HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2017 Regular City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL BELD
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 21,2017
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers,225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon,on Tuesday,February 21,2017 at 7:11 p.m.,with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and.Councilors VanGordon,Wylie, Stoehr,Woodrow and Pishioneri.
Also present were Acting City Manager Anette Spickard, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith,Assistant
City Recorder Kristina Kraaz,City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Moore was absent(excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Mayor's Recognition
a. Rare Disease Day Proclamation.
Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation and encouraged all citizens to join in the observance of
Rare Disease Day.
Rich Garboden, father of a child with a Rare Disease,accepted the proclamation.
Mayor Lundberg thanked Mr. Garboden and his wife for bringing this important topic to her attention.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I. Claims
a. Approval of the January,2017 Disbursements for Approval.
2. Minutes
a. February 6,2017—Work Session
b. February 6, 2017—Regular Meeting
c. February 13,2017—Work Session
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page 2
a. Authorize City Manager to Sign a 3"1 Amendment to the Agreement with Willamette
Community Health Solutions DBA Cascade Health Solutions to Extend.the Contract in the
Amount not to exceed $200,000 to Provide Primary and Preventative Medical Services for the
City's Wellness Clinic.
b. Approve the Amended Council Operating Policies and Procedures.
c. Approve the Liquor License Application for SNS Neighborhood Market and Grocery#8,
Located at 3305 Main St, Suite 104, Springfield,Oregon.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH
A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(I ABSENT—MOORE).
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS--Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at
both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not
yield their time to others.
I. Supplemental Budget Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-OS —A RESOLUTION ADNSTING RESOURCES AND
REQUIREMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING FUNDS: F100 GENERAL FUND F210
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F224 BUILDING CODE F236 POLICE LOCAL OPTION
LEVY. F713 VEHICLE&EQUIPMENT.
Budget Officer Paula Davis presented the staff report on this item. At various times during the fiscal
year the Council is requested to make adjustments to the annual budget to reflect needed changes in
planned.activities,to recognize new revenues,or to make other required changes. These adjustments
'. to resources and requirements change the current budget and are processed through supplemental
budget requests scheduled by the Finance Department on an annual basis.
This is the second of three scheduled FYI supplemental budget requests to come before Council.
The supplemental budget being presented includes adjusting resources and requirements in General
Fund,Community Development Fund,Building Code Fuad, Police Local Option Levy Fund,and
Vehicle&Equipment Fund.
Ms.Davis explained some of the changes in this supplemental budget.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2017-05.THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(1 ABSENT—MOORE).
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page 3
2. Request for Metro Plan Diagram Amendment and Concurrent Zone Change for a 7.1 Acre
Property on Highbanks Road,Cases TYP416-00003 and TYP316-00005.
ORDINANCE NO. 1 —AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN METRO PLAN DIAGRAM BY
REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 7.1 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL LDR TO LIGHT MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL LMI CONCURRENTLY
AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING TIE SAME
APPROXIMATELY 7.1 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO LMI ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FIRST READING
Assistant City Attorney Kristina Kraaz provided information on how a quasi-judicial hearing was to be
conducted.This hearing tonight is a de novo quasi-judicial hearing.De novo means that any issue,
procedural or substantive can be raised that is relevant to the approval criteria.Quasi judicial means
that certain due process procedural rights are associated with these decision-making processes. These
rights include the right:
• To notice
To present evidence
• To have a written decision based upon standards
• To an impartial decision-maker
The primary purpose of the hearing is to establish a record upon which a decision can be made.
The evidentiary rules associated with these hearings are less restrictive than used in circuit courts and
all relevant testimony, including hearsay testimony, may be considered.
It is important to note:
• That you must raise procedural and substantive issues at this hearing or you will be prohibited
from raising those issues subsequently on appeal before the Oregon Land Use Board of
Appeals.
• A person raising the issue must support raising the issue with statements or evidence
sufficiently specific so that the Council has an opportunity to respond to the concern or the
issue.
• If you are the applicant,you must raise concerns regarding any proposed conditions of
approval to preserve your right to appeal and/or to seek damages in Circuit Court.
• Failure to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with
sufficient specificity to allow the City Council to respond to the issues precludes an action for
damages in Circuit Court.
In a quasi-judicial decision making process,the burden is on the applicant to show by a preponderance
of the evidence that all of the applicable approval criteria have been met.Those criteria are outlined in
the staff report which is contained in tonight's packet and will be summarized by the staff in their
presentation.
The record in this matter consists of the application and any supporting information,including the
record before the Planning Commission previously,the staff report and supporting documents,and
any testimony and documentary evidence admitted during this hearing.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page 4
If you want an item entered into the record,present that item to the City Recorder orally or in writing.
If there is any question in your mind whether any material is in the record make a point of asking that
it be accepted into the record.
By statute,you have the right to request that the hearing be held open for 7 days. You do not have to
give a reason for the request,but you must make the request before the hearing is closed. If new
evidence is introduced during that time,the record may be held open for an additional period of time
to allow other parties an opportunity to respond to the new evidence. In a de novo hearing,the
applicant always gets the last word.
You also have the right to request a continuance of the hearing. A continuance is discretionary with
the City Council. The party requesting it must show that prejudice to his or her rights will not be
cured by merely holding the record open..
This hearing is recorded on tape so those who wish to testify to follow a few procedures:
• First, please testify from the podium to my left when city staff are currently standing,not from
the citizen's seats.
• Second,begin your testimony by stating your name and address for the record. This will
enable the City Recorder and the Council to identify the testimony offered by each speaker
and will assist in creating a transcript of the hearing if that is necessary.
• Finally, if you want a copy of the written decision,please provide your name and address to
the City Recorder.
The City Council will issue a written decision after the record is closed,following a second reading at
a subsequent City Council meeting.
This is a Type III before the City Council: The City Council's decision is final. Any person who
participated in the hearing may appeal the City Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Please consult an attorney regarding the deadline for the appeal and the form of appeal.
Oregon land use law requires that the City Council disclose any ex parte contacts or conflicts of
interest related to this matter,and allow any person to challenge the City Council for bias. Generally a
conflict of interest involves a situation where the decision maker,his or her family or business would
benefit or suffer by his/her decision.
An ex parte contact is:
I. A communication to the decision maker
2. That includes substantive issues regarding the application; and
3. Occurs outside the public venue
Mayor, at this time it is appropriate to open the hearing.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
Mayor Lundberg asked the Council if they had any conflict of interest or had any ex parte contact.
The Mayor and all Council members noted that they had no ex parte contact or conflict of interest.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page 5
Senior Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. lie noted that it is unusual for a
property owner to generate the Metro Plan amendment and zone change as opposed to the City
Council,staff or other public agency. In this case,the applicant will provide more details about their
application.
The subject property is located on the north side of Highbanks Road at 53'd Street and is adjacent to
and contiguous with the Highbanks Business Park. The site is vacant and is zoned and designated for
low density residential development. The applicant is proposing to change the plan designation and
zoning from low density residential to light medium industrial.
This property owner-initiated Metro Plan diagram amendment was necessary to enable the
owner/applicant to submit plans for an LMI use. The application states the intent of the proposed
amendment and zone change is to facilitate construction of a Bishop's Storehouse facility on the
property. Staff reviewed the proposed development plan's and advised the applicant that the physical
and operational characteristics of the proposed use are comparable to a warehouse building with
attached office space. This class of use is not permitted in the LDR district; therefore the applicant has
proposed to change the zoning and comprehensive plan designation to LML The Council should note;
while the applicant's proposed use requires LMI designation and zoning,a proposed use is not
relevant to the approval criteria because the standards are consistency with the statewide planning
goals and not creating an inconsistency in the Metro Plan. Neither this owner nor any subsequent
owner is limited to a single use of the property; if the amendments are approved,all LMI uses
identified in Section 3.2-410 of the SDC could be located at this site subject to site plan review
approval.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on these proposals on January 24, 2017. The
written record was extended for seven days to allow the applicant to provide additional information to
the Planning Commission regarding traffic.He noted the traffic from a residential site to an industrial
site. The applicant came back with a proposal of a trip cap on this property so it would not generate an
increase to traffic beyond that from residential development. That would be done through a deed
restriction that would run with the land. Staff agreed this would be appropriate in insuring
transportation impacts were not experienced on this property.The Planning Commission reconvened
on February 7,2017 to conduct deliberations. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the proposed Metra Plan diagram amendment and Zoning Map amendment.
Ms. Spickard read the planning case file numbers for this item into the record: TYP416-00003 and
TYP316-00005.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the trips per day were counted as access from Highbanks or from any
access.
Mr. Limbird said it would be from Highbanks only. If this were to develop as residential,there would
be an extension of 53`d Street. The trip caps are all focused on potential impacts to Highbanks.
Discussion was held regarding traffic fxam other access points if the property were developed with
other access point.
Mr. Limbird said if another developer purchased this property and inherited the same constraints,they
may be required to provide a traffic impact analysis to demonstrate the impacts and any improvements
that might be needed to mitigate any impacts.There are provisions through the development review
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page 6
process to address traffic impacts. ODOT would be an active participant and review agency,along
with City staff to look at what is being proposed,and would be required to do additional work to show
not adversely impact.
Councilor Pishioneri expressed concerned about changing the zone.He wants to make sure we have
assurances in place to not negatively impact neighbors in that area with the decision made today. He
asked if staff had heard from the residents.
Mr.Limbird said notice was sent to those within 300 feet of the facility per the requirement,although
that didn't include many properties.This site was posted.,and the public hearing was posted in the
paper and online.They had not received any testimony other than from the applicant, and had not
received any written comments. hi order for the deed restriction on trip caps to be lifted,the City
would have to be part of that process or change. Staff would look at what is generated from the site
regardless of which direction they travelled.
Councilor Pishioneri said he wouldlike to see that trip checks were for any direction from the
property. It would be best if we had those assurances based on the full perimeter of the property.He
asked about posting notice further out than just 300 feet from the property so all of the residents all
along Highbanks could be notified.
Councilor Stoehr said it looked like only a small portion of the property was to be used for the
storehouse, He asked if there was a plan for the remainder of the land.
Mr. Limbird said staff's understanding is that there are no immediate plans for the remainder of the
property. It wouldbe redesignated and rezoned in the current scenario. It is possible that they could
transfer a portion of the property to another industrial developer in the facility. The applicant can
answer that question.
Councilor Stoehr said he did have concerns about it being developed in any other way having a large
impact on the traffic in the vicinity.
Councilor VanGordon said if the trip cap would go to the new deed if the property was split.
Mr.Limbird said it would go with the transfer of the property,proportionate to the size of the
property. The total of all pieces of the 7 acres would still total 101.
Mayor Lundberg asked what the trip count would be if this was developed as low density residential.
Mr.Limbird said if they developed 100 dwelling units, it could be 1000 per day. Staff speculates that
it wouldn't be developed to the maximum because a street system would need to be built. It would be
reasonable to expect 50-60 dwelling, or 500-600 trips per day. He noted that the application is capping
the trips to 100 per hour,not per day. They were looking to reduce impacts during peak traffic flow
hours on Highbanks and the intersection.
Mayor Lundberg said this would be taking land from our low density residential inventory.
1. Johnny Watson RexburgID. Mr. Watson was here representing the applicant. He introduced
Damien Gilbert,the traffic engineer fxom Branch Engineering.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page 7
2. Damien Gilbert Branch En ineerin S rin field OR. Mr.Gilbert said the City traffic
engineer reviewed and approved the study following merry discussions to make sure concerns
related to bigger industrial development would not arise. It is a common practice to put trip
caps on a development when zoning is changed.The approval criterion does not include a site
plan. Statewide Land Use Goal 12(Transportation Planning Rule)needs to be met. It states
that if the designation or zoning is changed,the applicant must prove it will not create a
significant impact. He reviewed things that could create a significant impact. Looking at the
worst case scenario for current or proposed zoning,the existing is set at 101 trips(per hour).
The proposed zone is a little more difficult to determine. The likely development scenario
would be what is next door(industrial park),but they chose not to speculate. Instead,they
proposed to limit traffic to the full site to what is allowed in the existing zone to guarantee
there would be no additional traffic impacts.The transportation planning rule looks at regional
transportation facilities.The nearest intersection would be the nearest qualifying transportation
facility that could be affected.No matter what is built on this site,they would not be allowed
to generate more than 101 trips to the east or west.Either of the scenarios would require a site
plan review which would go through planning department and would trigger a traffic study.
The City will ask and a traffic study would be submitted. In his professional opinion,there is
no risk of large impacts to Highbanks.
Councilor Stoehr asked what options were available if the traffic study determined excessive trips.
Mr. Gilbert said the property next door to this site developed under an allowed use on Highbanks.
Through a review with the City and ODOT,there were impacts to the Highbanks and Highway 126
intersection. That impact required changing the lane designations and modifications to the signal.The
traffic study looks at queuing lengths, interference with existing queues,driveway placements,
congestions,etc.If anything is identified,mitigation is required.
Councilor Stoehr said residential would not be comforted if the roads had to be widened.
Mr.Gilbert said this is a very low traffic generator.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the trip cap and the number of hours that encompassed.
Mr. Gilbert said the transportation planning rule protects the transportation system plan,which is the
afternoon peak hour. They limited the industrial use to 101 trips which is the same as the residential,
which identifies when impacts to facilities occur. The average is 1000 trips per day,which is
generally about 10 times the hourly count.
Councilor Pishioneri expressed concern that 1000 trips per day for residents would cover 24 hours,but
1000 trips for industrial would only cover about 10 hours
Mr. Gilbert said they don't measure in the daily,but hourly during the peak time.
Councilor VanGordon noted that the trip cap was quite a bit higher than what was being described as
currently occurring for this type of facility.
Mr.Gilbert said the substantial capacity is based on the whole property as it exists.If the front half of
the property utilizes 20 trips per hour,there would be a balance of 80 peak hour trips left. They carne
up with the trip cap to match the current residential use as the easiest way to meet the criteria.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page S
Mayor Lundberg said in Gateway, they encouraged that shifts not be normal to help spread out the
impact. She asked if it that could be a consideration that could be included in the requirements. She
noted the amount of traffic in the turn lane to go onto Highbanks.
Mr. Gilbert said staggering the shifts was always a possibility.
Ms. Smith said it could be something in the site plan review for the facility,and would be more
applicable.
Mr.Gilbert said it's a very effective tool. He provided an example.
Mr. Watson said he represents the owner,LDS Church,who currently has a facility on South A Street
in Springfield. The truck that brings supplies has a difficult time getting in and out of that location.
The owners have had this property next to the Hyland Industrial Park since the 1990's and felt it
would be a good place to expand and be a good fit. The facilityis the Bishop's Storehouse, but looks
like a warehouse with racking and a small space up front similar to retail. Customers are referred there
by their religious leaders so it a very limited number of people accessing facility.Currently,they are
open two days a week,with one truck that comes in and about 50 orders to fill in those two days.They
may have as many as 15 volunteers at a time during those days.The Mayor expressedconcern about
the need for housing inventory,yet according to State Goal#10,the City has a surplus of residential
land. In their opinion,property already adjacent to industrial uses is typically not the best area for
single fancily homes. This owner has never developed in single family homes and wants to build the
Bishop's Storehouse in front. They felt they would be a great neighbor to the industrial park to the
west. In the City's economic development goals,there is a deficit of industrial lands in the urban
growth boundary(UGB). He read fTom the staff report regarding the abutting industrial use and that
rezoning to industrial would reduce conflicts. They tried to meet a trip cap that put them under the
residential load during the peak hour. Their use is well under the cap of 101 uses. Their only concern
they have is that if they are given approval and are required to provide the deed with the 101 trip cap,
they are able to go through the site plan approval concurrent with preparing that deed.
Mayor Lundberg said as a non-profit they would be exempt from paying property taxes. The City does
have industrial sites that are smaller and could be closer to the size the applicant needs for their
storehouse.Her concern is why it is this location which is a lot of extra property that is not needed for
this use.
Mr.Watson said the applicant has owned this property for 20 years and felt it would be best to look at
their own inventory.
Councilor Stoehr asked if the invitation to the facility would be open to all of the other area churches.
Mr. Watson said it would be open to all.
Mayor Lundberg asked if anyone wished to speak to the Council on this topic.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page 9
Ms.Kraaz said this is the first reading so no action is required this evening.Following the second
reading, Council will decide to grant the application,grant the application with conditions or deny the
application based on criteria.
Mayor Lundberg asked if Council needed more information before the second reading.
Councilor VanGordon confirmed this ordinance is just for the zoning change.When they start the
development a site plan review process will need to be conducted.
Ms.Kraaz said that is correct. Any development would come through the appropriate approval
process depending on the use. The use of the property is not a criterion that can be used to base their
decision.
Ms. Smith said this topic has been posted through a number of venues as required by law.
Councilor VanGordon said the site plan review would also be noticed.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if they could expand the noticing area for the site plan review.
Ms.Kraaz said the City doesn't have a process in our Code to do that. Doing that may raise issues that
could be appealable for changing requirements for the applicant.
Ms. Smith said they could look into that further,but there was concern with changing the process
outlined in our code.
Mr.Limbird said staff could request the applicant do an open house with the neighbors.
Councilor Pishioneri said it would be to their benefit to meet with the neighbors.If he lived on that
street and was notified beyond the normal process, he would feel valued.
Councilor VanGordon said he didn't need more information on this topic.He has policy questions,but
no questions on the criteria. From a policy perspective,he will want to know what will happen on the
other 213 of the property.Land is very limited in the City between housing and commercial,and they
need to be as economic as possible.
Mayor Lundberg said she appreciated Mr. Watson coming all the way from Idaho.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public record.
NO ACTION REQUESTED.FIRST READING ONLY.
3. Adoption of an Administrative Inspection Warrant Code, SMC 5.630-5.638,
ORDINANCE NO. 2—AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS 5.630 5.632 5.634 5.636 AND
5.638 TO CHAPTER 5 OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIAL CODE AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE FIRST READING
Assistant City Attorney Kristina Kraaz presented the staff report on this item. On December 5,2016,
the Council held a work session to provide input on the creation of an administrative inspection
warrant code as tool to assist in enforcement of the Springfield Municipal Code. Since that meeting,
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page 10
no additional changes have been made,but answers to Council's questions were addressed in the
Council Briefing Memorandum included in the agenda packet.The information provided includes the
staff oversite of the program and examples of what the court documents might look like,the
information included on those documents to be presented to the Municipal Judge before they could
approve a warrant,and the process for executing the warrant.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
I. Craig Corliss Creswell,_OR. Mr. Corliss said he owns property off of Main Street in
Springfield. He thanked the Council for their hard work to make Springfield a great place to
live. He got interested in this topic by reading an article in the paper. He attended the work
session on this topic and had some concerns. There could be conflicts with the Council goals
compared to what this ordinance says. One of the things that carne up was bad landlords,
absentee landlords and AWOL property owners.This must be an issue in Springfield to bring
this ordinance forward that affects personal privacy.By circumventing the Circuit Court to get
these warrants makes it look like the City is identifying enemies and developing techniques of
how to get to those enemies. To him they are proposing something that warrants more diverse
input from the public to see if this ordinance relates to the goals, or if it is not appropriate
under the current social environment.
2. Jessie Preston Sl2ringfield.OR. Ms. Preston said the house behind her was abandoned by a
person who was sent to prison for cooking meth.The house has not been abated or dealt with
in any way. She won't let her children play in the backyard because of it. She is hoping this
ordinance will give the City more power to go in to deal with that and get rid of dangerous
homes, An abandoned home attracts crime. She has called police after hearing yelling and
gunfire from this property.The property smells horrible. Her kids have allergies and the
chemicals in that environment make them worse. She is in favor of an ordinance that holds a
homeowner who is not taking care of property liable. She hopes it also gives renters to speak
up about owners who are not taking care of this property. It gives us one more step to take
care of those Domes.
3. David Machukan Springfield, OR. Mr. Machukan said he feels this ordinance is an invasion
of privacy. He has lived in Springfield for 42 years and has seen it change overnight.There
have been good mistakes,bad mistakes,and mistakes still being made,but he has lived
through them all. He believes the Police know where those abandoned houses,abandoned
properties and unkempt yards are located. They need to find out who owns those properties
and make them responsible'or they lose their house.He could be supportive of that. He
doesn't like the City breaking into houses due to the privacy issues. If someone just coming in
to be nosy,that is not a good feeling. He is for sound resolution to get Police into it.People
should get fines for not cleaning up their property and yards.He would vote for something like
that.He likes the changes in Springfield.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
NO ACTION REQUESTED.FIRST READING ONLY.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page k 1.
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Chad Campbell, McKenzie Willamette Medical Center,Regarding
PulsePoint.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING.THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(I ABSENT—MOORE).
Councilor Woodrow was appreciative of the letter and getting this information.. She is looking forward
to that opportunity take place.
Mayor Lundberg asked staff to thank Mr.Campbell for notifying the Council of this program.
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Business from Council
a. Committee Appointments
Rob Everett,Library Director,presented the staff report on this item. On December 31,2016 the
Library Advisory Board seat held by Kristine Fuller expired. This was a partial term filled in
September 2015 to complete Gary Ross's tenure on the board. The opening was posted from
December 30"'through January 13`h. Only one application was submitted. Kristine Fuller applied
for a full, four-year term on the board. At its November meeting the board had determined that
they would interview candidates if more than Fuller applied but that if she were the only person to
apply they would forego interviewing her due to her exemplary work on the board. In fact,they
would welcome her back. The Board is forwarding its recommendation and request that Fuller be
appointed.. She meets all eligibility requirements and has been an active and positive member of
the board. Her term would expire December 31, 2020.
Staff presented Ms.Fuller's application and Library Advisory Board recommendation to the
Council during their February 13, 2017 work session. Council consensus was to move forward
with the formal appointment of Ms.Fuller during their February 21,2017 regular meeting.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO APPOINT KRISTINA FULLER TO THE SPRINGFIELD LIBRARY
ADVISORY BOARD WITH A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 3I,2020.THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(1 ABSENT—MOORE)
b. Committee Reports
i. Councilor
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
City of Springfield
Council.Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page 12
1. Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Lane County Intergovernmental Agreement.
Community Development Analyst Erin Fifield presented the staff report on this item. In the FY2016-
17 CDBG One-Year Action Plan(OYAP),City Council authorized$109,704 in CDBG funds to the
Lane County Human Services Commission(HSC)for eligible public services.These funds include up
to $36,500 for the G Street OASIS project, and$73,204 to pay for the staff delivery costs at four local
nonprofits serving low-income residents in Springfield: Catholic Community Services,Food for Lane
County,Relief Nursery, and WomenSpace.
The Human Services Commission is an intergovernmental commission comprised of Springfield,
Eugene, and Lane County elected officials and budget committee members to address basic needs of
low-income residents. Springfield,Eugene,and Lane County pool their state and federal grants and.
general fund contributions to be administered by the HSC. The HSC then contracts with public and
nonprofit Duman service providers who serve specific community needs. 100% of Springfield's
CDBG allocation goes directly to the service providers and is not used to pay for Lane County staff to
administer the grants.
This IGA authorizes payment of Springfield's CDBG allocation to the HSC for FYI 6-17, as well as
Springfield's CDBG allocation to the G Street OASIS project which is administered by the HSC.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISIIONERI TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA)WITH LANE COUNTY FOR CDBG
FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 201617. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST(1 ABSENT—MOORE).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
I. An Ordinance Amending the Springfield.Municipal Code Regarding Criminal Misdemeanors and
Violations.
ORDINANCE NO. 3—AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTIONS 5.100 AND 5.1.04 ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE OREGON REVISED
STATUTES FOR CRIMINAL MISDEMEANORS AND VIOLATIONS AND CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE(FIRST READING)
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith presented the staff report on this item. Springfield Municipal Code
Sections 5.100 through.5.104 adopts by reference and makes state misdemeanor and violation crimes
an offense against the City of Springfield so they may be prosecuted in Springfield Municipal Court.
This Section is updated on an annual basis to capture any changes that have occurred in the
incorporated statutes during the most recent legislative session.
Ms. Smith said one addition is regarding recreational marijuana.
There is no financial impact with this ordinance.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21,2017
Page 13
2. Revised Franklin Boulevard Resolution.of Necessity.
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-06—A RESOLUTION EXERCISING THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN AND AUTHORIZING A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO ORS 223 005 ORS
223.105 AND ORS 35.600-625 CONCERNING ACQUISITION RIGHT OF WAY
NECESSARY FOR THE FRANKLIN BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PHASE
4- Project No. P21066
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith presented the staff report on this item. Council adopted a previous
Resolution of Necessity in July of 2015,and another in May of 2016 based on the 90%design of the
Franklin Boulevard Redevelopment Project,Phase 1.
In July of 2016,the City filed a condemnation lawsuit against one of the property owners located
within the Franklin Boulevard Redevelopment Project(TI-4197 Franklin Blvd.,LLC/Buy2
Convenience Store). The City has since determined that the temporary construction easement for this
specific property should be smaller and is asking the Council to pass a Resolution based on that
revised design. The next step will be to amend the legal Complaint to more accurately reflect the
correct size temporary construction easement. The City has been actively pursuing settlement in this
matter and will continue with those efforts.
Councilor Stoehr asked if the amended resolution would still require eminent domain,and how much
the axea was being reduced.
Ms. Smith said it would still require eminent domain. She didn't have the square footage in front of
her, but it noted that it affected both sides of the access.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2017-06. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(1 ABSENT—MOORE).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned.8:36 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
istine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
City RecUrder