Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/2016 Joint Elected Officials (JEO) 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 5 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 I. 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 Plarming 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 Larne 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. I —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 (203.0..P 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 THEEUGENE-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-OS: 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 4 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 5 '. The file number for this project is LRP2009-00014 (Springfield)and 509-PA 13-05393 (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 7,2015 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 13,2015. 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. Staffs response is that the CIBL database identifies areas of tax tots 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 describedin 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/TP 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 S 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 Flan 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 Springf-ield'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 C1BL and 2030 Urbanization studies have not recommended such re-zoning. The recent testimony received in response to the proposed 2030 Flan amendments is predominantly directed to the CLBL/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 CWL/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 saidit was interesting that 1000 Friends of Oregon called out the RiverBend Master Plan and Mareola Meadows Master Plan,and yet Springfield is not looking at residential. Ms. Pauly said that is correct,this is for employment Iand 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 5'1'. If they take action separately,the County will meet on December 6g'. 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 receivedany 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 C1BL 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 bard 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 raisedat 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(I 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 Reco er