HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2006 Regular
.
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2006
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, January 17,2006 at 7:04 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Ralston, Lundberg, Woodrow, and
Pishioneri. Also present were Interim City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorneys Joe Leahy
and Meg Kieran, Finance Director Bob Duey, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the
staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
l. Recognition of Travis Mitchell for Ten Years of Service to the City of Springfield.
.
Interim City Manager Cynthia Pappas introduced Travis Mitchell. She noted some of the events
and changes Mr. Mitchell had experienced over the last ten years. She also noted comments from
co-workers regarding Mr. Mitchell's work ethic and helpful attitude. She noted positive
comments from outside agencies.
Mayor Leiken acknowledged all of the help Mr. Mitchell offers to city council as well.
2. Award of Plaque from VFW to the Springfield City Council.
Mr. Thomas Laing, from the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) acknowledged the many folks in
the City of Springfield. The plaque had the following inscribed, "Outstanding Achievement
Award presented to City of Springfield for Service and Efforts Where they counted the Most.
Veterans of Foreign Wars District 13, Vietnam Memorial Wall Experience 2005".
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilor Lundberg asked to pull item 5.j.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM 5.J.
REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
1. Claims
.
a. Approval ofthe November 2005, Disbursements for Approval.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 2
.
b. Approval of the December 2005, Disbursements for Approval.
2. Minutes
a. November 7,2005 - Regular Meeting
b. November l4, 2005 - Work Session
c. November 2l, 2005 - Work Session
d. November 21,2005 - Regular Meeting
e. November 28,2005 - Work Session
f. November 28, 2005 - Special Regular Meeting
g. December 5,2005 - Special Regular Meeting
h. December 5,2005 - Council Goal Setting Work Session
3. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO 06-0 1 - A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AND APPROVING
AWARD BY THE LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE MARTIN LUTHER KING. JR.
LANDSCAPE PROJECT.
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Rodeo Steak House and Grill, Located at
l537 Mohawk Boulevard, Springfield, OR.
Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Phil's Clubhouse, Located at ll95 Main
Street, Springfield, OR.
Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Jasper's, Located at 5608 Main Street,
Springfield, OR.
Approve the Amended Council Operating Policies and Procedures Document.
Ratify the City Manager's Execution of Two Option Agreements and Payments for
Property Options in Glenwood. .
Approval to Award the Contract for On-Call Traffic Signal Engineering Services to DKS
Associates in the Amount of $100,000.
Approval to Permit Construction Activities Outside of the Hours of 7:00am to 6:00pm for
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Repaving Contact #13078, ORl26:
Jenkins Drive-Silver Creek, Between June l, 2006 and August 3l, 2006.
Approval of Letter/Contract with Forest Service for the Construction of an Office
Building on a Site Construction for the Oregon Department of the Military.
Approval of Bank of the West Joint Use Facility Financing Proposal.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
5. j. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with Liebert and Associates in the
amount of $86,600 for Design Phase Services to Implement the Approved Program
Document for the Justice Center Project.
.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
FITCH TO APPROVE ITEM 5.J. FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (LUNDBERG).
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 3
Councilor Lundberg said she pulled the item to note that this was a new contract with someone
the City already had a contract with for the design phases. She had some issues with the new
contract and preferred to have this item voted on separately.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Amendment of the Springfield Municipal Code Chapter 5.
ORDINANCE NO I - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5, "PUBLIC
PROTECTION" OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING A NEW
ARTICLE "DRINKING WATER PROTECTION" (SECTIONS 5.800 ET SEO.)
SECTIONS 5.800, "INTENT", SECTION 5.810, "USES PROHIBITED", SECTION 5.820,
"ENFORCEMENT", AND AMENDING SECTION 5.604(1 )(A), "APPLICATION AND
AMENDMENT" AND SECTION 5.606. "INFRACTION PROCEDURES" OF THE
SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE. (FIRST READING)
City Planner Sarah Summers presented the staff report on this item. The Drinking Water
Protection (DWP) Plan, adopted in May, 1999, calls for a drinking water protection overlay
district that applies to both existing and new businesses that use chemicals hazardous to
groundwater and surface water. The proposed ordinance implements the section of the DWP Plan
that calls for regulating existing business uses of these chemicals. New uses have been regulated
since May, 2000.
.
The Drinking Water Protection Plan, the Drinking Water Overlay District, the DWP Plan
Addendum (2002) for surface water, and the adoption of the DWP Plan by Lane County satisfy
Springfield's Task 5 of the Periodic Review. Springfield's drinking water comes largely from
groundwater aquifers and is a statewide Goal 5 resource which is required to be protected. The
adopted DWP Plan states that the DWP Overlay District applies to regulation of both existing and
new uses of materials hazardous to groundwater. New uses were regulated in Springfield
Development Code (SDC) Article 17 when the Overlay District was adopted in May, 2000. The
proposed Municipal Code ordinance applies regulations to existing uses as required in the DWP
Plan.
.
Ms. Summers explained where the DWP ordinance originated. She discussed why the City of
Springfield was now putting these regulations in place. She said as required in the DWP Plan, the
proposed Municipal Code amendment would apply regulations found in Article l7 to existing
uses of chemicals hazardous to groundwater or service water. The fIrst part of the ordinance,
Number One, referred to new uses which were already subject to the SDC Article l7. She said
Number Two, amortized, referred to existing uses and applied to time-of-travel zones (TOTZ) in
the zero to one, one to five, and fIve to ten year TOTZ only. She discussed the wells around the
City and the aquifers. She said the purpose of the ordinance was to protect the City's water from
contamination. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) would be working with all businesses that used
the chemicals to help them provide the proper containment of chemicals and education for the
employees who work with the chemicals. She said the ordinance provides a grace period of ten
years in order for businesses that used the chemicals to meet the standards of Article 17. She said
new businesses had been going through the process since 2000 and many existing businesses had
been voluntarily upgrading their containment and/or switching to less toxic chemicals to lessen
their liability. She encouraged businesses that would be affected by the ordinance to find out
what TOTZ their property was in, which chemicals they had that were hazardous to groundwater
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 4
and what quantities they had of each, and read Article l7 carefully to understand what the
standards would -be and how they would be affected. Copies of the materials she referred to were
available at the table near the entrance of the Council Chambers. She said if anyone needed more
information or had any questions, they could contact the City or SUB. She entered two letters
into the record: Correspondence from Chris Smith, CAS Properties, 133 SW Second Ave, Ste.
304, Portland, OR and Rich Locke, Vice President and General Manager ofVoith Paper Rolls,
2885 Olympic Street, Springfield, OR.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
.
1. Gary Burnett. P.O. Box 7547, Eugene. OR. Mr. Burnett said he and his wife owned Gary
Burnett Earth Moving, located at 3505 Commercial Street in Springfield. He said he was
disappointed in the City because he received no notice about this ordinance. He said he
planned on building another building on the property and this ordinance would have a
bearing on whether or not they would build. He discussed what they had to go through
with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to carry fuels and oils on their
property. He discussed the large notebook with the DEQ requirements and noted that he
had to fill out paperwork for DEQ each year. He said he wanted to keep the land clean.
He said ifhe were to get rid of his tanks, he would probably use a card lock, but
according to the ordinance, the card lock would not be allowed in that area. He asked
why transformers and a substation were being put in next to the existing well if those that
drew this up were worried about ground contamination.
2. Marshall W. Dannen. 1950 LakeView, Eugene, OR. Mr. Dannen said as the owner ofa
business, he believed in leadership by example. He said he was concerned with two
issues with the City. He said the engineering department, to his knowledge, designed
roads and stormwater systems. He said presently, the stormwater systems were all using
butt joints, so any accidents or spills would go into the ground water. He said staff was
not using the tight line system and put the City's drinking water at risk. He discussed
what occurred if someone bought a five-gallon drum of paint stripper and it fell out of the
pickup and spilled on the road. He was concerned that those chemicals would get into
the city's stormwater and the City wouldn't have a way to protect the citizens. He said
one department did things one way because of cost issues and the other department was
requiring others to do something else to protect the environment. He said the City should
lead by example.
3. Virgil Tracer, 3436 Olympic Street, Springfield, OR. Mr. Tracer said he was the owner
of Tracer Truck Repair. Mr. Tracer said his business moved to this area because the city
had zoned it an industrial area. He said the city then put wells in later. He said it seemed
that the City was coming down on businesses and making things almost impossible to
live with. He discussed the monitoring systems and the double and triple walled tanks
available and did not understand why some of those ideas were not explored rather than
adopting this. He said he was not for polluting the water, and didn't know of any
business that wasn't trying to abide by all regulations to keep the water clean. He
discussed the building he built at 1626 30th Street which was designed to self-contain any
spills that occurred in the building. He said another issue was the City's fuel tanks which
were offMarcola Road in the lowest, swampiest area. He said he understood the City
was exempt from all the regulations, but that fuel could still get into the well if there was
a spill. He said this needed to be explored more carefully before making a decision.
4. Fred Simmons. 312 S. 52nd Place. Springfield, OR. Mr. Simmons said th~ idea of
groundwater protection was important, but this ordinance had implications that were not
clearly spelled out. He said a paint stripper of a particular size could not be bought at
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17, 2006
Page 5
.
.
Jerry's, but could be purchased at the Mohawk Bi-Mart. He said there were a substantial
number of sites in the City that were filled with bag house fume from the old silicone
plant. He discussed implications when transitioning the proposed ordinance into the
existing category for places that had received DEQ approval at the time of creating the
sites. He said the ordinance did protect the drinking water, but may have other
complications for the city, the businesses and the property owners. He asked council to
look carefully at the implications before adopting the ordinance in its final form. He
discussed other businesses in the area that would experience economic issues if this
ordinance were passed. He said the issues of unintended consequences without all of the
facts could be very detrimental.
5. Larry Thorp, lOll Harlow Road, Springfield, OR. Mr. Thorp, an attorney with Thorp,
Purdy, Jewett, et al said he just got involved in this issue during the last two days. He
asked if the record could be left open for a couple of weeks to allow them to look into
this more and make comments. He said he agreed with Mr. Simmons that there were
some implications that hadn't been flushed out. He also had questions about the
procedure. He said when taking a quick glance at the proposed ordinance, something was
missing. He discussed the purpose of Goal 5. He said Goal 5 was intended to protect
Goal 5 resources, but at the same time, it was intended that Goal 5 resources be used in a
way that they didn't interfere with other existing activities in the area and that's what
would be happening here. He said Springfield would continue to grow and new well sites
had been identified. He said the proposed ordinance lacked a prohibition on locating new
well sites in areas where there would be a conflict with existing uses. He said that was a
big issue for his client and others. Although some businesses may not be dramatically
impacted by the ordinance as it was written and by the existing wells, their concern was
new wells that could be drilled in the future. Those new wells should be sited where they
would not conflict with other activities.
6. Terry Stafek, Stafek and Son Trucking, 3895 Commercial Avenue, Springfield, OR. Mr.
Stafek said his dad started the business 40-45 years ago and the business had gone
through a lot of upgrading and updating over those years. He said he didn't believe
people realized how much regulation the trucking business had. He said his business had
always tried to upgrade their property and equipment to comply with every standard. He
said they had a 10,000 gallon underground storage which was glass lined and inspected
about five years ago and was now earthquake-proof. He said all the other products used
on their trucks were stored in the shop and was well contained. If there was a leak, it was
contained and didn't get to the outside. He explained other safeguards they had in place
to keep fuel from spilling. He said he couldn't understand why anyone would consider
building new wells in that area because it was an industrial area. He said other areas
should be considered to drill wells.
7. Bob Linahan. Springfield Utility Board (SUB). 2417 N. l7th Place, Springfield, OR. Mr.
Linahan is the General Manager for SUB. He said he appreciated the work staff had
done on this and noted that it was a very complex issue with no simple solution. He said
regulations get more complex for the trucking industry and everyone else. He would like
to recommend to Council that they postpone any decision on the ordinance until he had
an opportunity to inform the SUB Board on this issue on February 8,2006. He said
something needed to be done. He discussed the transformer that SUB was installing on \
28th and Olympic. He said substation sites were very difficult to get. He said during the
planning stage they were required to put in secondary oil containment and were required
to adhere to the same rules and regulations that any other industry with a site in
Springfield would have to follow. He discussed other restraints that would not allow
them to put a pole yard at a certain location. He said the protection of the City's water
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 6
.
was most important. He discussed the many wells throughout the City. He asked
Council to delay their decision until February 2l and he would report to Council
comments from the SUB Board.
Mr. Leahy said staff would recommend the public hearing be continued to February 21, to allow
time for review of any variations.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN THROUGH FEBRUARY 21,
2006. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Councilor Ballew said this was a dilemma. If there was not clean water to drink, no one would
live here. She said, at the same time, businesses needed a way to make a living. She said she
hoped something could be done to work through this.
Ms. Summers said all future wells were part of the re-zoning of the overlay district, such as the
Pierce, which was not a well yet, but was delineated. She said that may answer Mr. Thorp and
other's questions. She said the future wells were considered when it was rezoned.
Mayor Leiken continued the public hearing until February 21st. Both public comment and written
testimony would be accepted until that date.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
.
2. Proposed Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments, Article 23.
ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 23 PLO PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
City Planner Gary Karp presented the staff report on this item. On November l, 2005 the
Planning Commission voted (5-0, with 2 absent) to recommend adoption ofthe amendments,
with revisions to the City Council. During the preparation of the Ordinance, staff had some
concerns regarding the proposal to require Type m Discretionary Use approval for Justice
Centers, fire stations, police stations including jails, and public transit facilities.
The staff report presented to the City Council on November 28, 2005 proposed an alternative to
the Planning Commission's recommendation. The City Council directed staff to take the matter
back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration. The City Council opened the
public hearing and continued it until January 17, 2006.
.
On January 4,2006 the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing to
reconsider the level of review for fIre stations, police stations, including jails, and public transit
facilities. The Planning Commission considered four review options: A) Retaining the Planning
Commission's original recommendation to the City Council (Type m Discretionary Use
approval), which utilizes the property owner/newspaper public hearing notice and allows for an
appeal of the decision to the City Council and eventually the Land Use Board of Appeals; B) The
original recommendation to the Planning Commission (a Type II Site Plan that the Development
Services Director could raise to a Type m review before the Planning Commission on a case-by
case basis); C) A modification of Option B that would require the Site Plan Review to be a Type
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17, 2006
Page 7
.
III review by the Planning Commission; and Option D) Allow the Justice Center to be listed as an
outright permitted use with no Site Plan Review or discretionary review by the Director or
Planning Commission and therefore there is no land use action to appeal. The Planning
Commission discussed Options A and D. The Planning Commission initially voted 4 to 3 against
Option D. The Planning Commission then voted 5 to 2 for Option A. The Planning Commission
motion approving Option A added the term "Justice Center" to the use list and changed the term
"police stations, including jail facilities" to "police satellite facilities". These two uses, as well as
fire stations and public transit facilities, will be shown as "D" (Discretionary Use) on the use list.
The attached Ordinance has been amended accordingly.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO.2 AS PRESENTED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
A SECOND READING WILL BE HELD FOR FORMAL ADOPTION AS THERE HAD
BEEN LANGUAGE CHANGES FROM THE FIRST READING ON NOVEMBER 28,
2005.
.
3. Proposed Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendment, Section 5.090.
ORDINANCE NO. 6l5l- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.090 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
City Planner Gary Karp presented the staff report on this item. In July, 2005, the City Council
approved the SDC "housekeeping" amendments by adopting Ordinance 6133. These
amendments applied both within Springfield's city limits and its urbanizab1e area. The
intergovernmental agreement between the City and Lane County, giving Springfield planning and
building permit jurisdiction within its urbanizab1e area, requires the Lane County Board of
Commissioners (Board) to also adopt the SDC "housekeeping" amendments.
Lane County's legislative approval process is similar to Springfield's. The Lane County Planning
Commission (LCPC) must make a recommendation to the Board prior to the adoption of their
ordinance.
.
In October 2005, staff presented the SDC "housekeeping" amendments to the LCPC. During the
work session and public hearing, the LCPC raised a question regarding the status of
transferability of BM 37 relief for the current property owner to a new property owner under the
waiver of Code provisions. The LCPC believed there may be a conflict between Lane County's
BM 37 ordinance in Lane Code, the City's BM 37 ordinance in the SMC and the City's
"housekeeping" amendment to SDC Section 5.090. City staff told the LCPC that this issue would
be researched and resolved prior to adoption of the SDC "housekeeping" amendments by the
Board. After this discussion, the LCPC voted to recommend Board approval of the SDC
"housekeeping" amendments.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17, 2006
Page 8
.
City staff reviewed Lane Code and the SMC and found a minor amendment of Section 5.090 was
in order. Staff returned to the Springfield Planning Commission on December 6,2005 with the
proposed amendment to SDC Section 5.090. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend City Council adoption of the SDC amending Ordinance.
Staff is requesting an emergency clause because SDC "housekeeping" amendments are scheduled
for adoption by the Board on February 15,2006. Upon adoption ofthe attached Ordinance, it will
be forwarded to the Lane County Board of Commissioners to be included in their ordinance
adopting the SDC "housekeeping" amendments.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Councilor Ballew asked Mr. Leahy about the status of Ballot Measure 37 in the courts.
Mr. Leahy said they had oral arguments before the Supreme Court last week.
Councilor Ballew asked if the City was bound to follow the Attorney General opinions.
.
Mr. Leahy said they were not bound, but it was good advice to follow their opinions. He said the
City followed the courts ahead of the Attorney General's opinion, but many times the Attorney
General's opinion was based on court precedence. The amendment before Council brought into
line what was done in the Municipal Code, but not in the Development Code.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6151. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
4. Supplemental Budget Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-02 - A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING RESOURCES AND
REOUIREMENTS IN THE REGIONAL W ASTEW A TER CAPITAL FUND. REGIONAL
WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS SDC FUND, AND REGIONAL WASTEWATER
FUND.
Budget Officer Bob Brew presented the staff report on this item. At various times during the
fiscal year the Council is requested to make adjustments to the fiscal year budget to reflect needed
changes in planned activities, to recognize new revenues, or to make other required adjustments.
These adjustments to resources and requirements which change the current budget are processed
through supplemental budget requests that the Finance Department schedules on an annual basis.
The attached is a special supplemental budget resolution prepared at the request of the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) to fund planned capital
construction and provide staff to manage those projects.
.
The resolution in its current form was adopted by the MWMC at its regular meeting on December
l5,2005. An earlier version of the resolution was used in preparing the advertisement for this
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17, 2006
Page 9
.
public hearing. Total appropriations in the two versions are the same, but there is a modest
change in the allocation between capital projects and reserves in the Regional Wastewater Capital
Fund.
The supplemental budget being presented includes: adjusting resources and requirements in the
Regional Wastewater Capital Fund, Regional Wastewater Improvement SDC Fund, and the
Regional Wastewater Fund.
The City Council is asked to approve the attached Supplemental Budget Resolution.
The overall financial impact of the Supplemental Budget Resolution is to increase total
appropriations by $5,900,000.
Mr. Brew discussed the three areas of the budget affected. He noted that all three had been
approved by the MWMC Commission. He said the first item combined some sub~projects and
increased the scope to add some construction facilities. The second item addedstaffmg to
provide construction management for improvements at the water pollution control facility. He
said it was brought before the Budget Committee on December 6, 2005. He said the third item
was an increase of the budget for a capital project that came in higher than expected. Mr. Brew
said Environmental Services Department (ESD) Manager Susie Smith and A~sistant
ESD/MWMC Manager A1 Peroutka were available for technical questions.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 06-02. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
5. Annexation of Property Owned by Bruce Wiechert to the City of Springfield, Journal
Number LRP2005-000 ro.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-03- A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN
TERRITORIES TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REOUESTING THAT THE
LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE THE
ANNEXATION BY EXPEDITED PROCESS.
City Planner Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. Bruce Wiechert, Owner, has
requested annexation of approximately 23.22 acres of property located south of Jasper Road near
40th Place and Filbert Lane at the southerly limit of Springfield's UF-lO Urbanizable Fringe
Overlay District. The subject territory is described as Assessor's Map Number, l8-02-06-4l, Tax
Lot 4800 and more accurately described in Attachment 1, Exhibit A.
.
The applicant requests annexation in order to seek development of single family residential uses,
consistent with the standards of the Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning district. The
proposed urban uses are not permitted in the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District, thus annexation
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 10
.
is required. An application seeking development approval for a lOl-lot subdivision to be known
as Filbert Meadows was submitted by the applicant on November 22,2005.
Article 6.030(2) of the Springfield Development Code requires that territories considered for
annexation must be provided with "key urban facilities and services", as defined in Metro Plan
Policy 8.a, Page II-B-4. Among these key urban services are water, sewer, storm water facilities,
streets, electricity, parks, fIre/emergency services, and schools. Staff fmds, based on analysis,
that key urban services are available to serve the territory, with the exception of storm water
management facilities, which are being provided for in an Annexation Agreement which has been
negotiated with City staff and the applicant. She discussed how the agreement addressed those
Issues.
The City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate annexation upon receiving
consent in writing from a majority ofthe electors registered in the territory proposed to be
annexed. According to Lane County Elections, there are no registered electors currently residing
within the territory proposed for annexation. Signatures from the property owners have been
obtained.
With Council approval, this resolution will be forwarded to the Lane County Local Government
Boundary Commission with a recommendation for an expedited process. The Owner requests
expedited processing in order to meet an early spring 2006 construction season schedule for
construction of subdivision public improvements. If a public hearing is requested on the
annexation, it will be held at the April 6, 2006, meeting.
.
According to the Lane County Regional Land Information database, the 2005 total assessed value
of the subject property is $23,36l and the total real market value is $5ll,750. Upon annexation,
the property could be developed with residential land uses in accordance with SDC 16.020.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Councilor Ballew discussed the difference between the assessed value and market value.
Mayor Leiken thanked staff for working with the developer on this and working through the
Issues,
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO, 06-03. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
6. Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan and Public Facilities and Services Plan
(PFSP) Project Descriptions and Maps to Address a State Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA) Remand.
.
ORDINANCE NO. 6152 - AN ORDINANCE RESPONDING TO THE LUBA REMAND
OF PROVISIONS IN ORDINANCE NOS. 6093 AND 6094 AND AMENDING THOSE
ORDINANCES BY ADOPTION OF A NEW APPENDIX "B" SHOWING
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 11
.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN: ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE: AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. '
City Attorney Meg Kieran presented the staff report on this item. The Council is conducting a
public hearing and considering adoption of the attached ordinance in response to a remand
decision from LUBA in the matter of The Home Builders Association of Lane County v. the City
of Springfield. In that decision, LUBA found that certain amendments to the PFSP's list of
projects did not adequately describe the various changes proposed to occur at several of the
regional wastewater facility sites. The revised descriptions, which are the subject of this limited
hearing, correct the deficiency cited in the remanded decision.
In 2004, City Councils of Eugene and Springfield and the Lane County Board of Commissioners
adopted the 2004 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Facilities Plan
and associated amendments to the Metro Plan text and the text, tables and maps of the PFSP. The
Home Builders Association of Lane County (HBA) appealed all of those actions to LUBA.
LUBA upheld all of the CouncillBoard's actions except for some of the project descriptions
included in the PFSP, which LUBA remanded for reconsideration. The proposed ordinance will
fulfill the requirements ofLUBA's remand by incorporating expanded project descriptions in the
appropriate PFSP tables and maps, consistent with information that is already in the record of the
public hearing. The projects themselves are unchanged.
.
Construction of facilities included in the MWMC Facilities Plan cannot commence until the
project descriptions in the PFSP are in effect. The proposed descriptions will become effective
upon adoption of similar ordinances by Springfield, Eugene and Lane County. See Attachment A
for additional discussion and analysis.
Ms. Kieran reminded Council that this was a response to the LUBA decision. She discussed the
portions that were remanded and responded to by MWMC. She said LUBA agreed with the HBA
that at a minimum, Project 300,.Water Pollution Control Facility, must be broken down into a
significant public facility project component. In addition, LUBA stated "because we must
remand the challenged decision so that respondents may more specifically list and describe the
significant public facility projects that are now grouped as Project 300, in any event, we do not
consider whether additional specificity is required for Projects 301 and 302. . .. However, it
appears as though further breakdowns are possible and may be required under the Goal 11 rule
for projects 301 and 302 as well. On remand, respondents must consider that question."
Ms. Kieran said in response to that direction from LUBA, MWMC and City staff amended the
Metro Plan's PFSP by breaking down the three projects addressed in the LUBA remand decision
into a number of different components. She said the Water Pollution Control Facility, which was
listed on page 5 of Attachment 6 included in the Agenda Packet, was broken down into nine
projects. The Residuals Treatment Project and the Beneficial Reuse Project had each been
broken down into two additional projects. She said in addition, the text of the PFSP added some
explanation of what the three major geographic treatment areas are. Ms. Kieran noted that
Environmental Services Manager Susie Smith was available for technical questions.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
.
1. Roxie Cuellar, HomeBuilder's Association (HBA) of Lane County, 2053 Laura Street,
Spring.field. OR Ms. Cuellar said most of the issues that HBA had that had statewide
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 12
.
application were still at the Court of Appeals. She said this particular item was a remand
that pertained specifically to MWMC. She said the HBA needed the assurance of having
the projects in the Comprehensive Plan because it was the best assurance that the projects
they paid system development charges (SDC's) for would be constructed. She discussed
Eugene's issues with park, recreation and open space. She said the project descriptions
needed to be specific enough to track. She said the HBA believed that what was included
in the ordinance met the remand requirements. Ms. Cuellar said she had one concern
regarding Project 302, the Reuse Facility. She said in the original PFSP that number was
$25M, but in the 2004 MWMC Facility Plan and project list, the amount was $20M. On
table l6a of the remand, it stated that had been reduced to two projects that totaled $4.6M
and a new line item was added to Project 300 that was now a $l6M Reuse Facility. She
was having a hard time determining if that was a different project because it was moved
to a different category. She said the PFSP adopted by council did not have a Reuse
project that came to $16M. She said the most expensive one was $9.8M, which was for
community areas, such as golf courses. She said when it was moved to Project 300, that
was at the Treatment Facility at River Avenue.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
.
Ms. Smith said a breakdown table was provided. When the projects were broken down for
further specifically, they needed to be dealt with geographically and functionally. She said they
were broken down by aspect or component of the treatment train process they were in. The
Beneficial Reuse Project, Project 302 was moved from $25M to $4.6M because the new Project
300 included all of the projects components that were at the Treatment Plant site rather than the
Reuse site. She said the numbers added up to $l6M for the Reuse Facility components at the
Wastewater Treatment Plant site that included the tertiary treatment, the filtration elements that
had to be added to the end of the plant to bring the water quality to the level required in order for
it to be irrigated to golf courses or other locations. She said it was another part of the treatment
train at the Treatment Plan itself that was part of the Reuse component.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.6152. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
.
1. Kenneth Ravmen, 2150 Laura Street, Space 25, Springfield, OR. Mr. Raymen said he
was here to offer a proposal. He said he had contacted the Public Works Department
before writing up the proposal to see if the pathway along Pioneer Parkway had a name.
He said he was told it was just referred to as Pioneer Pathway. Mr. Raymen's proposal
was to designate that pathway as the Rosa Parks Pathway for a number of appropriate
reasons. First, Rosa Parks Pathway would lead directly to Martin Luther King, Jr.
Parkway just as Rosa Parks' protest lead to the leadership of Dr. King. Second, the
pathway would serve as a reminder of those that walked to work, shopping or school in
support of the Montgomery bus boycott. Third, on any number of occasions honoring
Rosa Parks or Dr. King, individuals of all ages could walk up and down segments of the
pathway to express solidarity with the ideals of those honorees. Fourth, Lane Transit
District (LID) could use those occasions to decorate their buses traveling along this route
with supportive displays. He said Ms. Parks was a pioneer, so it was appropriate to honor
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17, 2006
Pa~e 13
.
her along Pioneer Parkway. He reminded Council that in two weeks, Black History
month would begin.
2. Michael (Mike) Whitney, President. Rural Thurston Neighborhood Association. l4l5
North 66th Street. Springfield. OR. (Mayor Leiken noted that he would allow Mr.
Whitney 5 minutes to speak as Mr. Whitney would be speaking for the most part for the
Thurston Neighborhood Association.) Mr. Whitney thanked the Mayor and City Council
for allowing him to speak. He said he was at the meeting to discuss the Levi Landing no-
build, no-fill zone. He said an agreement was entered into with the City of Springfield,
Thurston Neighborhood Association, and the developers of Levi Landing in 2000. Prior
to that, the Thurston Neighborhood Association had spoken against the proposed
development due to flooding issues. He discussed the flood in 1996 and how it affected
the Thurston neighbors in that area even prior to the no build, no fill. He said litigation
was entered into to try to stop the development. The Thurston Neighborhood
Association, the developer and the City spent a lot of money on the litigation. As a
result, the City recommended mediation and arranged for a grant for a mediator. He said
it was arduous, but resulted in Levi Landing being built with concessions by the
developer and the City of Springfield. He said that mediation agreement was entered into
a Settlement Agreement which he provided for the record. He said the Settlement
Agreement was very clear as to what could and could not be done in that area. The
Thurston Neighborhood Association, the developer and Mike Kelly for the City of
Springfield all signed the Settlement Agreement. He discussed some of the concessions
including fencing regulations, play structures,. and landscaping. He said all of those were
put in the deed restrictions. He said the people that bought the lots and houses knew what
the restrictions were from the deed. He discussed the notices sent out to Levi Landing
residents who appeared to be in noncompliance. Some of those neighbors testified before
Council at the November 7,2005 Regular Meeting. He said during that meeting, several
of the Councilors seemed to be more in favor of not enforcing those restrictions. He said
that was why the Thurston Neighborhood Association was here, to support the City staff.
He said on the front of the mediated settlement was the Thurston Neighborhood
Association's rendition of the background of this issue. He said he was hereto ask
Council to go forward and enforce the property restrictions in the no-fill, no-build zone as
they were very concerned about flooding in the Cedar Creek area. He said for the rest of
his life, the Council's lives and his children's lives, the Thurston Neighborhood
Association and the City of Springfield will have Cedar Creek in common. If the City of
Springfield cannot be trusted at their word of what they would do, the Thurston
Neighborhood Association would feel there was no need for any type of mediation with
the City.
3. Brenda Leavitt, l458 North 66th Street. Springfield, OR. Ms. Leavitt said she was
following up with Mr. Whitney's testimony with some photos that showed some of the
infractions on the Settlement.
4. Fred Simmons, 312 S. 32nd Place, Springfield, OR. Mi. Simmons said he agreed with the
two previous speakers. That situation was very complex and the City and developer
agreed to do certain things. The City had a responsibility to require conformance with
that agreement unless the agreement was flawed. He said the other issue was the Liebert
Contract. He said his original concern was that the original space plan analysis done by
Mr. Liebert was already close to $90,000, and this new agreement was for $86,000. At
the bottom of the agreement, there was a notation that the firm hoped the City would hire
them for the transition component, which would be additional funding. He noted thathe
respected the work done by Mr. Liebert and his associates, but he felt the new contract
was a way to skate around the contract limitation that was in affect for the first contract.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17, 2006
Page 14
.
He noted the cost for the architect and the rising costs of materials, and that he doubted
the facility could be built with the dollars available. He said he was concerned about the
new contract.
5. Rita Castillo, 6825 F Street. Springfield. OR. Ms. Castillo said she had lived and worked
in Springfield for twenty- five years. She discussed the Mandatory Rabies licensing issue.
She discussed the low rate of licensing compliance in Springfield. She said Council had
the responsibility to uphold the law. She said the majority of speakers on the issue in
November were in favor of Mandatory Rabies reporting, and the majority who wrote in
recently were in favor. She said many of those that spoke before Council had never
spoken before Council before, but felt this was an important topic. She said Lane County
Animal Regulation Authority (LCARA) had identified 3000 non-compliant dog owners
and their experiences reported an 80 percent rate. She said their mechanism was all set
up and it saved lives because there was less euthanizing for space and a built-in feature
for spay and neuter services. She said the reporting was partly about money and partly
about saving lives. She said others that spoke in opposition cited privacy issues, but she
felt an innocent life was more important than anyone's privacy. She said those that were
in compliance should not have to carry those that were not compliant. She said as a
member of the Budget Committee, she questioned why the City did not create their own
program. She said the program agreed with three of the Council Goals: Provide
financially sound government; Utilize the resources efficiently; and Partner with citizens
and other public agencies. She discussed the advantage of increased compliance.
6. Scott Bartlett. l445 East 2lst Avenue, Eugene, OR. Mr. Bartlett said he was not here to
speak on the Rabies Reporting ordinance. He asked Council to consider alternatives. He
said the Task Force met for a year and a half on behalf of the elected officials, as citizens
of Lane County, not special interest groups. He said animals were dying and there was
an animal overpopulation problem in Springfield and Lane County. He quoted others
regarding treatment of animals. He asked Council to consider what Springfield could do
to upgrade the whole program in promoting more responsible animal ownership through
licensing compliance or increasing support of spay and neutering to prevent animals from
being thrown out. He said Council seemed uncomfortable with the Rabies Reporting
ordinance. He suggested the City formally ask veterinarians to voluntarily report rabies
vaccinations. He discussed ways they could overwrite that with a small increase in
license fees. He suggested asking Willama1ane to post signage about licensing at their
parks. He suggested Council ask the City Manager and staff to work on a comprehensive
plan to make Springfield the number one in the County for citizen responsible ownership.
7. David Calderwood, 28l 04 Spencer Creek Road, Eugene, OR. Mr. Calderwood said he
understood the public would not be allowed to speak regarding the Rabies Reporting so
he did not have something prepared. Mr. Calderwood said he represented the Eugene
Kennel Club. He discussed the ordinance and noted that it stated it would go to the Lane
County Health Administrator, but it would go to the designee which was LCARA.
.
City Attorney Joe Leahy said the ordinance was correct because the Lane County Health
Administrator could name who it went to, and if that was LCARA, that would be the one
to receive it.
.
Mr. Calderwood said his understanding was that it was LCARA. He said Lane County
only spoke on emotion, and no facts. He discussed the issues with the Animal Task
Force which included animal rights extremist. He said the breeders were terrified with
what they heard in the Task Force. He said there were a lot of things in the document
that did not come to light because of the breeders protest. He said he was concerned with
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17, 2006
Page l5
.
names going into a database. He said there was no overpopulation of dogs, and data
received from LCARA indicated that the numbers had gone down each year. He noted
that overpopulation was due to feral cats and the Task Force report dealt only with dogs.
He said Dr. Mary Whitlock was the veterinarian that originally represented the Lane
County veterinarian community on the Task Force. He said she was never quoted by the
Chair of the Task Force; however, Dr. Boyden, a member of the Task Force as a citizen,
was quoted. Mr. Calderwood said Dr. Whitlock quit the Task Force and Mr. Calderwood
felt it was due to the fact that every idea she came up with was shouted down. When Dr.
Whitlock quit the Task Force, Dr. Sandra Smalley took over for the Lane County
Veterinarians. He said she was also treated unfairly. Mr. Calderwood asked Council not
to adopt this ordinance because he felt it did not have anything to do with the facts.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
.
I. Correspondence from Rita Castillo, 6825 F Street, Springfield, OR Regarding Mandatory
Rabies Reporting.
2. Correspondence from Alan and Sabree Hamel, 777 Aspen Street, Springfield, OR Regarding
Mandatory Rabies Reporting.
3. Correspondence from Janetta Overholser, 30300 CG-Lorane Road, Cottage Grove, OR
Regarding Mandatory Rabies Reporting.
4. Correspondence from Dr. Roberta L. Boyden, l568 Fairmount Boulevard, Eugene, OR
Regarding Rabies Reporting.
5. Correspondence from Jack Dresser, 38131 McKenzie Highway, Springfield, OR Regarding
Mandatory Rabies Reporting.
6. Correspondence from Marie T. Sours, 382B S. 58th Street, Springfield, OR Regarding
Mandatory Rabies Reporting.
7. Correspondence from Rhonda K. Do1bin, 4725 Daisy Street, Springfield, OR Regarding
Mandatory Rabies Reporting.
8. Correspondence from Dr. Sheri Schlorman, 345 W. Oregon Avenue, Creswell, OR Regarding
Mandatory Rabies Reporting.
9. Correspondence from David Calderwood, 28194 Spencer Creek Road, Eugene, OR
Regarding Mandatory Rabies Reporting.
10. Correspondence from Richard Chandler, 6825 F Street, Springfield, OR Regarding
Mandatory Rabies Reporting.
ll. Correspondence from Rita Castillo, 6825 F Street, Springfield, OR Regarding Mandatory
Rabies Reporting.
l2. Correspondence from Brenda James, 6814 F Street, Springfield, OR Regarding Mandatory
Rabies Reporting.
13. Correspondence from Scott Bartlett, l445 East 2l 8t Street, Eugene, OR Regarding Mandatory
Rabies Reporting.
l4. Correspondence from Lorraine Still, P.O. Box l213, Creswell, OR Regarding Mandatory
Rabies Reporting.
l5. Correspondence from Suzanne K. Arlie, 87l Country Club Road, Eugene, OR Regarding
Mandatory Rabies Reporting.
16. Correspondence from David Suchart, Director of Management Services, Lane County, 125
East 8th Avenue, Eugene, OR Regarding the Rabies Reporting Ordinance.
17. Correspondence from Renee C. Douglas, 37066 Conley Road, Springfield, OR Regarding a
Suggestion for a Low Cost, Spay and Neuter Clinic for Springfield.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 16
.
l8. Correspondence from Dave Frohnmayer, President, University of Oregon, l226 University of
Oregon, Eugene, OR Regarding Permanent North and South-Bound Ramp Connections at I-5
and Franklin Boulevard.
19. Correspondence from Charlotte Behm, 73l Poltava Street, Springfield, OR Regarding the
Expansion for I-5/Franklin and/or I-5 G1enwood.
20. Correspondence from Boz Van Houten, 3110 University Street, Eugene, OR Regarding
Access to Interstate Highway #5 Near Eugene, Springfield, and G1enwood.
21. Correspondence from Mary Ann Holser, 2620 Cresta De Ruta Street, Eugene, OR Regarding
McKenzie Willamette/Triad Certificate of Need Hearing for the Hilyard Site Expansion in
Eugene.
22. Correspondence from Shannon Wilson, 3920 E. 17th Avenue, Eugene (Glenwood), OR
Regarding a Proposed BikeIPedestrian Path on l4th Avenue through G1enwood Boulevard in
Glenwood.
Councilor Lundberg called out the letter regarding the Fire and Life Safety Fees from James
Daubenspeck, item #23. She asked to have staff response to both the Council and Mr.
Daubenspeck.
Ms. Pappas said staff would prepare a response for Council's Communication Packet next week
and for Mr. Daubenspeck.
23. Correspondence from James Daubenspeck, 2579 Castle Drive, Springfield, OR Regarding
Possible Proposed Fire Engine Response Fees.
.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
l. Committee Appointments
a. Mayor/Council Committee Assignments.
Mayor Leiken confirmed the Mayor/Council committee assignments as noted in the
attachments included in the agenda packet.
b. Re-Appomt the Springfield Chamber of Commerce Nominees to the Lane Workforce
Partnership Board.
.
Community Services Manager John Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item. The
Lane Workforce Partnership requested these nominees from the Springfield Chamber of
Commerce be re-appointed to their position as required under the federal organization.
Federal regulations guiding the Partnership require the City of Springfield to appoint from
business nominations made by the Chamber of Commerce.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January l7, 2006
Page 17
.
The Lane Workforce Partnership is charged with directing the operation of local employment
and training programs funded under the Work Force Investment Act (supplanting the Job
Training Partnership Act). Lane Workforce Partnership serves annually over 5,000 Lane
County residents and about 450 businesses. It has an annual budget of about $5 million.
Federal regulations require the City seek nominations from general-purpose business
organizations (the Springfield Chamber in our case) for business appointments. The appointees
must be business owners or managers in Springfield, but need not be City residents.
Councilors Ballew and Lundberg said all three had been doing an outstanding job. They asked
staffto thank the representatives.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY
COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO RE-APPOINT ROSEMARY PRYOR, JERI RAY
AND ANNIE SAKAGUCHI AS SPRINGFIELD BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES TO
THE LANE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITH A
TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31,2008. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
.
1. Councilor Ballew reported on the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) Meeting.
She said she would be joining Mayor Piercy, Jane Lee from ODOT and
representatives from Lane Transit District (LID) and Lane County in an effort to find
a facilitator that was acceptable to the group regarding fmding resolution to the West
Eugene Parkway (WEP). She said when the Eugene Council took action that did not
support continuation of the WEP, it meant the other projects would not move
forward. Eugene later approved projects through June of 2006, while the committee
worked on a facilitated resolution of the WEP with representatives of the Federal
Highway Administration in a parallel process.
Councilor Lundberg said there was no sense of what the resolution might look like
and was unknown. She noted the other alternatives that had been explored over the
years and that it might be difficult to come up with something new. She said it was
frustrating that the WEP had become a black eye on all three jurisdictions. She said
projects would be moved forward. She said she would like to know who would be
paying the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) back if the WEP was not
built. She said she was sorry this issue had gone on so long and in such a contentious
way.
Councilor Ballew said no agency was willing to abide by the facilitator's decision, so
no resolution might actually be found.
Mayor Leiken said when the possibility of new interchanges into Glenwood were
first discussed, the State recommended it be noted as a Springfield project in order to
have an opportunity for it to succeed.
.
2. Councilor Ballew said she attended the Freight Advisory Committee meeting in
Salem last week.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 18
.
Mayor Leiken said he had the opportunity to participate in the Northwest Christian
College Martin Luther King (MLK), Jr. Celebration. He noted that Steadman
Graham was the speaker. He said the Pearl M. Hill award was presented to the
Assistant Principal of Springfield High School (SHS), Carmen Gelman. He said she
had an incredible story of overcoming perseverance. Not long ago she was homeless
and raising three kids, and she now has a Master's Degree and is Assistant Principal.
Mayor Leiken said he offered a proclamation thanking her for her continued efforts
with SHS and the students.
3. Councilor Fitch read a statement announcing that she would not be running for re-
election for her ward position. She said participation in the Springfield City Council
had been inspiring, challenging, fun and rewarding. She said she had reflected on the
City of Springfield and the journey they had embarked on for the future. She referred
to the seven years she had served on the Council and noted that the fellow councilors,
Mayors and quality staff had made the numerous meetings bearable and fun. She
said she had talked to her husband, Mike about the upcoming election in May and
came to the decision not to seek re-election to her Council seat. She said there were
many wonderful and talented individuals in Ward 2 who would be a great addition to
the City Council as the City moved forward responding to the many opportunities
that would result in new successes. She said she looked forward to completing her
term and supporting the next Councilor elected to represent Ward 2.
.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Council Goals and Targets.
Interim City Manager Cynthia Pappas presented the staff report on this item. On December 5,
2005, Council met for their annual Goal Setting Session. During that meeting, Council reviewed
and discussed their Council Goals and One Year Targets. Council made the following changes to
their Five Year Council Goals: .
l. Provide financially sound, stable city government.
2. Utilize resources efficiently and effectively to meet citizen needs for core services.
3. Expand the Springfield economy through commercial and industrial development which
creates family wage jobs.
4. Enhance Springfield's safety by constructing thc Justice Center Increase public safety in
Springfield.
5. Participate in a renaissance for Springfield. Facilitate the redevelopment of Springfield.
6. Partner with citizens and other public agencies to leverage resources.
7. Preserve our hometown feel as we grow.
Council made several changes to the One Year Targets and also asked to have the categories
"Top Priorities" and "High Priorities" combined under the heading "Council Priorities". These
changes are shown in legislative format on Attachment 1.
Ms. Pappas said once the fma1 Council Goals were approved by Council, staff would have them
put on a framed sign for display in the Council Chambers.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 19
.
Councilor Ballew noted that she did not support the Conference Center. She said the Targets
were looking more like the Gold Stars list and were almost overwhelming. She said she would
like to see the list shortened and would be willing to work on shortening it and delay approval.
Ms. Pappas suggested leaving the titles in the document. She said Councilor Ballew could help in
reducing the document or could direct staff to work on editing the details.
Councilor Lundberg noted that it would be nice to have a condensed version that the public could
see that didn't have everything in detail, but more simple.
Councilor Fitch suggested Council adopt the Targets as written, but come up with a one page
summary.
Councilor Ralston asked about making a change in one of the goals.
Council determined to leave the goal as it was written.
Councilor Ballew said she would be willing to adopt the Goals and Targets, but would like to see
it condensed.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE FINAL COUNCIL GOALS AND TARGET AS AMENDED.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
.
2. Rabies Vaccination Reporting to Lane County Health Administrator,.
ORDINANCE NO.5 - AN ORDINANCE CONSENTING TO THE APPLICATION OF
LANE COUNTY ORDINANCE 19-04 WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD TO REQUIRE THE VETERINARIAN PERFORMING A RABIES
VACCINATION OF ANY DOG TO TRANSMIT A COpy OF THE RABIES
VACCINATION CERTIFICATE TO THE LANE COUNTY HEALTH
ADMINISTRATOR.
Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staffreport on this item. Council discussed this issue at
the October 10, 2005 work session and conducted a public hearing in which testimony was
received on November 28, 2005.
On December 12, 2004 Lane County adopted an ordinance which requires veterinarians to report
to Lane County Animal Regulation Authority (LCARA) information regarding dogs that receive
rabies vaccinations. LCARA then uses that information to check that dogs receiving vaccinations
also have County dog licenses, and if not, to enforce compliance.
.
We have received a letter from LCARA requesting a resolution from Springfield Council
enabling enforcement of that ordinance in Springfield. Although the details are not yet in writing,
it is our understanding that LCARA wishes to take over sole responsibility for licensing dogs, and
that revenue from that licensing could be split with the City on roughly a 60/40 basis, with 40%
coming to the City of Springfield. LCARA believes that this program will greatly increase
licensing compliance.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
. Page 20
Captain Rick Lewis of the Springfield Police Department has participated on a County animal
control work group over the last two years and reports that local veterinarians are generally
opposed to this approach to license enforcement.
The City of Springfield is currently responsible for licensing dogs and historically generates
between $l6,000 and $22,000 annually although this last year the city generated approximately
$25,000. That revenue is used to offset the $42,000 annual contract for animal shelter services at
LCARA.
Chief Smith said this was a public policy issue on whether or not Council desired a requirement
imposed on veterinarians to report when they vaccinate a dog to Lane County. He said beyond
that, the City could work out agreements with LCARA on whether or not they would take over
the licensing or the City would retain that responsibility.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would be present to listen to testimony, but would not be
participating in a vote based on a potential conflict of interest.
Councilor Woodrow said this had been an ongoing issue. He said he would be asking staff during
the Friday Agenda Review meeting to look at potential improvements to the compliance issue for
licensing. He said it was not an emotional issue, but was an economic issue. There was a State
law and a City 1awthat rabies vaccinations were mandatory and dog licensing was mandatory, but
there was a lack of compliance. He would like to work with the Police Chief and Animal Control
staff to find a means to improve the compliance.
.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG NOT TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.5.
Councilor Ballew asked if nothing would be done if the ordinance did not pass.
Councilor Woodrow said it would mean that the City of Springfield would not join in with Lane
County and require Springfield veterinarians report to Lane County when they administer rabies
vaccination. He said he would work with staff to see if there was something that could be
brought back for Council that would improve licensing.
Councilor Ballew said she could support that, but she wanted something brought back very
quickly. She said people needed to be more accountable in licensing their dogs because those
that complied were carrying those that were not. She said having a dog was not a right, but a
responsibility.
.
Councilor Ralston read from some of his notes taken during the public hearings. He said this
issue was not about public safety, but about revenue. He said it was not about rabies, because
that was not a problem. He. said he felt people would go outside of the area to get their pets
vaccinated. He said Springfield veterinarians were increasing business because Eugene had
passed a similar ordinance. He said he was proud that Springfield did things differently than
Eugene. He discussed concerns about a database and the limit on number of dogs in Eugene and
Springfield. He said the government didn't need to know everything going on in citizen's homes.
He said if the issue was looking out for the welfare of pets, owners should take better care of their
pets. He said he didn't let his dog run out in the yard where it could get lost, stolen or hit by a
car.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 21
.
Councilor Lundberg said she would like Springfield deal with our own animal issues. She agreed
with working on the compliance issues on our own. She said she was interested in looking at the
issue of overpopulation and how that could be addressed. She said there needed to be more
options for people and recommended working with the veterinarian. She said it was important to
make it convenient for people. She was in favor of looking at ways to help with the animal
situation in Springfield, but felt Springfield did the best when doing it on their own.
Councilor Ballew said if the licensing fees didn't cover the cost, other citizens were paying for
the service. She said if someone had a pet, they should be paying for it to be licensed. She said
she would vote against the motion to make a point that she wanted some options brought back to
Council soon.
Councilor Woodrow restated his motion:
IT WAS ~OVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO NOT ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.5. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 4 FOR, 1 AGAINST (BALLEW) AND 1 ABSTENTION (PISmONERI).
3. Springfield Participation in Regional Radio Project.
.
Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. The City of Springfield has the
opportunity to participate in a regional radio project to design and implement a shared radio
system, as described in Attachment A. Funding for the project comes primarily from a $3 million
dollar COPS grant recently awarded to the City of Eugene. By participating in the grant project,
the City of Springfield is budgeted to receive over $250,000 in new radio equipment (portable
and mobile radios) for the Police Department, in exchange for a $95,000 match contribution
spread over the next 3 fiscal years. In addition, participating in this project will enable the Public
Works Department to replace their radio system, which is outdated and in need of replacement,
with the portable and mobile radios currently used by the Police Department, resulting in a
system that is shared by both departments. This will allow better communication not only on a
daily basis, but in emergencies.
One of the first steps in this project will be to develop an intergovernmental agreement between
the cities of Springfield and Eugene, along with Lane County and EWER The IGA will specify
partner roles and expected costs during the design and implementation phase of this project. The
IGA will further specify that, as part of the implementation effort, the partners will work to
establish a regional planning and governance structure for on-going system maintenance and
development costs.
The Police Department will act as the lead agency for the City of Springfield in this effort, with
significant input and assistance from the Public Works Department.
Chief Smith said the concepts and initial steps for this plan had been discussed with, and had
received the approval of the Mayor and the City Council President.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there were issues regarding sensitive information that could get
shared inadvertently when integrating systems.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 22
.
Chief Smith said the possibility did exist if someone got on the wrong channel. He said it was a
trunk system with user groups. Public Works would be on a separate channel and should not be
conn~cted when a Police Officer was running a check on someone they pulled over.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the shared channel or emergency channel would be used for normal
traffic issues.
Chief Smith said they would be separate channels. He said Public Works would not be accessing
the frequencies that were normally used by Police where sensitive information could be
transmitted. He said that did not eliminate the possibility of human error, but it was pretty
unlikely it would occur.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was concerned about the agreement with Law Enforcement Data
. System (LEDS) and the information traveling through LEDS.
Chief Smith said he thought they could minimize or eliminate that risk.
Councilor Ballew said some years ago there was an issue of the Federal Government giving away
the band widths and she asked if that was still a problem.
Chief Smith said it was not a problem with this type of system. He said with the current system it
could happen. He explained.
.
Councilor Ballew said it didn't appear the Fire and Life Safety (F &LS) was integrated into this
system.
Chief Smith said F&LS would be included. He said F&LS and the State Police were on VHF
systems and Lane County, Eugene and Springfield Police were all on UHF systems. He said
mechanisms could be devised to allow the two systems to talk back and forth.
Councilor Ballew said it would be nice if all could be integrated into the same system.
Chief Smith said that was the goal, but they would be able to talk with F&LS.
Mayor Leiken said it was a great start. He noted the importance of Public Works being tied into
the system because they were an integral part when it came to any type of disaster. He said it was
important to attach ourselves to any grant funds since the Homeland Security Funds were
decreasing. He explained the new policy for Homeland Security Funds.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE PARTICIPATION BY CITY OF SPRINGFIELD IN A
REGIONAL EFFORT THAT WILL UPGRADE RADIO SYSTEMS FOR THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
4. TEAM Springfield Signature Project.
.
Interim City Manager Cynthia Pappas thanked Council for their patience in sitting through this
lengthy meeting. She said that during the TEAM Springfield meeting on Saturday, January 21,
one ofthe agenda item was called Signature Project. She said it was being suggested that the
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 17,2006
Page 23
.
TEAM Springfield partners focused on one signature project. Council and other TEAM
Springfield members would have an opportunity to brainstorm that project.
Mayor Leiken noted the success in MeadowPark with TEAM Springfield coming together to
make it happen as one ofthe fIrst signature projects that TEAM Springfield participated in as a
group. He said it made more sense to focus on one signature project rather than many projects.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
Councilor Woodrow expressed his appreciation to Councilor Fitch for all of her work on the
Council Qver the last seven years and the help she had been to him in the last two years since he
joined the Council. He said he was sorry she would be leaving.
Councilor Fitch said she would finish out her term through the end of December 2006, but
wanted to give others plenty of time to file and campaign for the position.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
r
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
.
Attest:
Cil~~
.