current chair and has been on the commission for 6 years; and Bruce Berg who has served on the commission for two years. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 2 Mr. Hilton presented a power point and discussed the Springfield Selective Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS). He said that he and former Historic Commission member Kerry Barbero conducted a survey of historic structures built in 1915 or earlier that were located in the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB). This was done to familiarize themselves with the oldest historical resources in the City. The objectives of this survey were: To establish complete & accurate list of all Springfield’s extant historic resources dating 1915 & older. To identify known sites of demolished resources that were essential in Springfield’s early development. To document resources not identified on previous surveys, & update information for those already on record. To identify resources eligible for individual listing or multiple property submission on National Register or on City's Historic Landmark Inventory. Mr. Hilton referred to several maps and photos used during this survey. There are three parts to an RLS: data; written report; and mapping. There were many resource types as part of the survey including final residential structures, graveyards, early bridges, and parks. The statistics for the report included the condition of the sites or if they had been demolished. The most represented style category was the Victorian Era style. Mr. Hilton said properties from 1966 and prior are considered historic. There is a lot of emphasis now to look at the 1965 end rather than the late 1800’s end of the spectrum. They want to proceed, but there are still some of the very oldest resources still standing. He referred to a photo of the Williams Stevens House (1851) and church addition on 450 Game Farm Road. Williams Stevens was the first settler in Springfield. The home has been lost, but the form is still there. Other early properties included the Frederick L. Gray house (1861), the Thurston-Dorris-Briggs house (1872-1874), the Campbell House (1873), and the Adkins House (1870’s). They also found rediscovered treasures such as the Mountain States Power Co (1900) located at S 7th Street and Millrace, a house at 130 F Street (1872) which may be part of the John Kelly legacy, the Seever-Baugh House (1889), the Picket-Tillet House (1890), the Bruno Vitus House (1890), the McPhereson/Johnson House (1905), a farmstead on Anderson Lane (1910), and the Brabham Barn (1910). He referred to photos of places that were no longer still standing such as the Brattain-Hadley House, Hayden/Marcola Bridge, Springfield Flour Mills, Streetcar Bridge, and Old Deadmond Ferry. Some homes were demolished after they were surveyed. Mr. Hilton reviewed the recommendations from the survey: • Conduct additional RLS, ILS & archeological surveys. • Multiple Property Submission NRHP (i.e. farmhouses, mill cottages). • Develop additional context statements. • Seek grant assistance through SHPO & other sources to help fund above activities & to help fund costs of application fees for listing historic structures on City Historic Landmark Inventory. • Continue partnership with the University of Oregon’s HP Program. • Seek professional-level assistance from Historic Preservation Consultants. • Continue GIS mapping of Historic Sites, Features and Elements in the Urban Landscape, and further integration of SHPO database into the City’s property database. Mr. Hilton discussed the Intensive Level Survey for either the NHR (National Historic Registry) listing or Local Conservation listing. In years past, old homestead houses were not slated to be saved, City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 3 but that has changed in recent years. He displayed photos of other homes in Springfield that could be surveyed and saved. He noted three buildings designed by Architect John Hunzicker: the Oddfellows Building, The WOW Hall, and the Seavey Building/Bell Theater. Mr. Hilton spoke regarding cemeteries and noted that Springfield has two good Victorian cemeteries: Laurel Grove and Mt. Vernon. He displayed photos on the Springfield Farmhouse Multiple Listing including: Thurston-Dorris-Briggs House; Frederick L. Gray House, the house at 130 F Street, Anderson Lane Farmstead; Koppe House; Cockerline Drive; Rice House; Brabham Farm House; Scott House; Bruno Vitus House; Tucker-Barnet House; Simmons House; Picket-Tillet House; McPhereson-Johnson House; and Seever-Baugh House. Mr. Hilton discussed the recommendations for further RLS include: 1. Resurvey Washburne Historic District Including Accessory Structures 2. Survey Mill Sites and Related Industrial and Commercial Resources Identified in the ‘Lumber Heritage Context Statement’ 3. Further Study of “Decommissioned” Resources for Remnants and Archeology Historic Wagon Bridge between S. D Street and East 19th Ave. Streetcar Bridge at S. A Street and S. Mill Street Spring Site at 195 B Street Pioneer Cemetery at S. C Street Deadmond Ferry Crossing Historic Springfield Millpond, Between S Mill Street and S. 2nd Street Historic Springfield Lumber Mill and Grist Mill Historic Springfield Hospital, 100 Block of Main Street Scott’s Lumber Mill Scott’s Millrace Councilor Ralston said his home was originally built in 1910 on the old Police building site, and was moved to the current location in the 1940’s. It is an interesting story with unique building materials. Mr. Hilton said that house was part of their survey. Mayor Lundberg said their list of recommendation is long. The City is currently doing a lot regarding the City’s background in the timber history and looking at Advanced Wood Products. She read through the lumber heritage which goes back very far. Having some of that identified would be helpful. While in Washington DC, she saw the parking structure proposed for Glenwood and made of cross laminated timber (CLT) was on display on a piece of CLT at the National Building Museum. We have national recognition for our lumber heritage. She would like to have that lumber heritage added to the survey and something that celebrates our lumber history. Mr. Hilton said the context statement was written during the same time the survey was done. They realized there were a lot of overlaps and are ready to do further work on the lumber heritage context statement. There are two clear periods in lumber heritage that will come up in the continuation of the context statement. Councilor Woodrow said she is fascinated by this presentation. She asked how they can use this information and get it out to the community. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 4 Mr. Hilton agreed and said they don’t want to lose the past. He noted that 95% of settlement era resources in the State of Oregon are gone and if things continue on the same path, a similar loss of resources will occur. The loss of those buildings is a loss of our heritage and it’s important we try to save those resources now. Mr. Berg said they could provide a link to this presentation as a way to make it accessible to the community. Mr. Hilton said they did an exhibit at the Museum a couple of years ago. The Museum and Springfield Chamber of Commerce have the visual displays that were used. Councilor VanGordon said the information is great. Accessibility is the issue to get the information out to the community, and to figure out how to make the historic statements come alive to the public. Perhaps a short video could work. He noted a brief artifacts video presented by British Broadcasting Company (BBC). We need to preserve our resources, but also tell our story. Mr. Berg said they aren’t able to put anything on the webpage due to some issues with the website. Mr. Hilton said the only way to find things on the website is to know the exact name of a property. The information is there, but difficult to find. Mr. Berg said he would like to take on the project of a web friendly site, but needs the City’s help. It would be great to tie some of this together and make it more concise with links to videos or summaries. Mr. Hilton said they could partner with local agencies that they work with such as Willamalane, Springfield Utility Board (SUB), and Lane Transit District (LTD). It is currently beyond their capabilities. There are so many other pressing issues that everything has had to take a back seat. Councilor Wylie said we need people to buy the buildings and restore them. She asked if there were grants for restoration. There needs to be information for the public to know what they need to do with historic homes. Mr. Hilton said they do have workshops for window restoration and give advice for many other topics regarding historic home repair/remodel. The Historic Commission can fund improvement projects and help with expenses for listing of eligible properties. They would need to come up with a system for applications. Once homeowners identify the need, the Commission could meet the need. Councilor Woodrow said there is a lot of information in the packet. She referred to the pamphlet used for the walking tour of the Washburne District. If they got to the point of having the expertise and resources, she would like to see them create a downloadable tour that could be used with a SmartPhone or iPad with information and locations of the historic sites. Mr. Hilton said for the realization of a project like that, it would take partnerships. He noted that some communities have a commitment to historic preservation. As an example, when he does a project in Astoria, he is always asked if it is a historic building. He doesn’t see that culture in Springfield yet. Councilor VanGordon asked if they could have staff look at the website and figure out the issues. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 5 Mayor Lundberg said there are two things – the website and funding. She suggested the Commission put together something in terms of priorities and the funding needed, they could present it to the Budget Committee. She would like to look more at the timber heritage. Identifying all of the historic places and getting them on an app would be great. Mr. Grimaldi said right now departments are in the process of looking at what to invest in during the next budget. Staff could include this request in an issue paper to the Budget Committee. Mr. Berg asked if planning staff had a protocol when people come to do work on their place. It seems that many people aren’t aware that their home is a historic home. Mr. Hilton said the Washburne District is well mapped, but not all areas. Councilor Pishioneri noted the site on the City’s webpage for the Historic Commission. Ms. Spickard said the Information Technology (IT) Department has been updating the infrastructure and working with a consultant to launch a new website platform as the current one is very outdated. They can’t launch the new website until the internal infrastructure piece is finished. Mayor Lundberg said to wait on the Historic Commission website until that is complete. 2. Fiscal Health Financial Policy Updates. Bob Duey, Finance Director, presented the staff report on this item. Beginning in 2015, the Finance Department asked Council to review and update the City’s major financial policies as a step in the process to more accurately assess and respond to the City’s overall fiscal health. Three of these policies have been updated and adopted to date. Three additional policies will be presented at this time for Council review with a subsequent recommendation for final adoption. For just the last few years, a recovery has been underway for Springfield in many areas and it is now the right time to develop a long-range financial plan. The Building Fund and the Ambulance Fund have both been able to build their ending cash reserves back up to the level that would meet at least the minimum standards in our recently adopted Reserve Policy. The Street Fund is on the ballot in November to provide additional resources for our maintenance program, the Fire Levy is in its first year of a new 5-year levy, and the Police Levy is in the fourth year of its 5-year levy. The decision to renew the Police Levy and at what rate will need to be reviewed no later than next spring. The three policies already adopted are the Reserve Policy, Revenue Policy, and Accounting, Audit and Financial Reporting Policy. The three policies being presented this evening are Long Range Financial Planning Policy, Expenditure Policy, and Investment Policy. Mr. Duey referred to a chart showing taxable value from FY10 projected through FY20 and described the figures on the chart. Staff wants to make sure the right things are in place to make the budget healthy and help it stay healthy through hard times. He discussed some of the factors that have affected property taxes over the years. An analysis will be done with the County Assessor’s office in the near future. Councilor Moore said the assessor is out looking at properties and some values may change. Mr. Duey said that is correct, they are reassessing. He is pleased to see this going forward. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 6 Councilor Pishioneri asked about cell towers adding significant value to commercial properties and if that was captured in the assessments. Ms. Spickard said the property owners have to report to the assessor’s office when a cell tower is added. The value of the land and the value of the cell tower would be taxed. Mr. Duey referred to a chart regarding the General Fund and noted that the City had done a good job over the last several years. He reviewed in more details. With the new market based salaries, personnel costs will be less constant. He reviewed the Long-Range Financial Policy, Expenditure Policy and Investment Policy and gave a brief description of each. They are holding off on the Capital Improvement Program since new policies have been put into place regarding that process and they want to give engineering staff time to adjust to those changes. Councilor VanGordon said often the graphs presented show 7-10 years, but the plan indicates 3-5 years. He asked if future presentations would only show 3-5 years. Mr. Duey said there could be longer term views on some presentations, but most would be 3-5 years. Councilor VanGordon asked what “seek to obtain and maintain” meant under the section on long-term structural balance. Mr. Duey said it was making sure they were balancing short-term and long-term goals. It’s important to look at both. Mr. Grimaldi said an example would be using reserves to balance the budget for the short-term, which could be detrimental in the long-term. Mr. Duey spoke regarding the Expenditure Policy. This one is intended to recognize that expenditures need to be managed more than just by following state statute. Some examples include looking for the best prices possible and getting quotes even if not required. Look for best prices possible. A good sourcing policy may cut expenditures by 10 %. Staff is asking Council to give us their expectations and hold them accountable. Councilor Moore said her concern is that if we outsource, we look at local as much as possible. Mr. Duey said they can’t always use local for outsourcing. Councilor Moore said she would like a policy to use local if available. Mr. Duey said that would take a different policy. Ms. Smith said that could cause an issue with public contracting laws. Discussion was held regarding public contracting laws under state statute for different services. Mr. Duey said this policy says to do even more within those guidelines. Mr. Duey spoke regarding the Investment Policy. There are not a lot of changes, but has more detail about the internal processes. Mayor Lundberg asked who served as the investment officer. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 7 Mr. Duey said he was the investment officer as the Finance Director. Some cities had investment staff. The Investment Policy stays with the following: safety and diversity is foremost, adequate liquidity is second, and yield is third. This policy also addresses ethics or conflicts of interest. The City has the ability to use the State investment pool and we do use that for some of our investments. He explained in more detail about the City’s investments in the State investment pool. Councilor Wylie asked if he had someone who advised him. Mr. Duey said he works with three brokers on a regular basis. The City doesn’t have an active investment portfolio. Generally, when an investment is made, it is for 18 months. He generally looks for the best yield, tied with the required cash flow. One of the changes in the Investment Policy is to go out or more than 18 months. This policy has to be approved by the State board and then will be brought back to the Council for adoption. Tonight, he is looking for feedback from Council on the other two policies. Councilor Pishioneri said he is impressed with the policies and they make a lot of sense to him. He supports longer term investments. He also likes the way the State balances how much can be invested in each area. He felt this is smart investment. Councilor Moore asked if the City’s self-funded health insurance would qualify as an investment. Mr. Duey said it would. Any reserves held by the self-insurance program are rolled into that investment portfolio. They are treated the same as any other reserves in the City. This policy does not cover retirement funds. The City does have a City retirement plan for police officers hired prior to 1996. Those funds are managed separately. All of the changes have been made on that plan to make it more manageable. Mayor Lundberg said Council is happy with the policies presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder MINUTES OF THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2016 A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield and Lane County was held in the Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall, 225 5th Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday November 7, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Christine Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Board Chair Stewart opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Planning Commission Vice-Chair Randy Hledik opened the meeting of the Lane County Planning Commission. Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi and Principal Planner Linda Pauly. Councilors Ralston and Pishioneri were absent (excused). Present from Lane County were Board Chair Stewart and Commissioners Leiken, Farr, and Sorenson. Also present were County Public Works Director Dan Hurley and Senior Planner Keir Miller. Board Member Bozievich was absent (excused). Present from Lane County Planning Commission were Commissioners Hledik, Sisson, Thorp, Rose, and Kaylor. Commissioners Conrad, Coon and Thiesfeld were absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. ORDINANCES 1. Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Adoption of Amendments to the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Designating Land to Meet Employment Land Needs for 2010-2030 Planning Period and Designating Land for Natural Resources; Public Facilities; Parks and Open Space. (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP 2009- 00014). Mayor Lundberg said tonight they will conduct a joint meeting with Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Lane County Planning Commission, and a second reading to deliberate adoption of the following ordinance. City Manager Gino Grimaldi read the Springfield ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY; THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TEXT AND DIAGRAM TO AMEND THE METRO PLAN BOUNDARY, ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2030 PLAN) November 7, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 2 of 10 ECONOMIC AND URBANIZATION POLICY ELEMENTS AND ASSIGN PLAN DESIGNATIONS TO NEWLY URBANIZABLE LANDS; THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP TO ASSIGN NEW ZONING; THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD SECTIONS 3.2-915 – 3.2-930 ESTABLISHING THE AGRICULTURE-URBAN HOLDING AREA LAND USE ZONING DISTRICT (AG); AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Commissioner Stewart gave the third reading of the Lane County ordinances: ORDINANCE NO. 1304: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TEXT AND DIAGRAM TO AMEND THE METRO PLAN BOUNDARY, ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2030 PLAN) ECONOMIC AND URBANIZATION POLICY ELEMENTS AND ASSIGN PLAN DESIGNATIONS TO NEWLY URBANIZABLE LANDS; THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP TO ASSIGN NEW ZONING; THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD SECTIONS 3.2-915 – 3.2-930 ESTABLISHING THE AGRICULTURE-URBAN HOLDING AREA LAND USE ZONING DISTRICT (AG); AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE PA-1341: IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE LANE COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO MODIFY OFFICIAL COUNTY PLAN AND ZONE MAPS TO REFLECT THE EXPANSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE PA 1304. ORDINANCE NO. 16-05: IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING LANE CODE CHAPTER 10.600-15 TO ADOPT LAND USE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE WITHIN URBANIZABLE LAND WITHIN THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. Kier Miller, Senior Planner, reviewed the process and logistics for tonight’s meeting. The Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners held the first reading on this proposal on September 12, 2016. The Lane County Planning Commission did not have a quorum that evening so participated in the work session, but postponed the public hearing until September 20. No public testimony was received at that time so the public hearing was closed, with deliberations rescheduled to this evening. Three of the ordinances before the elected officials are specific to Lane County, and one is specific to the City of Springfield. Lane County Ordinance No. 1304 is the amendments to the Metropolitan Plan, the urban growth boundary expansion, and the Springfield 2030 Plan. The City has a substantively identical ordinance before them. The Planning Commission has two separate ordinances: Ordinance No. 1341 and 16-05, which are specific to rural Comprehensive Plan amendments. These ordinances will be part of the Planning Commission’s deliberation which will take place in the room next door. The testimony that has been received during the public record period is part of the Council and Board deliberations, but is not specific to the Planning Commission deliberation. The Planning Commission will report back to the Council and Board after their deliberations are complete. Staff is not asking for final action tonight from the Board of Commissioners as there have been some changes to the ordinance since last presented on September 12. These changes will necessitate an additional 13 days before final action can be taken. The motion before the County Commissioners is to set their 4th November 7, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 3 of 10 reading, deliberations and final action to December 5 (if an additional joint meeting with the Springfield Council is required), or December 6 if they can meet separately. Linda Pauly, Principal Planner, presented the staff report on this item. Council is asked to conduct joint deliberations with the Lane County Board of Commissioners; make a preliminary decision to adopt/not adopt/adopt with revisions the proposed 2030 Plan amendments as described in Attachment 2 of the agenda packet, and direct staff to prepare the Final Findings to support Council’s preliminary decision. A third reading and final City decision are scheduled for December 5th. The file number for this project is LRP2009-00014 (Springfield) and 509-PA13-05393 (Lane County). On September 12, 2016 the Springfield City Council, Lane County Board of Commissioners, and Lane County Planning Commission conducted a Joint Work Session and Joint Public Hearing on the proposed land use plan changes. After hearing the oral testimony given by eight individuals, the elected officials closed the hearing, kept the record open for public comment until October 14, 2016, and allowed staff until October 21, 2016 to add information to the record in response to any new information submitted. The audio recording and minutes for the September 12, 2016 meeting provide complete documentation of the oral testimony presented and the minutes become part of the public record for File No. LRP 2009-00014. Nine parties submitted written materials into the record at the hearing and after the hearing. Copies of that written testimony are included in Council’s packet as Attachment 3 and the Board’s packet as Attachment 4. The City’s response to the information submitted is in Council’s and Board’s packet as Attachment 1, Briefing Memo and Exhibits A and B. Ms. Pauly noted that the following printed materials had been placed before the elected officials: maps of the proposed UGB expansion, and a list of individuals and groups who have submitted testimony and information into the record over the multi-year planning process. Also placed before them are two submittals that were not included in the packet. One was not received in the City’s email and the other was overlooked by staff. Staff has reviewed the information submitted and concluded that the information does not bring any new information to light that has not already been considered. The first is a letter from the League of Women Voters of Lane County dated October 13. In the letter, League President Linda Lynch stated that the organization supports Oregon’s land use laws, stressed the importance to efficiently use urban lands, especially those with existing urban services, to preserve resource lands, and minimize costs of providing adequate infrastructure throughout the urbanized area. The letter stated that the City should develop or fully develop available properties that have existing services before extending services to additional areas. The letter noted the challenges to the technical analysis, and challenges to compliance with State mandated rules and processes, and stated that the City should seriously consider and respond to those challenges. The letter also stated that Springfield is not facing an urgent deadline. Staff’s response to that letter is to refer to Exhibit F under Staff Findings. The findings address all applicable Oregon statutes and rules, Goal 9 required cities to establish a short-term supply of land for employment growth, and a 20-year term supply. Conversion from rural uses to urban uses and densities in provision of adequate infrastructure and efficient extension of urban services occurs through Springfield’s annexation process as explained by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Urbanization Element. Adopting the Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) inventory Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) is considered to be urgent for Springfield and is required by November 7, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 4 of 10 Goal 9. The City needs a contemporary factual basis and economic opportunities analysis to support the City’s land use planning decisions, including important decisions about land use, zoning, transportation and infrastructure planning that are necessary to support the levels of redevelopment assumed in the proposal (e.g. Glenwood and Downtown). The City’s UGB expansion brings in suitable parcels of land to meet specific large site employment needs that can be made serviceable within the planning period via relatively short, efficient service connections that will result in compact urban growth form along existing transit-served corridors. The second letter before the elected officials is an email with attachments from Mia Nelson from 1000 Friends, dated October 13, 2016. This email from Ms. Nelson states that she still has questions about the technical analysis and stated her opinion that “the right thing to do is provide a full inventory that can be understood without GIS.” She raised questions about the following: 1. Questioning how slope constraints were identified in the CIBL inventory. She submitted a topographic map of the International Paper (IP) site, formerly Weyerhaeuser at the time of the CIBL. No contour interval or legend is shown in her map. She questions how slope constraints were derived, stating that she couldn’t tell how much acreage had been wrongly excluded for slope constraint on the BLI. Staff’s response is that the CIBL database identifies areas of tax lots with slopes 15% or greater as constrained. ECONorthwest performed that analysis for the City of Springfield and used the best available GIS data layer to perform the inventory. The data used is described in the CIBL/EOA page 14: Source: 10 meter digital elevation model (DEM); File used: slope over 15; Shape file: accessed 2008. The CIBL database is in the record. 2. Reiterates previous comments regarding “Sludge ponds” on the Weyerhaeuser/IP site. This issue is addressed by staff in Attachment 1, Exhibit A-2. 3. Master planned sites. At the time of the inventory, the City had two master plans to address: RiverBend Master Plan and the Marcola Meadows site. Those sites were characterized in the inventory in accordance with those approved master plans. 4. In Ms. Nelson’s attachment “CIBL Recap”, she submitted annotated enlargements of Map 2-4 from the CIBL/EOA, and pages from the Regional Land Information Database (RLID) identifying a number of sites, but there is no explanation as to why these are attached. 5. The last item mentioned by Ms. Nelson is about Maple Island Slough in the Goal 5 natural resource site on the Wicklund property in the North Gateway proposed UGB expansion area. Ms. Nelson stated that the area shown as the complete site is shown as natural resource. This issue was brought to light in 2011 by the property owner and proper action was taken to correct the error. The City’s findings and record provide detailed description of this issue and how it was resolved. Lane County Goal Significant Riparian Corridors map dated January 2004 shows the McKenzie River Riparian Resource area for the Wicklund site outside the UGB. This item is also addressed in Exhibit F findings p. 439. The proposal requires an updated Goal 5 inventory for the North Gateway site. Ms. Pauly said Springfield’s target industries have varied site needs. The CIBL/EOA land need determination is based on the City’s assumptions and policy choices that are centered on accommodating the majority of employment growth needs within the existing UGB — partly through redevelopment of some sites inventoried in the CIBL, and in addition to meeting all of the residential November 7, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 5 of 10 growth needs that the City’s 2011 Residential Plan, which provides 100% of all residential growth within the existing UGB. Springfield needs sites for redevelopment, so our Plan assumes we need those sites for those uses. Springfield’s CIBL/EOA properly balances reasonable assumptions about aspirational “target industry” land needs for specific types, sizes and locations of sites based on 1) site needs data about “target industries;” and 2) average sizes of commercial and industrial sites in Springfield. The CIBL/EOA assumes that the commercial and industrial land base will continue to be needed to support employment use (as it existed at the time of the inventory) and to support a sizable portion of the 46% of employment growth that is assumed to not require vacant land. Springfield’s CIBL/EOA is based on reasonable but aggressive assumptions about redevelopment opportunities within the existing UGB land supply. Springfield’s CIBL/EOA is based on substantial evidence, not speculation. The purpose of the UGB expansion is to provide employment land sites with characteristics that cannot be found within the existing UGB. 1000 Friends seems to argue that employers will find sites with the needed site characteristics within the existing UGB, but has not presented substantial evidence to explain that hypothesis. 1000 Friends would need to present substantial evidence before the decision makers to demonstrate that 1) these sites possess the characteristics of needed sites identified in the CIBL/EOA; and 2) that these sites will be available in the planning period ending 2030 to address Springfield’s deficit of sites larger than 20 acres. 1000 Friends has failed to provide such evidence. If the City and County chose to adopt different policies than those in the Ordinance, and those policies assumed that more developed or potentially redevelopable sites will be available for redevelopment that adds job capacity to accommodate the need for suitable large sites, the City and County would be required to take the following actions to implement the policies. 1. Adopt findings demonstrating that the sites are suitable/possess the needed site characteristics to meet the identified land needs; 2. Adopt land use regulations prohibiting land divisions (below 20 acres or a larger size to be determined by the Council and Commissioners) 3. Adopt land use policies requiring land assembly of tax lots (smaller than 20 suitable acres); 4. Redesignate, rezone and support “repurposing” of these sites to accommodate a broader range of Springfield’s target industries. The existing Heavy Industrial (HI) zoning district would not provide suitable sites for some desired target employers. The City would need to re-zone land. Upzoning land before economic conditions support feasibility of redevelopment has potential to produce negative effects and is not sound public policy, thus the CIBL and 2030 Urbanization studies have not recommended such re-zoning. The recent testimony received in response to the proposed 2030 Plan amendments is predominantly directed to the CIBL/EOA land need determination and the UGB amendment location, not to the associated policy changes in Exhibits B-1, C-1, D, E. Those who provided the recent testimony can be sorted into four groupings: Group 1. Those not included in the proposed UGB who wish to be included in the UGB assert that the City’s proposed boundary amendment brings in the wrong lands. (Kloos/Terrell/Johnson Crushers/Willamette Water Company). They assert that the City violated ORS 197.298, and that the City should stop what its doing and start over with CIBL/EOA process, and should reconsider Goshen. November 7, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 6 of 10 Group 2. Those who assert that the City erred by not counting certain developed parcels or small parcels within the existing UGB as available inventory to meet 2010-2030 land needs. (1000 Friends) Group 3. Those in favor of being included. (North Gateway property owners) Group 4. Those opposed to being included (Mill Race property owners), concerned about how changes in land use will affect them personally and how infrastructure upgrades will occur. After deliberations tonight, staff and the City Attorney will summarize procedural matters and next steps. Staff is available to answer questions about the ordinance, the issues raised in the testimony received, and the City’s response to those issues during your deliberations tonight. 7:34 p.m. – The Lane County Planning Commission moved to the Jesse Maine Room to deliberate separately. Mayor Lundberg asked the Council and Board for comments. Commissioner Leiken said it was interesting that 1000 Friends of Oregon called out the RiverBend Master Plan and Marcola Meadows Master Plan, and yet Springfield is not looking at residential. Ms. Pauly said that is correct, this is for employment land need and public land, not residential. Commissioner Leiken asked if RiverBend was set up mostly for housing and some commercial. Ms. Pauly said the sites not developed are mostly zoned mixed use commercial, community commercial and some residential. Marcola Meadows is zoned commercial and residential, and is made up for 44 acres with areas split for villages. The residential land at Marcola Meadows is being counted in the residential inventory. Commissioner Leiken said he was curious why they called those out when Springfield is looking at job creating lands. He doesn’t view those as job creating lands. Ms. Pauly said the question may have come up because those lands were classified as master planned, not vacant land, in the CIBL. The City had more specific information about how those lands would be developed, which was provided to the consultant. Commissioner Leiken said recently Amazon.com announced that they will be building a new facility in Hillsboro. They had been looking in our region a few years ago. He asked if we had a facility or land locally that could accommodate a 300,000 square foot facility. Ms. Pauly said she was not sure. The inventory shows how we classify all of the sites we have as vacant, redevelopable, etc. and calculates how many sites we need to meet our economic development objectives. Councilor Wylie said it bothered her how Ms. Nelson said things like “it was impossible to tell how these sites were counted, or not counted at all” and that she couldn’t find the PeaceHealth Master Plan at all. She asked if Ms. Pauly had responded to her comments. November 7, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 7 of 10 Ms. Pauly said staff had responded to Ms. Nelson’s request for information, but did not receive this last letter until this morning. The data has been available since 2008 when the CIBL inventory was completed. It is true the technical analysis is difficult to read, so they had to have ECONorthwest respond to some of the questions from the last submittal from 1000 Friends of Oregon. It is detailed and technical information. She did give her information to allow her to read how particular parcels were classified. It is probably frustrating for those trying to understand the technical information at that level, but it must be technical to be accurate using Geographic Information System (GIS). Ms. Nelson noted that someone shouldn’t need GIS to read it, but that is how this work is done. Councilor Wylie said it looks like she is trying to find fault. Ms. Pauly said it is pretty consistent with other testimony that 1000 Friends of Oregon submits to other proposals similar to Springfield’s. Councilor Moore said one of the groups was the Mill Race property owners. In looking at that site, it looks like there is public land as well as employable lands. She asked who owned the public land. Ms. Pauly said Willamalane Parks, Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and the City of Springfield own those public lands. Those lands will not be developed. Councilor Moore said some of the issues of those residents were traffic and roads not being paved now. She asked if there were other specific objections or just a matter of the land being developed at some point in time. Ms. Pauly said the other issues raised were dust, noise, etc. Councilor Moore said there were also some positives in bringing in that area as some would be public lands and not developed. Commissioner Sorenson asked about the process from tonight. Board Chair Stewart said if the two bodies want to take action together, they will meet on December 5th. If they take action separately, the County will meet on December 6th. He noted that last time they met, they discussed the North Gateway area in regards to some of the new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Incident Management System (NIMS). He asked if there had been further clarification on that issue, or if staff was still confident that the set aside lands for riparian is still consistent with the regulations. City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said the City has not received any new information since the last briefing, so as far as they know that process is still working its way through State rulemaking. The City of Springfield is involved, but has no new information. Commissioner Farr referred to the letter from 1000 Friends of Oregon and staff’s response. Ms. Pauly said she was told it was sent to the City on October 13, but it did not come through the City’s email. She just received it this morning, and staff reviewed it. The response from staff was directed to the testimony submitted on September 12 during the public hearing. November 7, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 8 of 10 Commissioner Farr clarified that most of the information has been out to the public for 8 years. Ms. Pauly said the CIBL inventory was performed and finished in July 2008, and has been available upon request since that time. All of the inventory maps showing which lands are vacant and redevelopable, and the data behind them, have been in the CIBL EOA which was adopted 2008, and updated in 2009 and 2015. Commissioner Farr said he shares some of the councilors’ concerns about why this information is coming to the City late when this has been out for eight years. Board Chair Stewart said since he has been on the Lane County Board of Commissioners, Springfield has had a policy of no forced annexations. There was a lot of testimony at the last meeting about land use changing. The only way it could change is if the property owner requested it to be brought into the city limits. It would then have to go through the process for zoning changes. Mr. Pauly said that is correct. It would need to go through zoning, plan amendments, and the annexation process. Ability to provide key urban services is considered in the annexation process, either at the time of annexation or through an annexation agreement. That would be when any improvements to roadways, etc. are considered. Commissioner Stewart said it would be a conscious effort from the property owners to be annexed. Commissioner Leiken asked if the transportation planning rule does not go into effect until the property owner says they want to be annexed. Ms. Pauly said the transportation planning rule goes into effect when the plan amendment occurs. An urban growth boundary expansion alone does not trigger that provision of the transportation planning rule for trips, but triggers other provisions of the rule. That is why the land is being zoned Agriculture Urban Holding Area which doesn’t allow trips to exceed what is already there. Commissioner Leiken made note that 1000 Friends of Oregon has a pattern of this type of testimony. The same thing (last minute testimony) happened during the residential lands study as well. Mayor Lundberg said most of the councilors have been on the Council since this started. She has always been a firm believer that our land use laws are set up for the orderly growth within state in a well thought-out way. We have spent enough years working on this diligently, putting together extremely technical documents to address this, and looked at every court decision that has been challenged by everyone, including 1000 Friends of Oregon, to determine what is reasonable and prudent yet still allows us to grow as a community. We need to be able to accommodate growth to have a viable community and jobs for our kids. We need jobs, and to do that we need to have employers, and to get them here we need to have enough land to accommodate, especially large sites. This is a long work in progress, and has been modified often. Many of them have spent time meeting with residents and tried their best to make the best proposal possible. She thinks this accommodates that. She is very hopeful we can get to a resolution and move forward. She thanked all of staff for their hard work, and the Commissioners for coming to Springfield to help work on this. While waiting for the Lane County Planning Commission, Mayor Lundberg said she went to Salem today to fight for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CMAQ funds which Springfield and November 7, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 9 of 10 other jurisdictions were left out of but were entitled to over past several years. Today, $6.9M was awarded for the area, which is good news. 7:45 p.m. The Lane County Planning Commission finished their deliberations and adjourned their meeting. Planning Commission Vice-Chair Hledik spoke on behalf of the Lane County Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission discussed a number of issues raised at the public hearing such as the floodplain issues in North Gateway, the uncounted lands referred to by 1000 Friends of Oregon, the issues around the Mill Race and the concerned residents in that area, and concerns about the Seavey Loop exclusion. They have had concerns about these before, and after discussion, feel that based on comments from the elected officials at the last meeting, that staff has considered all of those questions and concerns in a satisfactory manner. In a unanimous vote, the Lane County Planning Commission is recommending the Board adopt Ordinance No. 16-05 and PA1341. Mayor Lundberg thanked them for their work and helping them out with this process. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE FOR PRELIMINARY ADOPTION OF THE SPRINGFIELD 2030 PLAN AND AMENDMENTS TO THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (LP 2009-0014), AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE FINDINGS CONSISTENT WITH OUR DELIBERATIONS AND SET THIS ITEM FOR FINAL ACTION ON DECEMBER 5, 2016. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – RALSTON AND PISHIONERI). IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER FARR WITH A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER LEIKEN TO SET A 4TH READING, DELIBERATION AND POSSIBLE FINAL ACTION DATE FOR DECEMBER 6, 2016 ON ORDINANCE NO. PA 1304, ORDINANCE NO. PA 1341 AND ORDINANCE 16-05 AT 1:30PM IN HARRIS HALL, LANE COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – BOZIEVICH). Ms. Smith said this has been a long process, with a lot of public input, but there was a big gap between our evidentiary Planning Commission hearing and the hearing process this Fall. The next level of approval is going to the State, reviewing the record. There are items, mainly public comment, that the City wants to make sure gets before the elected officials and available for the public to review to make sure it gets into the record of proceedings. Part of the information before the elected officials is a document titled, “Additional items index”. That index is mainly of public comment from stakeholders, community members, and property owners. Staff is asking that the City Council and Board of Commissioners re-open the record for one week for the purpose of allowing the public an opportunity to review that index to make sure their comments that were submitted earlier are included and nothing is omitted. Staff is asking that they open the record from November 7 – 14, 2016 for that specific purpose only. The index will be posted on the website. All of this information has been open to the public, but because it has gone on for so long, they want to make sure they are covering all bases in terms of public participation. No new information will be accepted. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE THE RECORD BE REOPENED FOR A PERIOD OF 7 DAYS TO NOVEMBER 14, November 7, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield Lane County Page 10 of 10 2016, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING THE INFORMATION LISTED IN THE ADDITIONAL ITEMS INDEX TO GIVE THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT TESTIMONY AND WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION THEY PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – RALSTON AND PISHIONERI). IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER FARR WITH A SECOND COMMISSIONER LEIKEN THAT THE RECORD BE REOPENED FOR A PERIOD OF 7 DAYS TO NOVEMBER 14, 2016, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING THE INFORMATION LISTED IN THE ADDITIONAL ITEMS INDEX TO GIVE THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT TESTIMONY AND WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION THEY PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 IN FAVOR 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – BOZIEVICH). Ms. Smith said there is another index titled “Supplemental Information” which includes information staff put in October. This information is to help at the next level, but is different from the public comment. The City Council will meet to take action on December 5, 2016, and the County Commissioners will meet to take action on December 6, 2016. Mayor Lundberg thanked the County Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 7:54 p.m. Board Chair Stewart adjourned the County Commissioners at 7:54 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa City Recorder ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY NOVEMBER 14, 2016 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday November 14, 2016 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused). 1. Wireless Telecommunications System Facilities Development Code Amendments. Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor, presented this item on behalf of Andy Limbird. Council requested a work session to discuss the suitability of Public Land/Open Space (PLO) sites to accommodate moderate visibility cell towers if a setback of 300 feet is required from neighboring residential property. Mr. Donovan said the current requirement is that the setback is the height of the pole, with a maximum height of 150 feet. The question was raised whether or not that setback amount was sufficient, or if a 300 foot setback would better serve the area. Staff has prepared a series of maps showing the location of PLO sites within the City limits and UGB. The sites include overlays showing the 2,000-foot exclusion zone between individual WTS towers, along with a 300-foot setback from adjacent residential districts. The 300-foot setback was determined based on feedback from the City Council at the recent public hearing meetings and it represents a distance that is twice the maximum allowable tower height (150 feet). Staff observes that significantly increasing the setback distance from adjacent residential districts eliminates many PLO sites from eligibility and would require more centralized placement of WTS facilities in close proximity to existing buildings and structures on larger sites. About one-third of the 47 PLO sites shown would not be able to have a cell tower. Councilor Woodrow asked how many sites would be left if they went with a 300 foot setback. Mr. Donovan said approximately 20. Councilor Moore said it looked like increasing the setback to 300 feet would move towers closer to buildings on school properties that would be allowed to site a tower. Mr. Donovan said that is correct. He referred to the map showing Yolanda and Briggs sites, in which the larger setback would move them closer to the buildings. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 14, 2016 Page 2 Mayor Lundberg said even with the limitations, approval is still discretionary. Mr. Donovan said it is a discretionary use and the decision can be made by the Council. The Code states that 150 is an ‘at least’ figure (at least the height of the tower). Council has the discretion of going further than 150 feet on a site by site basis. Mayor Lundberg said the other criteria is where cell phone companies want to place their towers. Mr. Donovan said there are a lot of factors involved when choosing a site that the wireless company would consider. He explained several of those factors. Councilor Pishioneri asked if other jurisdictions that have co-located WTS’s on billboards, and whether or not our code would allow that to occur. A current request is 200 yards from a large billboard structure. He asked if they could co-locate with that billboard. Mr. Donovan said that depends on their technology and there are stealth antennas on buildings, etc. They may need to consider that in the near future. Councilor Pishioneri asked if it was appealable if the Council wanted more of a setback than the required amount. Mr. Donovan said all decisions are appealable. Generally, the Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA) gives deference to local policy makers. Councilor Pishioneri said statutes seem to be written to favor local rule. He wanted to make sure our Code is written to allow co-locating on these other sites. Mr. Donovan said he is not aware of a pre-emption that wouldn’t allow a local jurisdiction to make that decision. Councilor Moore referred to the current code amendment, and noted this was a different amendment. She clarified that the Council had the discretion to require a further setback than the required 150 feet. Because of that, by placing a 300 foot setback, they could be eliminating some locations that might be considered. Councilor Pishioneri on the other hand, if the code says 150 feet, and the Council says it must be 300 feet, the applicant does not get their money back. It is a substantial cost to apply. If the City has the higher buffer, there is more certainty for the applicant when they apply. Councilor Ralston said he wants to prevent being too restrictive. Mr. Donovan said when a company comes in and is deciding what technology they want to employ, a development issues meeting is held where everything is weighed in and public notice is provided. They can hold a public meeting to see if there could be resistance. They always have an idea of what obstacles may face them. Mayor Lundberg said the Council still has the discretion if the code is less restrictive, and the company has the ability to test the waters to see what they want to do, including where they want to locate. Council has input on the type of cell tower installed such as a faux tree. She asked if the Council would still have discretion to lessen the setback if they had it set at 300 feet as the minimum. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 14, 2016 Page 3 Mr. Donovan said it could add a layer in the process. Council could also require a shorter tower height. Mayor Lundberg asked the Council if they wanted to move forward. Councilor Woodrow said she likes having the discretion of how they decide, and she didn’t see a benefit to be more restrictive. Mr. Donovan said staff will endeavor to bring as many options to the Council when these applications come forward. Councilor Wylie said getting this information was helpful. It serves the public well to have the Council more educated. Councilor Pishioneri asked for clarification on the minimum setback in the current code. Mr. Donovan said it is at least the height of tower, and 150 feet is the maximum height in any zone. Councilor Pishioneri said that means a 60 foot tower could be 60 feet from a home. 2. Stormwater Permit Renewal Update. Matt Stouder, Environmental Services Manager, presented this item. Staff will update Council on the status of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater permit renewal and provide information about the potential impacts of the proposed permit requirements. He referenced the City’s 14 page system stormwater permit which was issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under the oversite of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That permit was issued in 2007 and expired in 2012. The City applied for renewal and was put on an administrative extension allowing the permit to remain in effect. The permit contains the minimum control measures the Federal government imposes on us for stormwater quality and stormwater management and lays the framework for our water quality programs, capital programs, Development codes and standards, stormwater related maintenance and operations practices, as well as our Municipal Code requirements. In 2010, Council adopted the Springfield Stormwater Management Manual which details how the City will meet those requirements. The City reports annually to DEQ on how we are doing on those requirements. In 2012, DEQ commenced a process to issue a new stormwater permit to Springfield and other Phase II communities. They determined that rather than doing individual permits, they were going to do a general permit process for all Phase II communities (those with populations between 50,000 and 100,000, or a city next to that size of city). DEQ convened a technical advisory committee made up of stakeholders with municipal (including Springfield staff) and environmental interests. Due to a number of staff changes in DEQ, the process was stalled. The draft Phase II General Permit was released this summer for public comment. Staff expected the new permit to be more stringent than the current regulations, but did not realize it would be quite as stringent as it is. The proposed draft permit contains language that is not implementable, is unclear, that takes away flexibility from local jurisdictions to make decisions with respect to stormwater management, and that extends well beyond City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 14, 2016 Page 4 the Federal six minimum control measures without a scientific or technical basis. The draft permit contains language which, if implemented, would place significant financial and administrative burden on the City with little to no benefit to water quality. The majority of the concerns regarding the permit came from small communities or other communities that don’t currently have a stormwater permit. Springfield is in a better position than most of those other communities. Given the level of concern with the draft permit, Springfield partnered with other affected Phase II communities (Albany, Corvallis and Turner) to retain Cable Huston (a legal firm from Portland specializing in the Clean Water Act) to assist in providing review of the draft permit. After consulting with Cable Huston, the City submitted a public comment package to DEQ, which included Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda packet, as well as detailed comments on the draft permit. Additionally, staff provided public testimony to DEQ during a public hearing in August. He reviewed the concerns addressed. Some of the requirement would require code amendments. A lot in the permit would provide little water quality benefit, with a lot of administrative work and time. Mr. Stouder said the good news is that Springfield is in good position with our programs and staff resources compared to other communities that don’t have those things in place. Springfield has a stable revenue source. The impact won’t be as great since the City has been trying to position ourselves for this permit. The public comment period ended on September 2, 2016, and DEQ received 235 comment letters and testimony from 10 individuals at the public hearing. Many of the comments were from other cities, while many were from environmental groups asking for more stringent requirements. As a result of the significant public comment received, DEQ has revised the proposed issuance date of the Phase II General Permit from September 30, 2016 to a date TBD in spring of 2017. DEQ is reviewing the public comments and looking at potential changes. They announced last week that they plan to hold a stakeholder meeting with high-level stakeholders in December to discuss some of the comments. Mr. Stouder said DEQ will issue a permit and jurisdictions will have to decide whether or not they accept the permit. He would recommend the City accept the permit, although some cities, such as Albany, may not since they don’t have a revenue source or programs. By law, the DEQ has to offer the option of an individual permit, which will be the same permit as the general permit. Cities have to then take that permit, or find a reason to sue based on it being unlawful. If Springfield chooses to accept the permit, there will be a public comment period, followed by issuance of the permit. The City will then have the next couple of years to implement the requirements through Code updates, broadened educational outreach, and updating our Stormwater Management Plan. Councilor Ralston said we have a choice to accept or not. If we chose to accept it, there will be certain parts that will cost the City more money. He would like us to have a choice. He asked what things they didn’t like in this proposed permit. Mayor Lundberg said in the letter from staff, a list of things was outlined that were overreaching such as no flexibility, runoff on site, code requirements, etc. Councilor Ralston said this is an example of an unfunded mandate. Springfield has been ahead of the curve on our water. He would prefer to barter and take only what fits Springfield. Mr. Stouder said at this time, they are not sure what changes may be made after the public comment and meetings being held by the DEQ. Some things will stay and others may be removed. They want to look at the final permit before deciding, and would bring it back to Council. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 14, 2016 Page 5 Councilor Moore asked how long this permit is good for. Mr. Stouder said 5 years, but it can be extended. Councilor Moore asked how this impacted the City of Eugene and Lane County. Mr. Stouder said Eugene will be indirectly impacted, but because they have a higher population they are a Phase I community and have a different permit. They are generally held to more stringent standards than Phase II communities. Lane County has a Phase II permit. The City of Eugene and the City of Springfield both have intergovernmental agreements with the County, and they are not sure how they will meet the requirements. Councilor Moore asked if City staff would be invited to participate in the high level stakeholder meeting in December. Mr. Stouder said he is hopeful that he can attend that meeting. The City does work with the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies (ACWA). Currently, DEQ indicates they will have representatives from ACWA, the Homebuilder’s Association, and an environmental organization. They want to keep it small, but he thinks more people are needed. He would like to be there representing a current permit holder, and someone else from a smaller community. They are working on that through ACWA, but he could also contact DEQ directly to ask. Councilor Moore asked if a letter from the Mayor and Council would be helpful, and if so she suggested they do that. She asked who oversaw DEQ. Mr. Stouder said the Environmental Protection Agency. Councilor Moore asked if because that is a Federal agency, the new administration might have an impact on the regulations. She does not want to eliminate environmental protections, but this seems unreasonable. Mr. Stouder said he is not sure there will be changes in water protection with the new administration. The Clean Water Act is pretty set, although it does need to be updated. There will likely be focus on other areas of the EPA. There may be a change in demeanor as the current regional administrator is very rigid. They are on a path with this permit, but he hoped the public comment would help. Councilor Moore said she would like the Council to do whatever they could do to help. Springfield has already gone through the expense and work to improve our water quality. Mayor Lundberg said it is often very difficult to get the attention of the State or Federal government. It took approaching several legislators, and speaking at State meetings to have them look at the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds that have been due to the region for a number of years. These things take a ton of work. This is an issue of requirements that don’t benefit the jurisdictions required to implement them. She would be interested in bringing some information to the United Front regarding what are real expectations of the Clean Water Act or how they are implemented. We have worked hard and are doing a good job, and she would like to see some rewards, rather than just mandates. They need to start those conversations to try to look at those things that could be fixed in the permit and the permit process that were listed in the letter. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 14, 2016 Page 6 Mr. Stouder said he will come back to Council when the permit is ready. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:19 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Special Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY NOVEMBER 14, 2016 The City of Springfield Council met in a special regular session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday November 14, 2016 at 6:20 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Other Routine Matters a. Allow Construction Activities Outside of the Hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., in order to Complete Construction Activities in Association with the ODOT Laura Street Facility in and around 2080 Laura Street. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON). ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 6:21 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder