HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 28, 2005 Regular
.
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY NOVEMBER 28, 2005
The City of Springfield council met in special regular session in the Coun~il Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, On Monday, November 28, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor
Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Fitch, Ralston, Lundberg, Woodrow, and Pishioneri.
Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa
and members of the staff.
Councilor Ballew was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
.
CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - BALLEW).
1. Claims
2. Minutes
3. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO. 05-56 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO A WARD COMPETITIVE BIDS AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN
$35.000 DURING THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 7.2005. TO JANUARY 8. 2006
WHILE THE CITY COUNCIL IS IN RECESS.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 05-57 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF
CYNTHIA P APP AS AS INTERIM CITY MANAGER.
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 2
.
1. Proposed Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments.
ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT CODE. ARTICLE 23 PLO PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
AND ADOPTING A S~VERABILITY CLAUSE (FIRST READING),
City Planner Gary Karp presented the staff report On this item. The proposed SDC amendments
are consistent with recently adopted Downtown Refmement Plan policies affirming the Public
Land and Open Space (PLO) District as enabling legislation for the Justice Center.
The proposed amendments to SDC Article 23 are divided into three categories:
.
1) Revising the use list in SDC Section 23.020(2) "Government" to allow the uses that comprise
the Justice Center and other specific uses along with minor siting standards exceptions
specifically applying to setbacks, height, parking and fences in downtown Springfield.
2) Changing the approval process for uses listed in~SDC Section 23.020(2) "Government" from
Type III Discretionary Use (Planning Commis~i~m) to Type II Site Plan Review (staff).
Currently, approval of all uses in SDC Section 23.020(2) requires Type III review. The
Planning Commission recommended some proposed uses be reviewed under Type II
procedure, but some should remain Type III.
3) Adding existing pedestrian amenity text from SDC Article 40 to SDC Article 23. These
standards would be applied by staff during the Site Plan Review approval process. The
proposed standards include sidewalks incorporating ornamental paving treatments, outdoor
seating, additional landscaping, public art and pocket parks. These pedestrian amenity
standards are consistent with recent amendments to the Downtown Refinement Plan which
allows PLO zoned property in the Nodal Development Area and encourages pedestrian
amenities in compliance with the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule.
At the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted (5-0, with 2 absent) to recommend
adoption of the attached Ordinance to the City Council. The Ordinance includes the Planning
Commission's several revisions to the SDC amendments. However, during the preparation of the
Ordinance, staff realized that there may be an unintentional consequence caused by requiring
Type III Discretionary Use approval for fire stations, police stations, including jails, and public
transit facilities. This issue is discussed in detail in Attachment 2 which suggests options for the
City Council to either adopt the Ordinance as written or amend the Ordinance. If the City Council
decides to amend the Ordinance, that amendment can be included in the second reading of the
Ordinance.
Mr. Karp said that during the council's work session, it was determined that the public hearing on
this item would be opened and continued until Tuesday, January 17, 2006. Staff would go back
to the Planning Commission to discuss the options and changes with them at the earliest
convenience.
.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
1. Fred Simmons. 312 South 52nd Place. Springfield. OR. Mr. Simmons said the code
development changes were an unequal treatment issue. He discussed the process with the
American Legion Hall being a nonconforming use and that changes were now being made in
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 3
.
the Development Code in the same ZOne. He asked if there would be an opportunity on
January 17 to make comments on the process. He had not read all ofthe changes and would
like the opportunity to address that in January.
City Attorney Joe Leahy said the public hearing would be open and continued allowing time
for testimony.
Mr. Simmons said there were some issues. He said he was supportive of the governmental
use component for the jail, he thought there were some things that were being treated
differently than others were treated.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 17, 2006.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT-
BALLEW).
The Mayor called for a change in the order of the meeting with Public Hearing 3 preceding Public
Hearing 2.
3. Discounted SDC Charges in Downtown Area. (WENT 2~
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-58 - A RESOLUTION MODIFYING AND EXTENDING THE
PROGRAM OF DISCOUNTED SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA.
Technical Services Manager Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. The program
of discounting SDC charges for development in the downtown area will expire on December 3,
2005. Council may choose to modify and extend the program or allow it to terminate.
In December 2000, the council adopted a program of discounted local SDC charges as an
economic development stimulus. (The discount does not apply to regional sanitary sewer
charges.) That program ran for three years. In November 2003, the council again evaluated the
program and concluded it should be slightly modified and continued for another three year
period. The 75 percent discount period is nOW due to expire, making it appropriate for council to
consider the future of the program.
Attachment A shows SDC payments for properties in the downtown area and the discount against
full SDCs received. In 2003, when the former discount of 50 percent was in effect there were a
total of five developments which produced about $14,000 in SDC revenue, with an equivalent
amount not received because of the discount. Two transactions occurred under the 100 percent
discount available during 2004. Had those developments paid full local SDCs the city would have
received $42,000. In 2005 the city received $15,000 in local SDCs from 6 developments, and did
not receive about $45,000 because of the discount. The effect of the discounts represents about
three percent of budgeted SDC revenue annually.
.
Based On this analysis, staff suggests two options for council to consider. The program could be
modified to continue the current 75 percent reduction for another two years, to be followed by a
year of 50 percent reduction. An alternative approach would be to provide for a restructuring to
repeat the prior action - with a 100 percent reduction for one year, followed by one year at 75
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 4
.
percent and a final year at 50 percent. Staff has attached a draft resolution to accommodate the
former approach, since that would seem to create the least chance that those who developed in the
past 12 months would feel concerned that their early action adversely affected them. Council
should feel free to suggest that resolution be amended if they prefer the alternative approach.
Councilor Lundberg said many people didn't understand the credits and what part ofthe
downtown they could be applied. Public education would be beneficial. She said the purpose of
the credits was to encourage people to use the program.
Councilor Fitch agreed. She said there was a number of spaces downtown that could be utilized to
a higher degree. If the property Owners knew they could invest and not have large SDCs they
would be very appreciative. She agreed it should be continued at the 75 percent reduction for the
next two years, followed by the 50 percent reduction.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
.
1. Terry McDonald. 3060 Whitbeck. Eugene. OR. Mr. McDonald said he worked with St.
Vincent DePaul. He said St. Vincent was currently at 75 percent, but if someone came in and
received a 100 percent credit, it would be fine with him. He said the idea was to encourage
development in downtown and that could be very hard and expensive. He said he felt the
completion of the new St. Vincent building would be a catalyst to move things forward. He
encouraged council to go with a 100 percent reduction the ftrst year, followed by a 75 percent
reduction the second year and a 50 percent reduction the third year, with the intent to spur
people forward.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 05-58 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT-
BALLEW).
2. Rabies Vaccination Reporting to Lane County Health Administrator.
ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANCE CONSENTING TO THE APPLICATION OF
LANE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 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
(FIRST READING),
Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report On this item. 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,
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 5
.
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.
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.
Council discussed this issue at the October 10, 2005 work session and requested it be returned for
public hearing.
The City of Springfield is currently responsible for licensing dogs and historically generates
between $16,000 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 noted that Mr. Wellington, Program Manager for LCARA, was in the audience and
was available for questions.
Councilor Woodrow asked how much money the city would lose if this resolution was adopted.
.
Chief Smith said the city would not lose any money unless the city chose to turn over the
licensing of dogs to Lane County. If that occurred and there was a fifty/fifty split between the
county and the city, there would need to be approximately a 50 percent increase in dog licensing
to break even with the current lic~nsing strategy that was currently employed. He said the
revenue that came in under the Springfield licensing at this time was used to offset shelter costs
that were paid to Lane County.
1. Starly Pupke, 28364 Restwell Road, Eugene, OR. Ms. Pupke said currently with Springfield
using the voluntary system, there was only twelve percent compliance in dogs being licensed.
She said if all the vets reported the rabies vaccination, Springfield might gain a lot even if
they had a fifty/fifty split with Lane County. She said the voluntary system was not enough.
She read from a statement she had written. She said she supported any action to bring people
into compliance with the law, especially since the lives of dogs depended on this. She said
there needed to be a better return rate of pets to their owners and less euthanasia. She said
she volunteered at the spay and neuter clinic and was part of a Blue Star rescue that rescued
animals out of LCARA. She said she worked with the staff at LCARA, including Mike
Wellington, and said she appreciated everything he had done. She said Eugene passed this
ordinance last March and had licensed 2000 more dogs since it was adopted. She said when
dogs were picked up in Springfield with nO identification for immediate return to their owner,
the officers radioed into the LCARA shelter, which was always full. She said dogs were
euthanized at times to make space for more incoming dogs, especially if the dog had a
problem that was an overwhelming negligence or abuse case that needed to be held for court
or for three days before they could be euthanized. She said she supported the ordinance. She
did not believe in raising taxes for pet food, but believed that all pet Owners should be
brought into compliance.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 6
.
2. Ann Jensen. 1642 North Danebo. Eugene. OR. Dr. Jensen said her veterinarian practice was
in Springfield so this ordinance would affect her. She said she licensed her dogs. She said
there were a lot of people in Springfield and Eugene who were terrified of any official agency
knowing how many dogs they owned. She discussed the limits for both Eugene and
Springfield. She said a year or so ago, there was an interview of the animal control officer,
who stated that the high point of her day was finding someone out of compliance. Ms. Jensen
referred to another case where there were too many dogs in a household in Eugene, and
someone took in some ofthe dogs as an adoptive family. She felt that if this ordinance were
passed, people would not get rabies shots for their dogs because they would not want to put
their dogs at risk of being ordered to be euthanized. She said the risk of rabies was less than
the risk of being cited.
3. Angie Boggs. 1202 Ouinalt. Springfield. OR. Ms. Boggs said she opposed this ordinance.
She felt it violated the privacy between the veterinarian and the patient. She agreed dogs
should be licensed. She did not feel the vets should do the work if Lane County wanted to
enforce. The county should do the work, not the veterinarian.
.
4. Dr. Kelli Rosen. Cascade Animal Clinic. 671 W. Centennial Blvd. Springfield.. OR Dr.
Rosen said she was opposed to this ordinance because of the impact of additional work for
the veterinarian offices and because of clients who do not want their information released for
a number of reasons. She said many were police officers who do not want their home
addresses, names and numbers put out there. There was no stipulation any of that would be
protected. She said she had many clients that had more than the legal amount of dogs who
would not bring their dogs into the clinic knowing they would be turned in to LCARA. She
said Mike Wellington had been very gracious and said he would not use this for enforcement,
but he would not be at LCARA forever and the person who came in to take his place may not
hold that same opinion. She said she hoped council did not pass this ordinance because her
number of rabies vaccinations from clients living in Eugene had increased dramatically
because they did not want the rabies vaccination reported. She said she had practiced in
Marion County where they went door to door to bring about compliance and had a lot of
success. She said it might work better to go door to door rather than having the veterinarians
report the vaccinations. She said mail-in licensing should also be encouraged. She said in
Marion County the rabies certificate had a license application attached with information On
where to send the application.
.
5. Cynthia Sinclair. 220 5th Street. Springfield. OR Ms. Sinclair said Oregon statute already
provided that if you had a dog you must license the dog. In order to have a license, you must
have a vaccination. She said the only change in the ordinance was that the veterinarians
would be reporting the rabies vaccination. She discussed the low compliance with the
voluntary system. She discussed the impact of over crowding at the LCARA shelter. She
said the kennels were full because people did not pick up their dogs and these dogs continued
to breed other dogs. She said vicious dogs were sometimes released again because there was
nO room at the kennel or good dogs were euthanized to make room. She said until people
were forced, there were many people who would not comply voluntarily. She said ifpet
owners in Eugene were now licensing because they were afraid of a citation, then the goal
was being met. She said every other jurisdiction that had started the program had retained the
program. She said the ordinance could include language stating that the zoning or code laws
could not be used for enforcement.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 7
.
6. Rita Castillo, 6825 F Street, Springfield, OR. Ms. Castillo discussed the issue of animals that
were euthanized because there was no room at the pound. She said she spoke for herself and
for all the dogs that couldn't speak for themselves because they were dead. She said she
lived in Springfield and most of the opponents did not live in Springfield. She noted that it
was already law and was passed by Eugene and Lane County and she felt Springfield should
also pass it. Ms. Castillo submitted documents that were distributed to the Mayor and
council. She discussed the documents which included an article about a girl who had to
defend her chihuahua against a pit bull that had nO license and an article about bird flu. She
discussed the testimony at the Lowell council meeting regarding rabies treatments. One of
the documents distributed explained current rabies treatments and reactions from that
treatment. She said the last document included questions and answers about the rabies
vaccination reporting ordinance. She said she did not feel it was a privacy issue. She noted
the information that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) had on people. She felt it was
lazy, greedy people who were not licensing their pets.
.
7. Scott Bartlett, 1445 East 21st Ave.. Eugene, OR Mr. Bartlett said council had an opportunity
to pass an ordinance that could save lives. Mr. Bartlett was the chairman ofthe Lane County
Animal Regulation Task Force which met for fourteen months. The task force included
Springfield residents, Captain Rick Lewis, Judge Sinclair, scientists, veterinarians, animal
control, animal rescue and lay citizens. He said ten years prior to this report, it had been
reported that 30,000 dogs and cats were euthanized. The task force looked at a number of
things they could do to make an impact that would not be intrusive. He said they found that
eighty-three percent of dogs in Lane County were not licensed. Unfortunately because there
were so few kennels and Lane County had been derelict, they had not built a new kennel
since 1978. There were now only eighteen kennels for a county the size of Connecticut. He
noted a visit he made to Mr. Wellington at LCARA when a dog came in that was noted as
having significant health problems. He said the dog was euthanized and when he called to
inquire about the significant health problems, he was told the dog had flea problems. Three
days after the dog was euthanized, the caretakers for the owners that were out of town came
by looking for the dog and were told it had been euthanized. He said that happened all too
often. He said he spoke with Springfield Animal Control Officer Tracy Neal and asked her if
she would support this ordinance and she said she would if it would increase licenses in
Springfield. Mr. Bartlett said he didn't care ifLCARA had the contract. If this ordinance
were passed, the number of licenses and revenue would be tripled. He said ifhe were a
councilor he would have Springfield do it. He discussed other states that enacted statewide
ordinances requiring veterinarians report in triplicate forms and in seven years decreased
euthanasia and impounds by seventy-five percent. He said children needed vaccinations in
order to enroll in school. He said Springfield should provide leadership and he asked that
they do something. He said he would be happy to answer any questions privately.
.
8. Carol Titus, 29936 Kelso Avenue. Eugene, OR Ms. Titus said she was the office manager for
Cascade Animal Clinic in Springfield. She noted the work done by Mr. Bartlett and the task
force and recognized that Mr. Bartlett was truly touched when the black lab was euthanized.
She noted other people that had to euthanize their pets, however, not because they were
vicious or because there wasn't room at the kennel, but because the owner had too many. She
said the number limit was the issue that caused the most grief. She said if someone had more
than the numbers allowed and they knew the veterinarian would turn them in, they would
have difficulty in making the decision whether or not to vaccinate their dog. She said
Springfield would not be able to make those changes yet. She asked how people in
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 8
.
Springfield could have three dogs and people in Eugene could only have two. She said that
issue needed to be addressed. She said she wanted to see that people continued to vaccinate
animals. She agreed that children get vaccinated, but the doctors didn't give out the
information, the parents did. The only thing doctors were allowed to report was abuse.
.
9. Lorraine Still, P.O. Box 1213, Creswell, OR Ms. Still asked council to reject the application
of Lane County ordinance 19-04, mandatory rabies reporting for the City of Springfield. She
said a letter was sent to the incorporated cities in Lane County in August 2005, requesting
cities to approve a resolution consenting to the application of mandatory rabies reporting
inside their city limits. She said the cities of Oakridge, Lowell, Creswell and Cottage Grove
rejected this request. She noted that the letter clearly stated that two of the goals of
mandatory rabies reporting were to increase license compliance and increase revenue. She
said in an article appearing in today's Register Guard, the director ofLCARA was quoted as
saying that mandatory rabies reporting had nothing to do with revenue or license sales, but
was mainly for a database of inoculated dogs in Lane County, and was about health and
public safety. She said ifhealth and public safety was truly a priority, where was LCARA
when two year old Jett Gardner was mauled by a friend's dog. While paramedics took Jett
and his parents to Sacred Heart Medical Center, the owners of the dog contacted LCARA to
have an officer take the dog away. The owner was unable to get the dog out, but was told by
LCARA that nO One was available to come out. They advised the Owners to get control of the
dog, quarantine it and bring it in On Tuesday, two days later. She said the OWners of the dog
were alarmed by this and had the dog destroyed by a neighbor. She said that was a prime
example of a possible rabies situation, which would warrant LCARA's immediate attention,
yet LCARA shifted the responsibility. She asked if mandatory rabies reporting was truly
about health and safety.
10. Jack Dresser, 38131 McKenzie Hwy., Springfield, OR Mr. Dresser said he had already
testified On this subject before the Lane County Commissioners and the City of Eugene City
Council. He said Lane County had forty-four percent more animal than they had households.
He said dogs had been invited into our communities for many years and people had a deep
responsibility to take care of them. He discussed a dog that was rescued near the University
that did have a dog license, but was from Olympia, Washington. He said Greenhill was
notified and was able to locate the owner in twenty minutes. He referred to the article in the
Register Guard regarding the pet owners who had recently moved to Oregon from Los
Angeles who didn't know they needed to license the dog here since it was licensed in LA.
He said money was part of the issue and this would bring in more money, but it was also
about health. When someone was bitten by a dog, you wanted to know if that dog had a
rabies vaccination. He referred to the increase in the number of those who were now getting
their dog licensed since this ordinance had been put into affect in Lane County and Eugene.
He discussed the increased revenue brought in by this. He said one of the objects was to
reduce euthanasia. He discussed other ways the money raised by licensing could be used.
.
11. Diana Robertson, P.O. Box 41462/871 River Road, Eugene, OR. Ms. Robertson said she
represented Shelter Animal Resource Alliance (SARA), a local non-profit organization that
rescued, assisted and advocated for sheltered animals in the area. She said they had rescued
many dogs and cats in Springfield. She said she was in favor of the proposal. She said,
however, that she would not want to see this ordinance used to enforce limit laws. There
were many people who rescued animals or cared for older or disabled animals and those
people who did so in a responsible way should not be punished. She said most citizens
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 9
.
wanted good government and a safe community and would welcome the opportunity for a
convenient mail-in registration for their dogs if presented in a positive way. She said SARA
had about 200 supporters in the Springfield area concerned about animal welfare in
Springfield and Lane County. She said they did support this measure with the reservation
that it not be used to enforce limit laws.
.
12. Dr. Roberta Boyden. 1568 Fairmount Blvd.. Eugene. OR. Dr. Boyden said she was a
veterinarian with clients in Springfield and her husband was employed in Springfield. She
said she had sent a letter of support for this code change to the Mayor and council in October.
She said she had spent countless hours volunteering to try to find ways for the community to
help animals and deal with animal related issues. She served as a member of the LCARA
task force and along with the other task force members spent months researching and looking
into other communities' organizations for working solutions to the pet overpopulation
problems. She said Lane County had approximately 40,000 homeless cats and dogs and an
additional 54,000 pets that were owned by people who lived at or below poverty level. She
said most of those did not have access to spay or neuter or even basic veterinarian care. She
said they were recommending and supporting this code because it had great potential to help
our community to provide a consistent funding source for LCARA, which would provide the
services to the community including housing and adoption of stray animals, housing and
return of lost animals, responding and investigating animal bites, abuse and neglect and
educating the community. She said both the City of Eugene spay/neuter clinic and LCARA
provided spay/neuter vouchers to qualifying low-income families as a result of the rabies
reporting revenue. She said it would increase the number of licensed dogs, which would save
everyone cost and stress. Dogs with a license could be identified by any county office who
could contact the owner, greatly decreasing the need for impounding. Dogs with licenses
stood a far better chance of getting home if they were impounded, rather than risk death if
they were not claimed or adopted. She discussed the probono clinic, which provided
veterinarian service to homeless clients for their pets. Before the rabies reporting, those
people had not received licenses. She said rabies reporting was the norm, not the exception,
across the United States. She discussed the advantages. She asked council not to be swayed
by a small minority whose agenda was to protect their own personal interests of not obeying
current laws of pet licensing and ownership. She distributed some rabies certificates that
showed the amount of information that was provided.
.
13. David Calderwood. 28104 Spencer Creek Road. Eugene. OR. Mr. Calderwood distributed
his testimony. He said One of the goals of Springfield was to expand the economy through
commercial development which creates family wage jobs. Because of this, Springfield was
known as being business and growth friendly. Mandatory rabies reporting was not consistent
with those goals. He said previous testimony showed that veterinarians were losing business
by clients going to other areas for their rabies shots, and he said that would happen in
Springfield if the ordinance was passed. He said according to the LCARA presentation to
council, if Springfield adopted this and allowed the county to sell licenses, Springfield would
lose money even with the increase of the projected thirty-six percent. He said he believed
LCARA wanted this passed for information. He said LCARA had denied that any of this
information would be made public. He referred to a letter from an attorney which stated that
this was a conditional exemption. He discussed an article in the Register Guard where a pet
OWner who did not license her pet was made public. He quoted from the article regarding
additional information that was provided to the Register Guard. He referred again to the
article and the section On public health and safety. He questioned the comment that it was not
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 10
.
for revenue. He referred to all article in the Springfield News which stated that this ordinance
would increase licenser compliance according to LCARA officials. He said according to
confmnable data, Oregon had not had an Oregon contracted case of rabies for thirty years.
He referred to testimony by veterinarians which stated that the system worked nOW. He said
it was not needed for public health and safety. He referred to a survey which showed this was
not the norm across the country. Thirty states did not require it. He referred to document
showing the number of dogs euthanized. He said those numbers had been dramatically
dropping since 1989. He said nothing needed to change for those numbers to drop. He asked
that council make their decision On verifiable data, not emotional testimony.
14. Carolyn Hancock. 2663 Nova. Springfield. OR Ms. Hancock said she was opposed to the
mandatory rabies reporting. She said others she had talked to in Springfield were shocked
that Springfield would turn its rabies reporting to Lane County. She said Springfield was an
independent community and did their own thinking and considered and listened to the people
that lived here. She appreciated council's time.
.
15. Rochelle Jones. 1054 54th Place. Springfield. OR. Ms. Jones said she was a Springfield
resident and worked for LCARA to administer rabies reporting notification. She said that out
of the three thousand letters mailed out, seventy percent of the dog owners had complied
without question. She said she received phone calls from ten percent. She said most of those
that called didn't know they needed to license their dog, and the others thought their rabies
tag was their dog license. She said once that was clarified, and they were told the benefits of
licensing their dogs, they were more than willing to get the license. She said out of the three
thousand, she had two people tell her they would not license their dogs. Those dogs were
over fifteen years old and the county did not cite them or go after them. She said no one had
told her they would stop getting rabies vaccinations, although a couple of people said they
would go to Linn County to have the rabies vaccination. She said she had been to all the city
council meetings and she noted that those opposed were all fighting complying with
ordinances that were already in palace.
16. Curt Daly. 1104 T Street. Springfield. OR. Dr. Daly said he was a veterinarian in
Springfield and had heard from many clients regarding licensing their dogs. He said another
big issue was that the license needed to be On the dog's collar and the dog needed to have the
collar on when it got out. He said if a child was bitten by an animal that could be carrying
rabies, and there was no identification to know if the animal had been vaccinated, he would
take the child in for post exposure rabies treatments. If this was a public health issue, that
was one thing, but if this was a compliance issue, they needed to find a better way.
.
17. Jan Shelton. 4055 Royal Ave. #134. Eugene. OR Ms. Shelton said she lived in Eugene, but
hopes to use a Springfield veterinarian for her dogs. She relayed three stories. She said she
got her first dog from people that had over the limit and had taken their dogs to a rabies
vaccination clinic. Their pictures were taken and put in the Register Guard. Those OWners
were told they would need to get rid of the excess dogs. She was given the dog so it would
have a way to live. Ms. Shelton discussed the limit regulations. She said she had friends
with four dogs, all vaccinated and two were licensed. Because she had one dog, they
registered one of their dogs in her name and the fourth was never registered. She said her
eighty-six year old mother had a dog that died and she started declining without an animal
companion. Ms. Shelton adopted a dog for her mother, but her mother chose not to register,
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 11
.
inoculate or license her dog because she knew that her dog will outlive her and Ms. Shelton
would then have a third dog, which was over the limit. She said this had impacted her life.
18. Janetta Overholser. 30300 Cottage Grove Lorane Road. Cottage Grove. OR Ms. Overholser
said she was part of the task force that put together these recommendations. She encouraged
council to go out to LCARA and listen to the phone calls and the situations officers had to
deal with. She said they would then understand the enormity of the problem. She said this
may not be the way to address it, but something must be done. She said in the 1970' s,
LCARA had over twenty personnel, and they nOW had thirteen. The population of both
people and animals in the county had increased dramatically. She said there were situations
when LCARA staff was needed because they had the training and a way to fund that needed
to be found. More space was needed. She said there was rabies in Lane County because
there were bats that had tested positive for rabies. All were working for the betterment of the
animals. She said the limit laws may need to be addressed, but one part of the solution
should not be thrown away. She discussed a situation where someone had been bitten On the
leg by a dog and needed to know where to go and how to address the situation. She said
people did have vicious dogs, and there must be a way of controlling that. If this way
brought in more money, so be it. She said perhaps Springfield should start their own Humane
Society and their own shelter if they wanted to be independent. She said part of the revenue
from licenses went to spay/neuter programs. She discussed the stray cat alliance and the
number of calls they received from Springfield residents. She said this would be One way to
address this issue.
.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Mayor Leiken said this was a first reading and no action would be taken. He asked when this
item would be coming back for consideration.
Mr. Kelly said it was not officially scheduled, but would be scheduled when council asked to
have it brought forth for consideration.
Council cOnsensus was to bring this back for council consideration on January 17,2006.
Mayor Leiken thanked those that came to testify and appreciated their testimony.
City Attorney Joe Leahy said citizens had an opportunity to send in material for council to review
and read before the January 17 meeting. He asked if council would make a decision before or
after the public portion.
Mayor Leiken said his preference was to schedule it prior to the Business from the Audience
portion of the January 17 meeting. There had already been a lot of public testimony and written
information submitted to the Mayor and council. He said he felt council could make a deliberate
action at that meeting. Written testimony would be accepted up to January 11,2006 for that
packet.
Councilor Ralston said he would like information regarding why bats with rabies were mentioned
and what relevance that had to this issue.
.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 12
.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Fred Simmons, 312 S. 52nd Place, Springfield, OR. Mr. Simmons spoke regarding the
Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) loan. He said he was opposed to the
loan On the basis of the projected revenue for the loan if the full $1.5M was taken out. There
was not a sufficient revenue stream identified to pay that loan. He said smaller projects could
be done at $50,000 that would come in with tax increment financing. He said looking at the
loss of revenue in the general reserves and transferring that benefit into the urban renewal
district, it would not return to the city for sixteen or seventeen years. He compared it with
him granting a loan to someOne with no assets. He said there was no opportunity to address
the viability and security issue. The only thing in the agreement was that the money received
from tax increment financing would be dedicated to repaying that loan. He said the funds
already advanced through the Economic Development fund would not be repaid. He said it
was a loan that had questionable security, not to say it wasn't a wise investment for the
community, but when making loans such as this, there should be some surety that the loan
would be paid with interest.
Councilor Woodrow said this was more like a line of credit. He said SEDA would not take
any money from the city unless there was a specific project or purpose the money would be
used for.
.
Mr. Simmons said he understood the legal and lawful requirement for the acceptance of the
money On the part of SEDA. He said he also knew it was a progressive line of credit, but
what was being established was a line of credit, which could be used for whatever lawful
purpose. He said even with a line of credit, adequate resources to repay it needed to be
identified. He said he understood what Councilor Woodrow was saying, but Mr. Simmons
could not fmd sufficient resources identified to grant the full $1.5M.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
ORDINANCES
1. Springfield Natural Resources Study.
ORDINANCE NO. 6150 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SPRINGFIELD
NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY: AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO INCLUDE PROTECTION MEASURES FOR IDENTIFIED NATURAL
RESOURCE AREAS (WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN) - ARTICLE 31 MINIMUM
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS, ARTICLE
34 PARTITION STANDARDS, AND ARTICLE 35 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS: AND
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
.
City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report On this item. The Springfield Natural
Resources Study (Study) provides the analysis required by state rules for Goal 5 wetland and
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 13
.
riparian planning. The Study also recommends a package of protection measures that will be
embodied in Article 3 I-Site Plan Review and other sections of the Springfield Development
Code if this ordinance (Attachment 1) is approved. At issue is whether the recommended
approach and the protection measures in the ordinance are appropriate.
At the public hearing On November 7,2005, Roxie Cuellar, representing the Homebuilders
Association of Lane County presented testimony recommending amendment of two provisions of
the protection program. In respOnse to the testimony, clarifying text has been added to two of the
protection measures. The changes are shown below.
(5) (b) The following uses and activities shall be permitted within a locally significant wetland or
riparian natural resource protection area.. .
5. Removal of non-native vegetation, if replaced with native plant species at a similar
covcragc ef density so that nati'if;) spccies dominate. at a density that prevents soil erosion and
encourages the future dominance of the native vegetation.
.
10. Replacement of a permanent, legal, non-conforming building or structure in existence as
of the effective date of this Section with a building or structure On the same building footprint,
if it does not disturb additional area, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5, Non-
Conforming Use. Access to and around the building footprint shall be allowed as needed for
the delivery of building materials and reconstruction. but this access shall not cause
unnecessary disturbance to vegetation within the resource ?rotection area. Land within the
resource protection area that is disturbed by reconstruction shall be restored to its original
condition.
The Homebuilders Association also raised a more general question about Eugene-Springfield's
supply of buildable residential land. It is not within the purview of this study to provide a
comprehensive buildable lands inventory. However, additional documentation responding to the
issue is in the record and is listed On Attachment 2. The information does not change any of the
analysis, protections or policies set forth in the Springfield Natural Resources Study.
Mr. Metzger discussed some of the additional documents that supported this ordinance.
Mayor Leiken commended staff on their work on this report.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6150. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - BALLEW).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Arts Committee Appointment.
.
Librarian Barbara Thompson presented the staff report On this item. The Arts Commission will
have three vacancies On its board due to the December 31, 2005 term expirations of members
Scott Wylie, PJ Sargeant, and Don Durland. Mr. Wylie and Ms. Sargeant have both served two
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 14
.
terms and are not eligible to re-apply for membership. Mr. Durland has served one term and is
eligible to re-apply.
In response to the news release of October 10, 2005, the Arts Commission has received five
applications to fill three vacancies. The Arts Commission reviewed all applications and met with
the five applicants during its regular November 14 meeting. At that time, Betty Adams asked that
her name be withdrawn from consideration, because she decided she could not give the
commission the time it requires.
The Arts Commission recommends that Don Durland be re-appointed and that Charlene Eckman
and Robert Winkelman be appointed to the commission, with terms to expire December 31, 2009.
Don Durland is eligible to serve another term. The Arts Commission has found him to be a
valuable member. Ms. Eckman is a retired classroom and art teacher with extensive experience
teaching art to children as well as experience with fund raising for non-profits. Mr. Winkelman is
a photographer and a downtown business OWner with experience in both the arts and in
marketing.
Ms. Andrews is a musician with experience in the performing arts. The commission believes her
skills will be most useful in the future when the Performing Arts Center is functioning. The
commission will encourage her to re-apply for a future vacancy.
.
The commission believes all applicants are eligible and well qualified to serve on the Arts
Commission. The council is requested to review the Arts Commissions' recommendations at the
Work Session. Council is requested to appoint three candidates at the Regular Session tonight,
November 28.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY
COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO APPOINT DON DURLAND, CHARLENE ECKMAN
AND ROBERT WINKELMAN TO THE ARTS COMMISSION WITH TERMS TO
EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2009. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - BALLEW).
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Fitch said Mayor Leiken would be bringing Senator Smith to the
Wildish Theater on Tuesday, November 29 to present an enlarged check replica
for $300,000 from V A HUD for work On the theater. She said it would be a
quick trip because Senator Smith needed to be in Cottage Grove that afternoon.
She thanked Mayor Leiken, staff and the Senator's staff for all the work in
securing this funding. This would help to continue the revitalization of
downtown. Springfield Renaissance Development Corporation was always
looking for ways to close the funding gap to finish the theater so it could be
opened by the fall of 2006 to allow the Arts School to open.
.
Mayor Leiken said Congressman DeFazio would also be attending the event to
show his continued support for this project.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 15
.
2. Councilor Woodrow reminded everyone that the Springfield Holiday Parade
would be held Saturday, December 3 at 2:00pm. The Tuba Carole Concert
would be held in the Museum Parking lot at 1 :OOpm. He said the Master of
Ceremonies would be John Fischer and the Grand Marshall for this year's parade
would be City Manager Mike Kelly.
b. Appoint Councilor Lundberg to the Willamalane Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for
System Development Charges (SDC) Update as a City Council Representative.
Mayor Leiken appointed Councilor Lundberg to serve on the Willamalane Citizen
Advisory Committee (CAC) for System Development Charges (SDC) Update as a City
Council Representative.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Justice Center Functional and Space Program.
Project Manager Carole Knapel presented the staff report on this item. On July 5, the City
Council approved a contract with Liebert and Associates for the development of a Functional and
Space Program for the Justice Center. The Program was necessary to document the requirements
for the Police Department, Municipal Courts and City Jail. The work was to be completed by
January 2006 for a cost of $93,600. The Draft Program was completed approximately two
months early with a cost savings of approximately $10,000.
.
Staff reviewed the Draft Program with the City Council On November 7. At that time, council
had questions regarding the inclusion of a maintenance bay in the outbuilding. This bay has been
provided for police staff to use for gathering evidence from vehicles. The staff will also be able to
use this space for cleaning out police vehicles or doing minor repairs which can be done without
taking the vehicle off site. Council also requested more information regarding the cost per square
foot for the jail and courts used for the construction cost estimate. These estimates are based on
national averages for buildings of similar types and sizes. Costs for these types of buildings are
higher than for commercial buildings due to security requirements in construction methods and
security features in the facility. Staff will present more detailed information on typical
construction costs at the council Meeting.
Additionally, at the November 7 work session, staff briefed the council on the following policy
issues, which will ultimately affect the internal design and operations of the facility:
Use of Bail Only Release
Housing Offenders with Medical Issues
· Charging Practices
Good Time Credits
· Jail Alternatives
Housing Women
Leasing Beds
.
Staff is recommending that a Task Force, comprised of the Assistant City Manager, the Police
Chief, the Municipal Judge, the City Prosecutor, the Finance Director, and a council
representative, be formed to discuss, evaluate, and make recommendations to the council On these
policy-related issues. Task Force recommendations and decisions would form the basis for future
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 16
.
Justice Center policies and procedures. It is anticipated that this work would be completed in
approximately one year. At that time, the council can decide whether to extend the work of the
Task Force to include ongoing operational issues.
Ms. Knapel said the program had been developed with the input of the Police Department,
Courts, Prosecutor's Office, and had been reviewed by city staff and the Citizen Advisory
Committee. Staff asked council to approve this as the basis for design of the new Justice Center
Facility. This item was also discussed during the work session earlier in the evening.
Mayor Leiken said staff did a great job. He also thanked staff for answering the question
regarding the cost per square foot.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE THE FUNCTIONAL AND SPACE PROGRAM FOR THE
JUSTICE CENTER FACILITY. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - BALLEW).
Councilor Woodrow thanked Mr. Liebert.
2. Loan Agreement with Springfield Economic Development Agency.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-59 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TO ADVANCE $1.5 MILLION TO THE
SPRINGFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR COSTS OF URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECTS.
Community Development Manager John Tamulonis presented the staff report On this item. In
May 2005 the SEDA Board approved a resolution requesting the City Council provide a $1.5
million loan to the urban renewal agency out of the city's Economic Development Reserves.
SEDA has approved the attached loan agreement for City Council consideration, proposed some
minor adjustments, and requests approval in conjunction with the attached council Resolution.
City Council adopted a budget that included the potential funding ofa $1.5 million loan to SEDA.
Within the resolution (Exhibit A of Attachment A) is the proposed loan agreement from the city's
Bond Counsel. SEDA proposes unanimously the following minor changes to the terms:
.
(1) Replace the term "compounded monthly" in Section 2.3 with the term "accrued
monthly. "
(2) Replace the phrase "Washington County, Oregon" in Section 3.5 with the
phrase "Lane County, Oregon. "
(3) Replace the term "will may" in Section 2.1 with "will. "
(4) Add the phrase "or operating expenses" to Section 1.2.C.
The loan's conditions and terms would then be similar to a 'line of credit' from the city to SEDA
for budgeted projects and administrative costs. Both the City Manager and SEDA would need to
agree to fmalized terms before SEDA accepts the loan. SEDA intends to be ready with necessary
funding and be able to respond to development proposals and other opportunities should the
SEDA Board decide to take any actions in FY 2005/06 requiring substantial funding. The draft
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28,2005
Page 17
.
loan agreement includes terms and conditions that might be negotiated, including, for example,
interest rate adjustments (e.g., match City's annual 'cost of funds'), repayment terms, security,
and advances.
Prior to requesting any loaned funds, SEDA would likely approve by Board action the specific
amounts to be borrowed from the city within the loan agreement.
Mr. Tamulonis noted one minor change as recommended by the bond counsel to item number
four listed On the agenda item summary (ArS)
(4) Add the phrase "or op'erating expenses proiect related administrative expenses
authorized hv law. "to Section 1.2.C.
Mr. Tamulonis said this would allow the City Council to loan funds to the SEDA, which was
already in the city budget for the year. Those could be repaid over time. Once the above listed
changes were approved by council, they would be taken to the SEDA Board for approval of the
fmal form of the agreement.
Councilor Woodrow said he would like to change the wording in Section 2.3 to read "to pay
accrued interest".
Mr. Tamulonis said that change would be made.
.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 05-59 AS MODIFIED WITH THE
CHANGES. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 OR AND 0 AGAINST (1
ABSENT - BALLEW).
3. Justice Center Architect - Contract Approval.
.
Project Manager Carole Knape! presented the staff report on this item. On October 3,2005, staff
presented the recommendation of the Architect Selection Committee. The committee
recommended Robertson Sherwood as the top-ranked firm. Council authorized staffto begin
negotiations with the top-ranked fIrm, Robertson Sherwood. The city's negotiation team includes
Cynthia Pappas, Dan Brown, Bob Duey, Dave Puent, Carole Knapel, Susanna Julber and Joe
Leahy. The team has met weekly to discuss the contract terms and fee. The contract includes the
provisions as required in the Request for Proposals. The Architect will prepare up to four site
options for the facility. These options will be reviewed by the Community Advisory Committee
and staff. The options will then be presented to the City Council for the final decision regarding
the site and massing of the facility. The Architect will design the facility in a manner which will
accommodate phased construction so that the city can determine whether to construct the facility
in a single phase or in two phases. The Architect will participate in the public involvement
process by meeting regularly with the Community Advisory Committee, by participating in
community workshops and presentations and by providing materials for displays and Web-based
publications. The design ofthe facility will incorporate sustainable design and energy saving
opportunities in order to enSure that the facility is as efficient as possible to operate.
The city's negotiation team has reviewed the original fee proposal and requested some revisions.
The negotiation team recommends a fee of $2,087,000 plus reimbursable expenses in the amount
of $46,700. Attachment B provides a breakdown of these costs.
.
.
.
, .
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 18
Councilor Woodrow thanked Ms. Knapel for her work on this contract. He addressed Robertson
and Sherwood and stated that as important as this facility would be, he hoped the architect
realized how important it was to the community and to the architect. It would really be a site in
Springfield and the city was counting On the architects' experience and professionalism to make
sure that was what it would be.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH ROBERTSON SHERWOOD IN
THE AMOUNT OF $2,087,000 PLUS REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES OF $46,700 FOR
DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE JUSTICE CENTER FACILITY AND AUTHORIZE THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. (1 ABSENT - BALLEW)
4. Interim City Manager.
Mr. Kelly noted a couple of items that were on the Consent Calendar. He said council had
approved the resolution authorizing the City Manager to award competitive bids and contracts
while council was on recess and he wanted to point out that the term City Manager included
Interim City Manager. He said council had approved the appointment of Cynthia Pappas as
Interim City Manager effective December 6. He said he would like that to be effective at 5:00pm
On December 6, as he had planned on December 6 to be his last day.
Council agreed.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
\.
r
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Attest:
~~
City Recor