HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07 Council MinutesAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/5/2017
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3700
Estimated Time: Consent Calendar S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL MINUTES
ACTION REQUESTED:
By motion, approval of the attached minutes.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes:
a. May 1, 2017 – Regular Meeting b. May 8, 2017 – Work Session c. May 15, 2017 – Work Session
d. May 15, 2017 – Regular Meeting
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MAY 1, 2017
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday May 1, 2017 at 7:06 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Stoehr, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City
Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Mayor’s Recognition
a. Bike Month Proclamation.
Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation and proclaimed May 2017 as Bike Month in Springfield, OR.
The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) staff liaison, Emma Newman, came forward to accept the proclamation.
b. Recognition of Former Springfield Councilor and Mayor Sandra Rennie.
Mayor Lundberg read information about Sandra Rennie who had served in the City of Springfield as a volunteer in many ways, including as a City Councilor and the first woman Mayor of Springfield. Ms. Rennie passed away in 2016 while living in Washington near her
children. 2. Other
a. Earth Day Poster Contest Awards
Laura Kier, Public Affairs Officer in Environmental Services Department, introduced this item. The 11th Annual Earth Day Poster Contest was a success with nearly 300 fourth grade
students from Springfield Public Schools participating. The 2017 theme is “Earth Educators!”
We asked students what they could teach others about being good stewards of the Earth, such as an action they’d like others to take to help the environment or an interesting fact about our
planet.
Mayor Lundberg and City staff chose the winning posters. The top five winners are as
follows:
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 1, 2017 Page 2
First Place: Sydney Lliona Sugg, Yolanda Elementary School
Second Place: Leia Bessett, Yolanda Elementary School
Third Place: Destiny LeAnne Rose Holloway, Yolanda Elementary School
Fourth Place: Khylee Rei Dornon, Elizabeth Page Elementary School
Fifth Place: Tucker Muhs, Maple Elementary School
The winning posters are on display in the City Hall lobby near the library. Ten students also earned the distinction of being chosen as honorable mention finalists.
Mayor Lundberg introduced each of the five winners of the contest and presented them with a certificate.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. April 10, 2017 – Work Session
b. April 17, 2017 – Work Session
c. April 17, 2017 – Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Approve Infrastructure Contract 4296-DR-OR between City of Springfield and State of Oregon Office of Emergency Management relating to costs incurred by the City responding to the 2016 Severe Winter Storm and Flooding from December 14-17, 2016; and Authorizing the
City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City of Springfield. b. Approval of the Liquor License Application for Fairfield Inn & Suites Eugene Springfield,
Located at 3003 Franklin Blvd. Eugene, OR.
c. Approve amendment to Contract #1724 w/ FFA Architecture + Interiors allocating funds to pay for Phase II of the Library Needs Assessment / Programmatic Facility design.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
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.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 1, 2017 Page 3
1. Setting Local and Regional Wastewater and Stormwater User Fees Effective July 1, 2017.
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-12 – A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD SETTING
LOCAL AND REGIONAL WASTEWATER (SEWER) USER FEES AND LOCAL STORMWATER (DRAINAGE) USER FEES AS SET FORTH IN THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE.
Matt Stouder, Environmental Services Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
Each year, the City Council reviews and establishes the rates for local wastewater and stormwater user fees. These rates are established to provide adequate revenue to fund operation and maintenance (O&M)
of Springfield’s wastewater (sanitary sewer) and stormwater systems, a portion of the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) for each program, and various other program related activities. The Council also adopts the user fees set by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) for
the Regional Wastewater Program.
The City Council reviewed and discussed options for local wastewater and stormwater user fee
adjustments at the April 17, 2017 work session. Council provided guidance to staff to prepare a resolution based on Option 2 for both wastewater and stormwater services. Staff has prepared a schedule
of user charges for a public hearing based on a 2.5% increase in the local wastewater user fees and a
3.5% increase in the local stormwater user fees. In addition, the Council was informed that the MWMC adopted a 3.0% increase in the regional wastewater user fees that also needs to be incorporated into the
schedule of user charges for FY 17-18.
Staff continues to explore options to reduce pressure on user fees while continuing to meet
environmental and regulatory standards. A successful strategy will, in part, depend on the City’s ability to: (1) reduce interest expenses associated with existing revenue bonds; (2) continue to increase capital reserves for capital investments, and; (3) improve the ability of System Development Charge (SDC)
revenues to fund a greater portion of the capital investment. This could reduce and/or defer the need to rely on future debt financing and reduce the importance of providing coverage for debt service as an
operating budget constraint in the long-term financial forecast.
Staff requests that the Council act on the resolution following the public hearing.
Councilor Moore said she appreciated the fact there was a discussion about their concern in raising rates. They don’t have a choice since they have to maintain the system and meet requirements from the Federal
Government. She thanked staff for keeping costs as reasonable as possible.
Councilor VanGordon asked for staff’s thoughts on what will happen as water usage continues to drop.
Mr. Stouder said as water usage drops, the associated usage of the wastewater system will drop as will
the associated fees. Staff has held conversations about rate structures. The biggest impact is when large
industrial users close; they do have reserves set aside for those decreases. User fees are based on 5000 gallons of wastewater generated. The average use in Springfield is about 4500 gallons and in Eugene
about 3500. The difference is the size of families per household. Staff will continue to take it under consideration.
Councilor VanGordon said it is a good trend with more efficient appliances, etc. It becomes a challenge when it comes to funding infrastructure because when one area drops, the revenue drops. Councilor
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 1, 2017 Page 4
Moore had good point about the concerns in making fee increases. This Council has done a good job
keeping increases to a manageable and consistent number, trying to drive closer to the inflation amount. MWMC has done a great job maintaining their costs. He thanked Councilor Pishioneri for his work on
the commission. 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 APPROVE THE RESOLUTION. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Liquor License Endorsements for the Renewal Period of 2017-2018.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented this item on behalf of Permit Technician, Robin Holman. The public hearing this evening is scheduled for Council to receive community testimony relative to the liquor license renewal endorsement. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council is requested to
provide one of the following recommendations to the Oregon Liquor License Commission for the license renewal of the listed establishments: 1. Grant; 2. No Recommendations; 3. Do Not Grant Unless (applicant demonstrates commitment to overcome listed concerns); or 4. Deny. At this time,
staff has no information that would tend to support negative recommendations on these renewals. Accordingly, subject to any public input received at the hearing, and final submission of applications
meeting all of the criteria, staff recommends that the Council provide a positive recommendation for
renewal to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to some locations that had some issues several years ago. He asked how
those on the list today compare to those the City made no recommendation on in 2010.
Chief Lewis said the current list of establishments doesn’t raise to that level.
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said the calls for service for those referenced in 2010 were much
higher. Councilor Pishioneri said he would like to see the comparison.
Chief Lewis said he could provide that information in an upcoming memo to the Council.
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 GRANT THE LIQUOR LICENSE ENDORSEMENTS FOR THE
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 1, 2017 Page 5
RENEWAL PERIOD OF 2017-2018. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND
0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. Joseph Elliott, Springfield, OR. Mr. Elliott spoke regarding land use code enforcement in the
urban growth boundary (UGB). His neighborhood is within the UGB. Difficulties in code enforcement happen because code enforcement is under the jurisdiction of the City and the
Municipal Court’s jurisdiction ends at city limits. This creates difficulty for code enforcers to
enforce. In his neighborhood, someone lives in an RV in the front yard, others use their property for storage. The zoning in his neighborhood is low density residential (LDR). He
spoke with Mr. Kent from the City who was very helpful and gracious and provided good
information. Mr. Kent suggested he request a code enforcement hearing officer be appointed to help the City enforce where the Municipal Court cannot.
2. Steve Moe, Springfield, OR. Mr. Moe said during a recent work session on the homeless issue, Councilor Pishioneri said it wouldn’t bother him if a small housing unit were brought in
on wheels, placed in position, and the wheels removed. That was already done in Springfield. In about 1954, a subdivision was constructed just to the east of the current McKenzie Willamette Hospital. Homes were prefabricated, loaded on trucks, delivered on wheels one
room at a time, to the final assembly location. Foundations had been poured and the houses were assembled room by room on the foundation.
Mr. Moe said the City made a fine decision in selecting Rick Lewis as the new Police Chief. He spoke to the Council a year ago and suggested the City look internally for a new Chief. He knew we had the talent and experience, and by looking in-house, we would end up with
someone who would be dedicated to staying in Springfield. He knew Chief Lewis would be a good selection. He joked about dealing with the new technology of driverless cars.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
Mayor Lundberg responded to Mr. Elliott’s concern regarding enforcement in the UGB.
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said our Municipal Court only has jurisdiction in the city limits,
which makes enforcement difficult in the urban transition area (UTA) between city limits and the UGB. Through the urban transition agreement, the City does a lot of building and planning enforcement, but the enforcement mechanism is missing.
Mayor Lundberg said her recollection is that the County was not interested in changing how that operates.
Mr. Grimaldi said several discussions had been held with Lane County over the years, but nothing has produced a result that would address this situation.
Mayor Lundberg said she has been in meetings with other residents with this issue. It has to be an
agreement between the City and the County. The City would be happy to deal with some of this, but
can’t without a mechanism to enforce.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 1, 2017 Page 6
Councilor Pishioneri asked if Mr. Elliott had talked with the County Commissioners about this issue
during their Board meeting. He suggested he testify during one of their meetings, and let the Board know he has talked to the City and the City encouraged him to speak to the County. This is a
legitimate complaint. Mr. Elliott said he has not talked to the Commissioners yet, but did look up the schedule. He has
talked with the County’s Code Enforcement Office Jane Burgess who said it was up to the City.
Councilor Pishioneri said he should contact County Commissioner Sid Leiken, who represents the
City of Springfield.
Mr. Elliott asked if that would go along with the request for a hearings officer.
Mayor Lundberg said she agreed he should talk to the County Commissioners. The bigger issue is the
County’s willingness to change the system that is in place now. She thanked him for coming. Maybe
there is a different way, but it is not likely a code enforcement hearings officer.
Councilor VanGordon said most of the big changes come when people come to public hearings. The best advice is for him to talk to the County. He encouraged him to ask his elected officials to do something. Many issues get resolved that way.
Mayor Lundberg said it is a conversation for the Council to talk about the UTA and how the rules could be different. These areas are the closest to our boundaries, and any discussion about how the
rules could be different, UTA could adopt city ordinances. It is a worthy conversation for the Council to have sometime in the Fall.
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1) Mayor Lundberg said years ago, the City used to do own HOME and CDBG funds, which
worked very well. We now have a HOME Consortium with the City of Eugene and need to look at the projects together. In the last round of how HOME funds were distributed,
the housing that was provided through purchase of existing housing that was remodeled,
and not creating new housing opportunities. She would like to recommend to the HOME Consortium that they prioritize projects that create the most new housing. She referred to
the recent purchase of a church by St. Vincent DePaul which would be remodeled into housing. The City had success in prioritizing and letting organizations know about the priorities with our CDBG funds.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 1, 2017 Page 7
Councilor Moore asked if this came under our strategic plan.
Mayor Lundberg said the request for proposals (RFP) for the HOME Consortium funds will be separate from the City projects. They can set priorities within that plan.
Councilor Moore said she recalls when there were a number of projects that needed to expend their funds quickly or lose them.
Councilor VanGordon said this has been discussed with the HOME Consortium for years and he is glad they are now discussing it with the City Council to get their support. One of
the challenges is getting enough people coming forward with new projects. He feels they
need to prioritize projects that have new units would be first. They do need to expend the funds so they don’t have to give them back to Washington.
Councilor Stoehr said he is in favor of creation of new units. He asked if this would be earmarked for the St. Vincent de Paul project.
Councilor VanGordon said this would be for Mayor Lundberg and him to prioritize the projects based on Council direction as they come in through the RFP process, rather than
earmarking funds. Councilor Woodrow said prioritizing is a good way to go and gives a voice from our
Council. They haven’t looked at it from a priority standpoint before. Having a concept of where our priorities are will help respond to projects. Once we set priorities, it will also
help those who are submitting projects.
Councilor Pishioneri agreed. He is in favor of the highest outcome for the investment.
Councilor Wylie agreed.
Mayor Lundberg said she would bring that forward to the HOME Consortium. She would also be asking that they consider reducing the administrative fee to 9% instead of 10%. It is in the contract which is up for renewal.
2) Councilor Moore commended Public Affairs Office Amber Fossen for the information she has been getting out about the Springfield Farmer’s Market which opens this Friday at the
Fountain Plaza. She is excited to see it return to this location. b. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FY2017-18 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Matt Stouder, Environmental Services Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 1, 2017 Page 8
The FY 2017-18 (FY 17-18) Regional Wastewater (RWP) Budget and CIP document was approved by
the MWMC on April 14, 2017. In preparing and reviewing the Budget and CIP, the MWMC convened three work sessions and a public hearing prior to taking action to adopt the FY 17-18 MWMC Budget.
The FY 17-18 Budget funds all operations, administrative services, and capital projects planned for the Regional Wastewater Facilities. The approved operating budget is $18.3 million, which includes a total increase of 3.3% ($587,570) in FY 17-18, when compared to the prior year.
The CIP outlines and describes the capital projects planned for the next five years. The FY 17-18
RWP Budget and CIP document reflects a continued focus on the completion of facilities upgrades,
plant performance improvements, and operations and maintenance activities to provide wastewater treatment for a growing community through 2025 in a manner that protects the public’s health and
safety, and the environment. The Commission took a corresponding action to adopt a 3.0% increase in
regional wastewater user charges in order to fully fund the Budget and CIP. On May 1, 2017 the City Council will hold a public hearing on the FY 17-18 regional rates within the City. Following the
public hearing, Council is scheduled to adopt a resolution to set the FY 17-18 regional user fee rates
within the City of Springfield.
In accordance with the IGA, the MWMC contracts with the City of Eugene for operations and maintenance services, and with the City of Springfield for administrative services. The attached budget document provides regional program and budget summaries as well as detailed budgets for
services provided by Eugene and Springfield. The budget document also provides information about how the RWP activities are driven by the MWMC established goals and performance measures.
The FY 17-18 RWP Budget and CIP must be approved by the MWMC and ratified by Lane County, the cities of Eugene and Springfield, and then finally adopted by the MWMC, prior to the beginning of
the next fiscal year (July 1, 2017). The Eugene City Council is scheduled to ratify the MWMC Budget
and CIP on May 8, 2017, and the Lane County Board of Commissioners is scheduled to ratify the MWMC Budget and CIP on May 9, 2017, with MWMC final budget adoption on June 9, 2017.
Mr. Stouder explained some of the projects being started or completed at the regional facility.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO ADOPT A MOTION RATIFYING THE FY 2017-18 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP). THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Sewer System Revenue Bond Refunding.
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-13 – A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, LANE COUNTY, OREGON, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SEWER SYSTEM REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS. Bob Duey, Finance Director, presented the staff report on this item.
The City Council is requested to approve the issuance of sewer system revenue refunding bonds in an
amount that is sufficient to refund all or any portion of the refundable bonds and to pay costs related to
issuing the refunding bonds and refunding the refundable bonds.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 1, 2017 Page 9
The City issued wastewater revenue bonds in 2009 in the amount of $22,815,000 and stormwater
revenue bonds in 2010 in the amount of $10,000,000. The purpose of these bonds was to finance capital improvements to the City’s wastewater and stormwater systems (collectively, the “Sewer
System”). The 2009 series bond redemption provisions allow the City to redeem bonds maturing on or after June 1, 2019. Discussions with our financial advisor indicate that it would be advantageous for the City to refund the bonds at this time. The financial advisors have also agreed to evaluate the
2010 bonds during this process to determine if it would be in the best interest of the City to refund those at the same time. The estimated amount needed to refund the 2009 series, including all costs
associated with the new issuance, is $16,798,705. The net present value of savings from the refunding
is estimated at $534,000. The reduction in total debt service payments through 6/1/2029 is $2,649,000. The estimated costs and savings of refunding the 2010 stormwater bonds will be
determined during the process of refunding the 2009 wastewater bonds.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the 2009 bonds.
Mr. Duey said described the payoff and refinance of the bonds coming due. We will then have brand new bonds at a lower interest rate and will be paid off earlier. He said paying off the 2009 bonds now
would not make enough difference to make it worthwhile. He explained how these were different than those in Metropolitan Management Wastewater Commission (MWMC). He described the savings.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2017-13. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
3. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
Ms. Smith said the City received two objections to the UGB Expansion: One from 1000 Friends, and one from Johnson Crushers and Willamette Water Company together. The department now has the City’s submittal and will work on responding to the objections. There is possibly a Land Conservation
and Development Commission (LCDC) hearings scheduled for this summer. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 8:00 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest:
____________________ City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY MAY 8, 2017
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday May 8, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Stoehr, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Springfield Look Community Economic Development and Competitiveness Assessment & Report.
Courtney Griesel, Economic Development Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
She introduced Allison Larsen of TadZo Consulting who was here to present to Council findings of
the Springfield Economic Development and Competitiveness Assessment. This assessment will ground the next phase the Springfield Look project as staff work with TadZo to begin building the
priority strategic initiatives and work plan.
In September of 2016, by the direction of Council, the City of Springfield Economic Development
Division engaged Allison Larsen with TadZo Consulting to review and assess current economic development practices, priorities, resources and opportunities and generate a City Economic Development Plan. The plan includes a regional competitiveness and industry assessment addressing
findings identified over the last 3 months. These findings were identified through market research, asset and opportunity site inventories and Springfield specific discussions with regional leaders in;
Real Estate and Development
Talent and Workforce
Permitting and Regulatory Environment
Business Incentives
Business Resources and Support
Utilities and Infrastructure; and
One-on-One Traded-Sector Employer Interviews
Ms. Griesel said the assessment has been completed and a baseline determined. Ms. Larsen will be meeting one-on-one with the Mayor and Council to get input on where the City goes from here. The assessment provides some comparison of Springfield with other communities with our assets. They
will look at what types of businesses they should be focusing on recruiting.
Ms. Larsen presented a power point. The Strategic Planning Phase 1 is heavily loaded with research
and goes pretty quickly. Once the City has their plan, they will be carrying out their Branding and Marketing and onto a more detailed Marketing Plan. She spoke regarding Traded Sectors, which
includes anything that exports a product or service outside the region. They like that because those
companies are bringing in wealth through those sales which helps the tax base grow and creates jobs for families with higher paying wages so they can buy homes and spend money on retail. As a result,
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 8, 2017 Page 2
all of those businesses help get more property taxes and buy from other suppliers who pay property
taxes and pay good wages which contributes to everyone having a better quality of life.
Ms. Larsen spoke regarding factors that indicated how Springfield is doing economically. The first is population growth, which is an indicator of how well a community is doing with economic growth. The median age is also something to consider as it indicates our future workers. Springfield is the third
youngest metro area among the comparable communities. That is a positive thing with upcoming workers. Assessed property value in Springfield is somewhat flat and she noted some factors. This is
something they need to consistently track. New building permits were also an indicator, specifically
those for commercial and industrial. In 2016 and so far in 2017, Springfield is doing well in that area. She would recommend that as they measure this, they break them up so commercial and industrial are
separate. Job growth is a bit low compared to Lane County, the State of Oregon and the United States,
as well as comparable communities. This source is the same used by Lane Workforce Partnership so it is accessible to the City. The City may not be able to control job growth, but can control things that
may contribute to job growth.
Ms. Larsen said they also look at average earnings. Springfield is trailing regionally, and about in the
middle with other comparables. We want the earnings rate to increase. She referred to a chart showing the percentage of families and people below the poverty line. Springfield has the highest numbers below poverty in all areas in comparison with our comparables. The City has a way to affect that
number through strategies and investments. Councilor VanGordon asked if there was data for productivity of our workforce.
Ms. Larsen said there is not, but she has information about productivity that she will present later. The
question is whether or not Springfield is in a good position to influence the numbers. To answer that
question, they will look at a series of factors that help select the optimal business location. This usually takes a balance of start-up costs, operating costs, and minimizing risk. She reviewed the
criteria for rating competitiveness and how Springfield ranked which included: transportation; real
estate; utilities; permitting and regulatory environment; human capital; business resources; business climate; mitigated risks; sustainability; and incentives.
Councilor Stoehr asked for an example of mitigated risks.
Ms. Larsen discussed transportation and accessibility. Springfield is strong in this area. She noted the many positive transportation facilities in and around Springfield, including highways/interstates, local roads, air service, rail service, ocean ports and carrier services. The City is doing very well on the
things they have control over. Ms. Larsen spoke regarding real estate and sites for businesses to locate. These include quality
buildings and facilities that fit target prospect requirements, shovel ready sites, certified sites, public controlled sites, and competitive costs to purchase, lease and construct. Springfield did okay for sites,
but not great. She discussed the different areas with land available. She noted several sites and how
they could be best utilized. It is critical that the higher scoring sites are marketed and documented.
Mayor Lundberg asked about certified sites.
Ms. Larsen said Oregon has one of the best Certified Sites programs in the country. For a site to be
certified, it must be fully documented and verified that the documentation is accurate. The more we
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 8, 2017 Page 3
know about a site, the more opportunity. She discussed other developable sites in Springfield. This
process will have them look at where to focus in the next 3-5 years.
Councilor Moore asked if there was a cost to be certified. Ms. Griesel said there is a cost.
Ms. Larsen said they could get information about the cost and any possible grants.
Ms. Griesel said they have worked with two property owners about the Certified Site process. They are looking at internship opportunities to start building some of that paperwork. A lot of property
owners are trying to define what it means to them to have their property ready to market.
Ms. Larsen spoke regarding utilities and infrastructure. Springfield fares very well in utilities. Things
aren’t the cheapest, but reliability, quality of service, and reputation rates high. There are some
rumblings from developers about the system development charges (SDCs). There is a cost in putting in infrastructure, but they need to make sure it is not all on the backs of businesses.
Ms. Larsen spoke regarding the permitting and regulatory environment. The City says they have short turnaround times and other good things, but then she hears grumblings from developers. Grumblings
are not fact, but affect the perception of the City. It’s important to fill the void with the good things that are happening. The intent of the staff is to be on board with this. As an example, the Development Issue Meeting (DIM) is a great proactive approach. There is a fee, but was told for the right project
the fee could be deferred. There are deferrals until the building is occupied which is great. Incentives can play a part here in speeding up the timing, deferring a fee, etc. which seem to already be
happening. They now need to put those things into a policy. The rating could be increased quickly by
doing those types of things. She commended them for meeting with the private sector in the Development Advisory Committee. Some of it is marketing and packaging what the City is doing
well. There is a good reputation in Springfield.
Ms. Larsen spoke regarding Human Capital and whether or not the community has a labor pool in
place that is trained, cost effective and available. Springfield rates very high in technical manufacturing. One of the issues is housing. One advantage is that this part of Oregon is a desirable place to recruit talent from outside areas. Some of the occupations that are difficult to fill in
Springfield are difficult in all communities. Springfield has relatively competitive wages. Historic timber industry areas are typically unionized, and the fact that Springfield is not very unionized and strong in this industry is a positive thing. There are some concerns about soft skills. Showing up on
time is an example of a soft skill. Ms. Larsen spoke regarding the training resources in the community including universities and
colleges. Working on tech careers is a good thing. Lane Workforce Partnership’s leadership on the sector strategies is very helpful. They need documented results about where people are coming from
to work here.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if they could add Northwest Christian University (NCU) and Pioneer
Pacific College.
Ms. Larsen said they could certainly add those. Springfield business resources are also very strong.
She noted the many organizations that contribute to that strength. These organizations not only do well individually, but they work off each other which strengthens them all even more. There may be
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 8, 2017 Page 4
other opportunities to look other types of enhancement to some of these organizations with
commercial modeling. There are an impressive amount of resources in financing in our community.
Ms. Larsen spoke regarding Business Climate and how the community supports new development now and planning for the future. Springfield has a solid reputation, but there is more opportunity to be more intentional and strategic about that outreach. It is great that the Chamber of Commerce plays an
important advocacy role.
Councilor Stoehr had to leave the meeting at 6:15pm.
Ms. Larsen spoke regarding Mitigated Risks and if the community recognizes the risks and works to
mitigate the risks. Springfield ranks very high in this category with their emergency operations plan.
She suggested making sure economic development is working closely on preparedness. There are resources from the International Economic Development Council about disaster recovery,
communication and outreach with businesses. That would be a great opportunity to be intentional
about business retention and expansion.
Ms. Larsen spoke regarding Sustainability and how it is important. The City doesn’t have a city sustainability plan, probably because they take it for granted. They are doing a great job with infill and development, and using unique products such as the cross laminated timber (CLT). The City also has
energy conservation and curbside recycling. Documentation about all of this proves the point. Businesses today have sustainability officers and they are looking at how communities align with what they need to reduce waste.
Councilor Moore referred to a program done by BRING.
Ms. Larsen said this is more holistic. They need to quantify what the City is doing. She discussed what some businesses are looking for in this area that the City provides.
Councilor Wylie said our mass transit system is one of the best in State. She feels they should add that to the list. Part of having the system helps reduce vehicle miles travelled.
Ms. Larsen spoke regarding Incentives. Much of it is how to help with clarification of services, getting through the process more quickly. The State has most of the incentives and how the City uses those
effects economic development. Springfield was rated a C so they may need an incentive policy and a package that outlines the incentives that developers can access on the website.
Ms. Larsen gave an overview of Springfield’s Competitiveness overall. She identified those things that could be addressed.
Ms. Larsen spoke regarding which businesses Springfield should target, and the steps to take to identify those targets. She reviewed some of those target industries, which provide diverse and good
paying jobs.
Ms. Larsen said they have completed all of Step 1 of Phase I, and most of Step 2. By the end of this
week, they will have an outline of what the key initiatives are for their strategy. She will be meeting
with each councilor over the next couple of days, and will also have a Springfield Stakeholder Input Session tomorrow afternoon. Thursday, May 11 will be a priorities work session with the Springfield
Economic Look Leadership Team. She also noted that this week is National Economic Development Week.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 8, 2017 Page 5
Mayor Lundberg said Council will be spending time with Ms. Larsen this week.
Ms. Griesel said they will finish up the deeper reports and get them to Council in the next two weeks. Mayor Lundberg said it ties in to everything they are working on right now from jobs, growth,
students, and products. This will have a big impact on this process.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest:
____________________ Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY MAY 15, 2017
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday May 15, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager
Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Attorney Kristina Kraaz, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Stoehr and Pishioneri were absent (excused).
1. Sanipac Franchise Renewal and Rate Increase.
Anette Spickard, Development and Public Works Director, presented the staff report on this item.
Sanipac, the City’s franchise hauler for solid waste, has requested an increase in rates effective July 1, 2017 based on both a CPI increase and the increase in costs to comply with the County’s new
requirement that all commercial haulers deliver waste to Short Mountain Landfill effective July 1,
2017.
The Franchise Ordinance needs to be updated to include new DEQ requirements for recycling and waste prevention programs.
Under section 16.4.b of the City’s Franchise Ordinance, Sanipac can request rate adjustments once per year prior to June 30th. This section states that the January Portland CPI-U will be considered for CPI adjustments along with the costs related to new government regulations. Sanipac is requesting a 2.1%
CPI adjustment; the Portland CPI is 2.6%. Sanipac has also determined that the cost to comply with the new Lane County hauling requirement for all commercial loads to go to Short Mountain Landfill instead of the Glenwood transfer station is equal to an increase of 0.81% in costs and requests a rate
adjustment. Sanipac’s proposed increase for both adjustments combined is $0.40 per month for the most frequently used service. Ms. Spickard provided a corrected version of the proposed rate structure.
Sanipac does not anticipate an increase in rates in order to comply with the new requirements of
SB263. Based on Council feedback, staff will prepare an updated Franchise Ordinance for public hearing.
Ms. Spickard introduced Scott Metcalf and Aaron Donley from Sanipac.
Councilor Woodrow asked about the most frequently used service. Mr. Donley said it is the 35 gallon cart which is picked up weekly. The rate of increase for
commercial users will be the same. He referred to the chart to show average costs.
Councilor Moore asked if Lane County was lowering their rates since they were asking haulers to take
their loads out to Short Mountain.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 2
Mr. Metcalf said they have not reduced their charges, but have elected to forego their CPI increase this year. They will resume that next year. They understand there will be a significant operational cost for
each of the commercial haulers. Councilor Moore asked if each truck would be going to Short Mountain or if they would transfer into
larger trucks at another location.
Mr. Metcalf said each truck would have to go to Short Mountain. Currently, all trucks go to the
Glenwood transfer station dumping into a 53 foot trailer which is consolidated and taken to Short Mountain. Sanipac will be making about 35 trips per day to Short Mountain which they currently
aren’t doing.
Councilor Moore asked if recycling food waste is in the works.
Mr. Metcalf said they offer commercial food waste service, but currently none of the municipalities in Lane County offer it for residential.
Ms. Spickard said they are doing a pilot program in Eugene to test it out before it is required.
Mr. Donley said they have about a year and a half left on the pilot program. At this time, the food waste is taken to Rexius.
Councilor Moore said she appreciates that they offer the very small can.
Councilor VanGordon said he is fine with the rate increases. He asked if we had talked to the County
about the additional wear and tear on the roads with more vehicles going out to Short Mountain.
Ms. Spickard said the meetings with the stakeholders included haulers. The subject of the street
condition did not come up in those meeting. Mr. Metcalf agreed.
Mr. Metcalf said safety is the main concern regarding the roads. He explained the routes to Short Mountain.
Councilor VanGordon said because some of those roads are in the City’s jurisdiction, it might be worth discussing as we go through the master plan process.
Ms. Spickard said they do have recognition in this plan about the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the future of that site. They are taking steps now to scale back on activities at the Glenwood transfer site, which is a positive thing.
Councilor Wylie said the CPI in Portland is not what it is here. She would like to see a comparison to
other smaller communities. She is worried about those that can’t afford to have their garbage removed.
There is a breaking point for some families.
Ms. Spickard reminded the Council of the 29th anniversary of the Spring Cleanup scheduled for
Saturday May 22. Sanipac goes above and beyond to help sponsor that event. Sanipac also supports the community in other ways and are a good partner. In 2015, the State legislature expanded the
Oregon’s Opportunity to Recycle Act and added new elements. There are goals in recycling and waste
reduction that the cities are to achieve. Because of our population and distance to Portland, we fall into
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 3
the category to add two elements to our recycling program, and five new things for waste prevention.
Staff have held conversations with Lane County, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Sanipac about the choices available under the law and what would make the most sense to implement
in Springfield. Staff proposes the City provide the following seven Recycling Program elements as they are already in practice and can be implemented with minimal cost and impact to Springfield residents and businesses.
1. Residential recycling containers (currently provide) 2. Expanded Education and Promotion Program (currently provide but new requirement for a
Contamination Reduction Education Plan which Sanipac will prepare in coordination with
DEQ and EcoSort.) 3. Residential yard debris collection and composting (currently provide)
4. Commercial and Institutional recycling (currently provide)
5. Commercial and Institutional composting (currently provide) 6. Multifamily recycling required by city code (need to review/update existing code plus
landlord outreach)
7. Commercial recycling required in city code (new code needed, but already in practice)
Staff proposes the City provide the following five Waste Prevention Program elements as they are
already in practice or the new elements can be implemented by Sanipac using DEQ approved templates. 1. Community-wide general promotion of waste prevention (continue Sanipac newsletters,
website and media campaign) 2. Residential waste prevention campaign (Sanipac will use new DEQ approved templates) 3. Commercial waste prevention campaign (Sanipac will use new DEQ approved templates)
4. Schools waste prevention campaign (Sanipac currently offers food waste reduction tool kits and equipment free of charge to Springfield school cafeterias. Will need to implement at one
middle school. Sanipac will also provide a waste prevention education activity to all 4th
graders as part of the City’s Public Works week.) 5. Food rescue program support (City is in compliance with this element already by providing
CDBG funds to Food for Lane County through the Human Services Commission.)
She reviewed the new programs and how those would be accomplished.
Councilor VanGordon asked if these additions are based on Senate Bill cost control for Sanipac.
Mr. Donley said it would be more outreach by Sanipac. There are many things they are already doing, and the others they will incorporate into their program.
Councilor VanGordon said wanted to make sure they would not see a big increase next year to fund
these extra activities. They assured him these would not cause cost increases. He is good with what they are adding.
Councilor Woodrow noted that the 2.1% proposed increase is under the Portland CPI of 2.6%. Sanipac has been responsive to requests from the City. An increase of .40 per month is low. She is not
looking for any changes.
Councilor Moore said she would prefer to see the rate increase on a sliding scale so people generating
more garbage would have a larger rate increase.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 4
Councilor Moore said she appreciates that we have very conscientious citizens in our area who
recycle. Sanipac is doing a great job.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________ Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY MAY 15, 2017
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday May 15, 2017 at 7:00 p.m., with Council President VanGordon presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager
Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Mayor Lundberg, Councilors Stoehr and Pishioneri were absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council President VanGordon.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Mayor’s Recognition
a. Kids to Park Day Proclamation.
Council President VanGordon read from the proclamation and urged residents of Springfield to make time May 20th, 2017 to take the children in their lives to a neighborhood, state or
national park. b. Salvation Army Week Proclamation.
Councilor VanGordon read from the proclamation, proclaiming May 15-21, 2017 to be Salvation Army Week in Springfield and encouraged all citizens of Springfield to join in this
observance. Two members of the Salvation Army in Springfield were present to accept the proclamation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
a. Approval of April 2017, Disbursements for Approval
2. Minutes
a. April 24, 2017 – Work Session
b. May 1, 2017 – Work Session
3. Resolutions
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 2
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters a. Allow Activities Outside of the Hours of 7 am and 6 pm for the S. 42nd and Jasper Roundabout
Whitetopping Project (P21118). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WYLIE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – STOEHR AND PISHIONERI)
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.
1. Request for Metro Plan Diagram Amendment and Zone Change for a 3.35 Acre Property on 5th Street, Cases TYP417-00002 and TYP317-00004.
ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) AND Q STREET
REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 1.78 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR); CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP
BY REZONING THE SAME APPROXIMATELY 1.78 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO MDR; AMENDING THE METRO PLAN DIAGRAM AND Q STREET REFINEMENT PLAN
DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 1.57 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR); CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING THE
SAME APPROXIMATELY 1.57 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO HDR; ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FIRST READING). Council President VanGordon reviewed the process for tonight’s hearing by reading the following:
Now is the time in the agenda for a public hearing on a proposal to change the plan designation and
zoning of 3.35 acres of land on Fifth Street, just north of the Fred Meyer store, from Low Density
Residential to Medium and High density residential. If you have an interest in this matter and wish to testify, please fill out a request to speak card located on the table to my right. Please fill in your name
and address and indicate if you favor, oppose, or are neutral to this proposal. Please give filled out cards to the City Recorder.”
Before I open the public hearing, I will ask our City Attorney to explain the standards and requirements of tonight’s hearing, which is a quasi-judicial public hearing. When our attorney
completes her explanation, I will open the public hearing and ask the Council if they have any
declarations of conflict of interest, ex parte contacts, or bias. When we’ve completed this procedural requirement, I will ask the staff for a summary analysis of the applicant’s proposal.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 3
After the staff report, I will ask the applicant or applicant’s representative to address the Council on
their application.
After the applicant has concluded their presentation, I will call the names of everyone who has filled out a request to speak card. I will first call those who have indicated they are in favor of the application. The next group I call will be those who have indicated that they oppose the application.
The last group I call will be those who have indicated that their position is neutral to the application. Each speaker is limited to three minutes of testimony.
When the public testimony has been completed, I will ask the staff to provide a response to the public testimony. When the staff has completed this response, I will ask the applicant’s representative for any
rebuttal.
When the applicant has finished any rebuttal, I will close the public hearing and close the written
record, or determine whether to continue the hearing and/or leave the record open for additional
written testimony. Under Oregon law, any person may request that the record be left open for additional written testimony, and the Council must leave the record open for at least 7 days.
I’ll now ask the City Attorney for her explanation of tonight’s meeting process.
Assistant City Attorney Kristina Kraaz read the following regarding this type of hearing: The hearing tonight is characterized as 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 rights to notice, to present evidence, to have a written
decision based upon standards, and to an impartial decision-maker
The primary purpose of the hearing is to establish a record upon which a decision can be made. EVIDENCE
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.
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
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.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 4
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.
BURDEN OF PROOF
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. CRITERIA
The application before the City Council tonight is a proposal for a Metro Plan diagram amendment and a Springfield zoning map amendment. The criteria for a Metro Plan diagram amendment are
found in Springfield Development Code section 5.14-135. The criteria are:
The amendment must be consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
Where the Metro Plan applies, the adoption of the amendment cannot make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Where the Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment must be consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
The criteria for a Springfield zoning map amendment are found in Springfield Development Code section 5.22-115. The criteria are:
The amendment must be consistent with applicable Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan diagram;
The amendment must be consistent with applicable Refinement Plans, Plan District maps, Conceptual Development Plans and functional plans; and
The property must be presently provided with adequate public facilities, services and
transportation networks to support the use, or these facilities, services and transportation networks are planned to be provided concurrently with the development of the property.
A zoning map amendment that involves a Metro Plan diagram amendment must meet the approval criteria for Metro Plan amendments specified in Section 5.14-100, which I have
previously listed.
The zoning map amendment must comply with Oregon Administrative Rule
660-012-0060, which is known as the “Transportation Planning Rule.”
These criteria are also posted on the wall behind the Council; they are outlined in the staff report; and
they will be summarized by City staff in their presentation.
RECORD
The record in this matter consists of the application and any supporting information, any staff report and supporting documents, and any testimony and documentary evidence admitted during this hearing.
The record also consists of all testimony and documentary evidence submitted to the Planning Commission on this application previously.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 5
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.
Under Oregon law, any person has the right to request that the record be held open for 7 days for the submittal of additional written testimony. You do not have to give a reason for this request, but you
must make the request to the City Council before the hearing is closed.
If the written record is left open and 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 a continuance must show that prejudice to his or her rights will not be cured by merely holding the record open.
TESTIMONY
This hearing is recorded on tape so I ask that those who wish to testify to follow a few procedures:
First, please testify from the podium to my left (not 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.
DECISION
The City Council will issue a written decision after the record is closed.
APPEAL
[Type III City Council] The City Council’s decision is final. Any person who appeared in this matter 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.
IMPARTIALITY
The 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.
A conflict of interest is a situation in which the decision maker, his or her family, or their business would benefit or suffer by the decision-maker’s decision.
An ex parte contact is a communication to the decision maker that includes substantive issues
regarding the application and occurs outside the public venue.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 6
Bias is an actual personal interest in the outcome of the decision, or a prejudgment by the decision-maker as to the outcome without regard to evidence and argument submitted to the
decision-maker.
Councilor Van Gordon, it is now appropriate to open the hearing.
Councilor VanGordon opened the public hearing.
He asked the Council to declare any ex parte contact or conflict of interest. Councilor Woodrow said she had no exparte contact or conflict of interest.
Councilor VanGordon said he had no conflicts of interest. He had exparte contact with Nancy Aarons, who submitted testimony by email. He forwarded that email to the Planning Department who included it in the public record.
Councilor Moore said she had no exparte contact or conflict of interest. Councilor Wylie said she had no exparte contact or conflict of interest.
Andy Limbird, Senior Planner, presented the staff report on this item. He described the location of the proposed site which is comprised of six tax lots with a total of 3.3 acres. Currently the property is
zoned and designated for low density residential (LDR) use pursuant to the Metro Plan, the adopted Q
Street Refinement Plan, and the Springfield Zoning Map. There are five dwellings on the site, and one parcel is vacant. He referred to a map showing the subject properties and the zoning for this site and
abutting sites. The vacant parcel was identified in the residential housing inventory for the City as a site for redevelopment.
Mr. Limbird said the proposal is to redesignate and rezone four of the parcels from LDR to high density residential (HDR), and two parcels from LDR to medium density residential (MDR). The proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on April 4, 2017. The hearing
was closed and the record left open. The Planning Commission conducted deliberations on April 18, 2017. As a result of the deliberations, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a recommendation that differs from the application. The Planning Commission recommendation is to
redesignate and rezone three parcels from LDR to MDR, and three parcels from LDR to HDR. He noted which parcels on the map. The logic from the Planning Commission was that there was a linear
pattern on the west side of 5th Street, and they wanted to replicate that boundary on the east side of 5th
Street. All written testimony received for the Planning Commission public hearing and the City Council public hearing are all in the Council packet through last week, including emails. Staff
acknowledges that the application meets the criteria for plan designation and zone change. The
configuration of the redesignation and rezoning is different in the Planning Commission recommendation from the applicant’s submission, which is noted in the packet.
1. Rick Satre, Representative of the Applicant (in favor). He noted that that applicant has no concern with the Planning Commission recommendation. He thanked staff for their assistance
in processing the application. Staff recommended approval and so did the Planning Commission. The proposal is to redesignate and rezone six tax lots immediately north of Fred Meyer shopping center on 5th Street and Q Street. This is not the end of the public process.
There have been a lot of legitimate concerns expressed from neighbors. Should this process move forward, site plan review will apply to the project, which included additional public notice and public comment period. The recently adopted 2030 Residential Land Use and
Housing Element noted that there is a housing shortage in Springfield, and surplus of LDR
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 7
land. It noted that more than 5000 new residents are expected to arrive in Springfield between
now and 2030. In terms of vacancy, in 2015, the national vacancy rate was 12.8%, and in Oregon it was 8.3%. In Springfield the rate is only 5.5% showing a clear shortage of housing
in Springfield. A tight housing market affects job growth and economic development and everyone who seeks to live in Springfield. Many of the councilors and the Mayor have been to presentations regarding the missing middle housing. This project fits the definition of missing
middle housing. We have HDR housing on one side, and LDR on the other side, but are missing the middle housing.
Mr. Satre said of the applicable criteria regarding the Metro Plan Diagram amendment, the applicant is consistent with statewide planning goals, and do not make the Metro Plan
internally inconsistent, and are consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding the zone change request, the applicant is consistent with applicable plans and policies. The site has adequate public facilities and urban services, and they comply with the
Springfield Development Code and Oregon Administrative Rules. Specifically regarding the
2030 Comprehensive Plan, Staff Report Findings 27-35, staff has cited several housing policies from Springfield’s housing element that the applicant is in compliance and supportive
of that plan: 1) Springfield shall support locating higher density housing, residential development and increasing the density of development near employment centers and commercial services, along with transportation efficient services; 2) will reduce impediments
to more effectively utilizing residential land; 3) will encourage and facilitate development of more attached and clustered housing types; 4) will seek ways to introduce a variety of housing options for all income levels; 5) designate land to provide a mix of choices; 6) promote
housing development and affordability in proximity to transit stations; 7) improve walkability and convenient access; and 8) enhance the quality and affordability of neighborhood infill
development and multi-family development.
Mr. Satre said staff had noted that certain aspects of the Q Street Refinement Plan have been
replaced and superseded by the City’s recently adopted housing element, yet there are still
some policies in the Q Street Refinement Plan that do apply; specifically residential criteria #2 and residential criteria #3. Regarding residential criteria #2, medium density housing, the
applicant is in compliance with that criteria as follows, “to designate medium density housing in areas where the following occur – areas that are primarily developed as high quality medium density residential, or adjacent to medium density residential development. As staff
notes, MDR property is located in the neighborhood across the street. Secondly, areas that can serve as a buffer between commercial zoning and low density residential. As shown in the staff’s report, this property does provide a buffer of HDR and MDR between the more intense
commercial uses and the less intense LDR. Thirdly, areas within ½ mile of a transit transfer station. He noted that the site is located on a bus route on 5th Street, next door to an LTD park-n-ride facility (Fred Meyer) and less than ½ mile from the EmX route on Pioneer Parkway.
With respect to residential criteria #3 in the Q Street Refinement Plan, regarding high density residential, it cites areas within ½ mile of community commercial uses; areas within ½ mile of a transit station; and areas within ¼ mile from an arterial or collector street. The proposal
complies with all of those standards.
Mr. Satre addressed other concerns from the public, which are not necessarily applicable
criteria, but are legitimate. They need to remember that this is not the end of the public process. There will be public notice and public comment opportunities with site plan review.
Many of the concerns expressed before the Council address a few particular concerns. One is
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 8
building height and another is building setback. He referred to a map showing setback and
height currently allowed. The LDR property to the east could have a 30 foot tall structure, 5 feet from the property line. The LDR properties to the north could have a 30 foot tall structure
10 feet from the property line. Changing the zoning to MDR will increases the setback to a minimum of 25 feet, and will allow the building to only be 25 feet tall. There is also a requirement for a landscaped screen with trees in MDR; there is no landscape requirement in
today’s LDR zone. Within the 25 foot setback, there are no automobiles allowed, which provides significant assurances that the compatibility will be much greater in the future than it
is now. He reiterated that the applicant is fine with the Planning Commission’s
recommendation.
Mr. Satre said there has been concern noted about crime. One of the neighbors contacted the
Springfield Police Department and asked for police call numbers for a 500 foot radius area around Safeway and Fred Meyer. The person noted there are many more calls at Safeway than
at Fred Meyer. They believed that higher number was because there were more apartments
next to Safeway than Fred Meyer. He said they also called the Police Department and asked for total number of police calls over a two-year period of time for the 500 foot radius at 5th and
S Street. Within those calls, there were 100 calls over that two-year period: 47% were for single family residences, 18% were street related, 12% were related to commercial properties or unknown, and 23% were related to apartments. There are problem residents no matter what
area. Within that same 500 foot radius, there was one residence in particular on T Street that had 9 calls, and another that had 10 calls. The apartment complex in the 1000 foot circle near Fred Meyer has 10 calls. Crime is not a criteria and crime cannot be assumed through the
housing type. There was also concern expressed about renters, but about 50% of people living in Springfield are renters. He noted that about 45% of people living in the two census tracts immediately adjacent to this site are renters.
Mr. Satre said he is available for questions. He reiterated that the applicant does meet the
applicable criteria, this is not the end of the public process, and the site plan review will have
public notice and testimony, and very rigorous site plan review and multi-unit design standards will apply, much more rigorous than what could occur today if left LDR.
2. Kyle Gray, Springfield, OR (in favor). Mr. Gray said he runs one of the larger property management companies in Springfield and is on the Board of Directors of “Multi-Family
Northwest”, the state organization that represents apartment managers and property managers in Oregon. He noted the need for additional housing in Springfield. The vacancy rate in Springfield is actually below 1% since March. On average, his business receives about 40-50
applicants per vacancy, and there are a lot of people that have no housing options. His
company currently manages the houses on the subject property. There are two vacant houses that have been boarded up for about 10 years, which have been problem sites with people
breaking in and causing fires and other issues. When he did the walk-through with the former owner in the 1990s, he said it was his dream to build apartments and that’s why he didn’t fix up the other houses. The original family home used to be on the property.
3. William Carpenter, T Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Mr. Carpenter said the Q Street
Refinement Plan was based on precise and understandable criteria, and was intended to
provide certainty, and was to be used in conjunction with the Metro Plan in making land use decisions in the Q Street area. Staff did not look at whether or not the existing lots clearly had
prevailing LDR standards or conditions with them. If they do, the plan does not allow a
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 9
conditional application of what might be happening with the lands inventory, which this
process has done. Looking at the LDR criteria, which staff did not do in either of the findings, it actually rate 3.5 out of a possible 4, and is only neutral on the lots that are directly on 5th
Street. It’s designated as Metro low density, and not intermixed with Commercial Community (CC) and is primarily developed as single family. Comparing that with the MDR criteria shows that the MDR scores only .5 out of 4. There is no transfer station, which is one of the
requisites, and there is not any MDR already zoned in either of the two plans. If the applicant’s proposal gets started, the neighborhood will go from 15 to 320 residents in that
area which is a major impact and change to the number of people who will be traversing that
territory. There are no buffers so there would have to be manmade buffers which won’t stop noise. The solar setbacks would put LDR land on the north lot to 25 feet for a 20-foot
structure.
4. Rex Meisenheimer, T Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Mr. Meisenheimer said the
neighbors in their neighborhood know each other, see each other on the street, and it is a very
friendly place to live. Those living along the fence line in this area have an average of 22 years living there. Everyone who has lived there has known that this would be a LDR area.
Someone tried to put something up about 30 years ago, but nothing happened. A group walked around the neighborhood and got a petition. No one was in favor of anything other than LDR in this area. They then went back and talked to all 77 people to ask what type of development
they could support. He referred to a picture depicting what a 25 foot structure would look like from his backyard. They would like the proposed MDR changed to LDR and the proposed HDR changed to MDR.
5. Tom Hinkle, 5th Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Mr. Hinkle said he lives across the street from where the driveway would come out of the proposed rezoned property. He referred
to a graph showing what could happen if there were more rentals in the neighborhood. According to the census, rentals drop surrounding property values by 13.8%. He noted areas
with high renter concentration in high crime areas. He referred to Mr. Satre’s comment that
we have approximately 50% rentals in Springfield, and he can concur. This will just make the problem worse. Looking at all of the people who are here, and the passion and interest they
have in opposing this rezoning, he thinks the Council will find there is good reason why not to
change the zoning.
6. Sue Stoneburner, T Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Ms. Stoneburner said her property
borders the rezone area. When she moved in 10 years ago, she felt this was her forever home and thought meant to stay forever. She was hopeful she would have peace and privacy in her
backyard. She is concerned with the noise and traffic that will happen with the rezoning. She
did the crime stats for the area and felt it was relevant to what is going on in this area. Safeway, Fred Meyer and Albertson are all very similar other than the fact that Safeway has
HDR adjacent, and Fred Meyer and Albertsons have LDR. Safeway’s crime calls are doubled over the other two areas and she is concerned that will happen to their area. In the last year, Safeway has had approximately 198 calls that were not reported the Police Department. With
the new jail the citizens voted in, the crime rate has dropped significantly in Springfield and they are very proud of that. We are now considered one of the safest places to live and the
Police Department has done a great job. She would like to keep that safe area the way it is
now and doesn’t feel the rezoning would help with keeping the crime rate low. In looking to the future, they would like to see Springfield be more of a family place to live, not known for
apartments and rentals.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 10
7. Ken Schmidt, Cardinal Way, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Mr. Schmidt said he owns a duplex on S Street and grew up across the street from the subject property. It has been single
family residential for as long as he has been alive. He is a realtor and when he found out about the rezoning, he did a search on Regional Land Information Database (RLID). It didn’t take 30 minutes for him to find 10 acres of HDR vacant and 10 acres of MDR vacant land in
Springfield. About an acre and a half across from the subject property is zoned MDR, but has single family houses on it. We have a shortage of single family residential in Springfield. He
has builders looking for property, and there were no sales in March of this year for any lots in
the Hayden Bridge area. There is high demand and builders who will pay up to $1M for vacant land in Springfield that is flat and easy to build on. Hayden Bridge is a very desirable
district. He works for Springfield Family Physicians looking for homes for the positions
coming in, and everyone he has worked with so far has bought in Eugene because they can’t find anything in the Hayden Bridge area. Keeping this residential is the best way to go with
this property.
8. Beverly Medford, Dumas Drive, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Ms. Medford said she owns
a duplex in the affected area. Duplexes can be placed on single family zoning. The chance for home ownership is being eroded every single day, and removing more suitable property for single family units is just making that worse. Not only will this zoning adversely affect the
existing homes in this area, but the homes adjacent to this property will have issues. They don’t know what the developer’s plans are for the property. Removing this property from single family units will cause more of a shortage and will cause the prices to rise, and put a lot
of young couples out of the market who are now renters who would love to own their home. The current zoning on the subject property was put into place a long time ago after a lot of study by many different groups, and was supposed to be something to be relied on to make
decisions regarding where people could choose to live. The citizens don’t get to pick and choose which laws and rules they obey, so the City needs to hear that before they can justify
telling the people that they are arbitrarily changing zoning which will change the
neighborhood. She referred to an article she distributed written by Don Kahle in the Register Guard about how the dream of homeownership is fading for so many. The developer had to
know that this property was zoned for single family units when he purchased the property. He
has not contacted any of the owners before or after he purchased the property. A lot of the surplus of single family home properties is in the hills where it is very expensive to build,
putting everything out of market.
9. Margaret Donene Guest, T Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Ms. Guest said she rents in
this neighborhood and has been there for nine years. She looked for a long time and thought
carefully about where she chose to move. She enjoyed the neighborhood feel, and is representative of a large segment of renters who are seniors. They enjoy renting, but don’t
want to live in an apartment complex. She found the statistics about police calls and crime very interesting. Just because police are called, doesn’t mean there has been a crime. There have, however, been two violent incidences across 5th Street in the apartment complexes – one
involving an accidental shooting, and one a stabbing. Anytime a large volume of people are placed in a small space, it is prone to more violent activity. She has been a renter and a
homeowner in the past. As a renter, she lived in a variety of units. She shares the concerns of
her neighbors. There are a number of people up and down T Street that have lived in duplexes long term. There are advantages of not having constant turnover and still having available
rental property. At most, she would like to see the plan amendment revised so the properties
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 11
that are proposed as MDR, could be LDR; and the properties that are proposed as HDR, could
be MDR. Duplexes and fourplexes can go in LDR.
10. Jamie Porter, 7th Street, Springfield OR (in opposition). Ms. Porter said she wants to make her voice heard. She feels the current zoning is correct for the location. She has concerns about crime, noise and traffic.
11. Rae Heselbach, 7th Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Ms. Heselbach said they have only
lived in the neighborhood for about 3 weeks. They chose to move into this neighborhood
because it is quiet, has great open backyards, is well established and well cared for. It was affordable and convenient, and easy to get to work. She was concerned that the developer had
not disclosed how many units he wants to build. An influx of 300-400 people in that small
space is going to be a huge impact on the infrastructure and the environment in general. It appears the quality of housing he supports is less than stellar in many instances. She is asking
if there are better places for HDR to be placed. This neighborhood is a great starter
neighborhood for families, and this is the first home she has owned. The thought that her home could decrease in value with this type of development is disconcerting. She would like
the Council to consider the feel and tone of the neighborhood. 12. Michael Eaton, 5th Street, Springfield, OR (neutral). Mr. Eaton spoke regarding crime. He said
he had never seen as much crime now as they have since development started taking place. He
didn’t feel well going to Safeway; something made him uncomfortable. Last week, the neighbors across the street called about a person outside of his house. When he went out there,
the person who had robbed Shari’s was there, but then he ran off. He also found hypodermic needles in that same area. He’s not saying he is in favor or opposed to the proposal, but noted that the neighborhood used to be a nice neighborhood and he wants it to stay that way.
13. Anna Scott Hinkle, 5th Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Ms. Hinkle said she had lived
at this address all of her life (30 years), and she is opposed.
14. Sue Scott, 5th Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Ms. Scott said she along with husband
Tom Hinkle and daughter Anna Scott Hinkle have lived at this address for 30 years. They are
not opposed to development as LDR and understand the need for housing. In the time they have lived at this address, they have seen the Safeway mall, 2nd Street Apartments, St. Vincent
DePaul Senior Living, two apartment buildings on 5th Street, expansion of Fred Meyer, three housing developments, and numerous businesses go up in the neighborhood. They are also planning a development on their ½ acre lot. The plan was for a set of duplexes with plenty of
green space and no change in the zoning. This is the only plan in the area they have objected
to for the following reasons. People originally bought their home thinking it would stay LDR, which is the nature and character of the neighborhood. Single family homes and duplexes fit
historically and presently in this neighborhood. They think living next door to an apartment may be the same as living in an apartment. Changing the zoning will decrease home values for those that have worked very hard over many years and maintained their homes. In contrast, the
developer buys the land he knows is zoned a certain way, and then wants to rezone it to increase its value. They believe that is unfair. This developer has not told anyone what he
wants to build which is worrisome. They believe the developer can build very nice places
within the confines of the current LDR such as the development at 9th and Riverstone. She quoted from George W. Bush, “We want people owning their own home. It is in our national
interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 12
a vital stake in the future of our country”. She would like to add, “our city”. Some questions
for the Council to consider are: Do we need more single family homes, duplexes, condominiums, tiny houses and/or apartments? Yes, we do in Springfield. We don’t need just
apartments; we need all of those. How many proposals of this sort have been denied? It seems like it is just going through, and that worries her. Have they ever seen so many neighbors write letters, research and attend meetings like this? Please take note of this extensive opposition – it
means something.
15. Lonnie Miller, 7th Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Ms. Miller said she has lived at this
address for 30 years. Her property is on the east side of and abuts the proposed property. She is concerned she will have an apartment looking into her backyard. The neighborhood has
been small. Fred Meyer increased so her property now meets with their property. They have
taken out the two houses closest to Fred Meyer leaving vacant lots where transients stay. She has seen what’s happened to 5th Street since those apartments have gone in. They had
homeless camps behind Fred Meyer and she had a daughter living at home, which made her
very uncomfortable. Apartment living isn’t all bad, and not all apartment residents are criminals, but by adding 300 more people, the possibility of incidents is going to increase. It
is a quiet neighborhood and she would like to see it stay that way. 16. Ed Lewis, 7th Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Mr. Lewis said his property abuts the
vacant lot behind Fred Meyer. The traffic density study shows a 14% increase. He noted the
difficulty turning left on Q Street at 5:00pm with the current traffic. He has seen many near misses as people try to cross Q Street from Knechts. Adding a 200 apartment complex, it will
be impossible to drive near Fred Meyer. There is no transit station so he’s not sure where they got that information. The biggest concern for him is the traffic. The street where he lives has a barrier and still cars speed through. He would like details on the traffic density study.
17. Art Ireland, T Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Mr. Ireland said many times he has been
scared that he may have hit somebody near the apartments on 5th Street as people run across
the street. At night, it is very difficult to see and is very dangerous.
18. Betty James, 7th Street, Springfield, OR (in opposition). Ms. James said she has lived at her
address for 30 years. The neighborhood is a very nice place to live and she would like to keep it that way. She also has had problems coming out of the parking lot at Fred Meyer. It is very
high density in terms of traffic. She would like to not have any additional heavy traffic that would be caused with apartment complexes being built next to them. They enjoy their privacy and the feel of the neighborhood, and want to keep that.
Mr. Limbird said there have been impassioned pleas from those speaking tonight. Some of the testimony was directed to the criteria and others were not. Crime statistics are not criteria, but if
Council would like additional information on this or any of the other topics raised, staff could do some research.
Councilor Woodrow asked about the traffic counts if they don’t know what is going to be built.
Mr. Limbird said traffic counts could be estimated based on what could be allowed with current
zoning and the proposed zoning. If the property was developed as single family housing, it could have between 6-14 units per acre. Medium density for the entire site would be between 14-28 units per acre.
Traffic studies normally include 9 ½ trips per day per unit.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 13
Councilor Woodrow asked when the type of development would be part of the public process.
Mr. Limbird said the City would require a traffic impact study of the development were to generate more than 100 trips per peak hour, or 1000 trips per day. When a person comes in for site development, they will propose the number of units they want and the traffic characteristics will be
calculated to determine how they would accommodate those numbers.
Councilor Woodrow asked if that was the type of criteria that has to be met at final approval.
Mr. Limbird said that was correct. The zoning opens up the possibilities, but once the specific design
is known, the details of the traffic counts will be evaluated.
Councilor Woodrow said an option was presented to change the zoning to MDR rather than HDR.
That might be something for the developer to consider.
Mr. Limbird said there is a provision for duplexes in LDR, although it must be on a corner lot. There
are no corner exposures for this site at this time so no duplexes could be built under the current zoning. Under the proposed zoning of MDR, they could have a duplex. LDR could only have a single family home.
Councilor Woodrow asked if there could be a possibility of changing it all to MDR.
Mr. Limbird said the developer was fine with the amended recommendation from the Planning Commission. That amendment does still include the HDR component.
Councilor Moore asked if the 65-80 units for MDR were for the whole property. She asked how many units for HDR.
Mr. Limbird said HDR allows 28-42 units per acre. With the Planning Commission recommendation, there could be between 50-70 units for the lots proposed for HDR; and 28-56 units for the lots
proposed for MDR. Councilor Moore said the Council has been talking about affordable housing and about Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADU). Anyone living in LDR could add an ADU to their property which would increase the number of housing units. She lives off Q Street on 16th Street so experiences some of the noise of the freeway and traffic, but does not experience crime issues.
Councilor VanGordon when they think about the adopted housing strategies the City has, he asked how much weight should be put on the Q Street Refinement Plan.
Mr. Limbird said there are some housing elements in the Q Street Refinement Plan. Some of those elements are superseded by the adoption of the Springfield 2030 Plan, Residential Housing Element,
which updated and acknowledged our current inventory and needs. That replaced some of the policies of the Q Street Refinement Plan dated in about 1987. There had been a couple of provisions of the Q
Street Refinement Plan that were changed. The City looked at a global look of the City for the housing
strategy. By adopting that housing study for the whole City, it does replace/supersede some of the older policies in the Q Street Refinement Plan. Where the housing element doesn’t supersede, staff
acknowledges that the Q Street Refinement Plan still applies. Those were noted in the staff report.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 14
That does include the composition of existing neighborhoods, and provides for changes over time as
well as retaining existing composition. In those sections, there are elements that are contradictory. Staff didn’t do the ranking that Mr. Carpenter identified.
Councilor VanGordon asked if they needed to find it was consistent with the plan, not that one version is more consistent than the other version.
Ms. Kraaz said that is correct. The Q Street Refinement Plan sets up when those circumstances
dominate. If they find that it meets the intent of the language, they are not creating inconsistency.
Mr. Limbird said this provision would concurrently amend the Q Street Refinement Plan. If the plan
amendment and zone change are adopted, the Metro Plan and Q Street Refinement Plans would both
be amended so they match.
Councilor VanGordon asked if the issues regarding noise and crime would be addressed during the
site plan review.
Mr. Limbird said crime is difficult to quantify or identify as a specific planning issue. Typically, they would be looking at the current design standards for multi-family residential/multi-unit design standards, which are fairly rigorous in terms of buffering and screening and providing common open
space for the benefits of the residents of the complex. That does provide some appeal and aesthetics to a site when it develops. Regardless of whether it’s LDR, MDR or HDR, it is difficult to max out the density. They typically find the lower end of the density range is developed due to other factors in
trying to max out the density.
Councilor VanGordon said many of the issues could be solved in the site plan, but cannot be addressed
in this process.
Mr. Limbird said that is correct. He noted some of the things addressed in site plan review.
Councilor Moore said she heard people stating there could be 200 units, but that wouldn’t even be in
the outside range for that property. Mr. Limbird said that is correct, even if it was all HDR. The maximum building height standard is 35
feet normally. If they went up 50 feet, they would need a 50 foot setback. MDR maximum building height is 30 feet. The height can be increased with an increased setback.
Rebuttal of the applicant: Mr. Satre responded to the questions from the Council. Councilor Woodrow had asked about traffic. There is a traffic analysis required for the plan
amendment and zone change. It is documented and part of the packet, and part of Statewide Goal 12, Transportation. This application falls within the State prescribed parameters regarding trip generation
and impacts, and meets the criteria for the plan amendment and zone change. At site plan review, if the
proposal is generating 100 or more trips during any peak hour, a second traffic analysis is required. During that analysis, they will need to address specific mitigation measures. If the level of service of
any of the existing transportation systems (5th Street, Q Street, S Street, intersections and signals) all
below acceptable performance standards, mitigation would be required. As the applicant, they know they will have to do that analysis and it will be vetted by Springfield staff. He explained some of the
mitigation measures that may be required.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 15
Mr. Satre spoke regarding density and number of units. There would be 1.75 acres of MDR (based on the Planning Commission recommendation), and the same amount of HDR. The minimum to
maximum for all 3.5 acres would be between 67-133 dwelling units for the entire site. Often the actual proposed density is much less than the maximum because of physical constraints. They also must comply with design standards, setbacks, private space per dwelling unit, active space for the complex,
landscaping, and parking. With all of those requirements, there is not enough room to build the maximum density. It is often a struggle to meet the minimum density.
Mr. Satre spoke regarding height limits and building standards. The site plan review standards, the multi-unit design standards, setbacks, landscaping, open space and height limits are all the same
whether talking about MDR or HDR. The only difference between the two is number of units.
Mr. Satre addressed questions regarding the Q Street Refinement Plan. As noted, the City’s adopted
housing element from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan replaced and supersedes certain parts of the Q
Street Refinement Plan. The City Attorney noted that with respect to the two criteria in the Q Street Refinement Plan that still apply (Criteria #2 re locating MDR and Criteria #3 re locating HDR), that it
is a predominance, not all or nothing. If they are predominantly meeting those criteria, they are good. Mr. Satre spoke regarding the transfer station. In the 1987 Q Street Refinement Plan, there was a bus
stop at 5th and Hayden Bridge that is not there anymore. Today there is a Park ‘n Ride next door at the
Fred Meyer parking lot. There is a transfer station less than ½ mile away per remaining Q Street Refinement Plan criteria at Pioneer Parkway and Q Street.
Mr. Satre noted that Mr. Carpenter is correct about solar setbacks. Those apply no matter what the residential density zoning (LDR, MDR, or HDR). The solar setbacks will apply during the site plan
review. They will most notably make a difference to the property to the north and will influence the setback and height of the buildings.
Councilor VanGordon closed the public hearing and the record.
FIRST READING. NO ACTION REQUESTED.
Councilor Moore thanked everyone for coming and speaking.
2. Sanipac Franchise Renewal and Rate Increase.
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-14 – A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING THE MASTER SCHEDULE OF MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES, RATES, PERMITS AND LICENSES IN ORDER TO AMEND THE
AMOUNT OF THE GARBAGE AND REFUSE RATES Anette Spickard, Development and Public Works Director, presented the staff report on this item.
Sanipac, the City’s franchise hauler for solid waste, has requested an increase in rates effective July 1,
2017 based on both a CPI increase and the increase in costs to comply with the County’s new
requirement that all commercial haulers deliver waste to Short Mountain Landfill effective July 1, 2017.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 16
The Franchise Ordinance needs to be updated to include new DEQ requirements for recycling and
waste prevention programs.
Under section 16.4.b of the City’s Franchise Ordinance, Sanipac can request rate adjustments once per year prior to June 30th. This section states that the January Portland CPI-U will be considered for CPI adjustments along with the costs related to new government regulations. Sanipac is requesting a 2.1%
CPI adjustment; the Portland CPI is 2.6%. Sanipac has also determined that the cost to comply with the new Lane County hauling requirement for all commercial loads to go to Short Mountain Landfill
instead of the Glenwood transfer station is equal to an increase of 0.81% in costs and requests a rate
adjustment. Sanipac’s proposed increase for both adjustments combined is $0.40 per month for the most frequently used service.
Sanipac does not anticipate an increase in rates in order to comply with the new requirements. Based
on Council feedback, staff will prepare an updated Franchise Ordinance for public hearing.
Councilor VanGordon opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Councilor VanGordon closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2017-14. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – STOEHR AND PISHIONERI).
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Emily Reiman, Executive Director of NEDCO. Ms. Reiman said she is approaching her two-year anniversary as Director of NEDCO. One of the goals she inherited was the closing of all of the
active Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) contracts with the City of Springfield.
There were seven when she started. She has been working with City staff over last two years to make sure the work happened and the contracts were closed as agreed. She is happy to say they
are all done. She will plan to attend Council meetings on a quarterly basis to provide updates
about the work NEDCO is doing in Springfield. During the NEDCO State of the Union last year, she identified increased work through Community Lending Works. They have seen a huge
increase over the last two years. In FY15/16, they did a total of just over $44,000 worth of loans to Springfield businesses. This year to date, they have done $276,000 of lending to Springfield residents and businesses. That includes $216,000 in micro and small business loans to Springfield
entrepreneurs. They are also doing a pilot program with Springfield High School to have the first
10 SHS students doing NEDCO’s IDA match saving program. This is the first time they have worked with students and SHS has been a good partner. The first ten students are set to graduate
next month having met their match. 2. Lori Love, Building Works Director of NEDCO. Ms. Love said she was the project manager on
the CDBG project at SPROUT! which was the installation of the fire sprinklers. She thanked the Council for that funding. It was great to get that project done. She thanked City staff (David
Bowlsby, Robert Castile, and Erin Fifield) who were very helpful in getting the project done.
3. James Platt, Springfield, OR. Mr. Platt had left the meeting before his time to speak.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 17
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Bill and Bev Medford Regarding Potential Rezoning of the Parcel North of Q Street between the Fred Meyer Store and T Street.
2. Correspondence from Gloria Parrish Regarding Case Numbers TYP317-00004 (ZMA) TYP417-00002(MPA) Opposition to Proposed Changes.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – STOEHR AND PISHIONERI).
BIDS
1. 42nd Street Roundabout Whitetopping Authority to Award Bid.
Jeff Paschall, City Engineer, presented the staff report on this item. Staff requests Council authorization for the City Manager to award the bid for project P21118, 42nd
Street Roundabout Whitetopping to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder upon expiration of the bidders’ protest period.
The bid opening for his project is May 11, 2017, so the lowest responsive bidder and the amount of the requested bid award is unknown at this time. In an effort to maintain the current project schedule staff is requesting that Council authorize the City Manager to award the bid to the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder once it has been determined and the protest period has expired.
All construction must occur between July 10, 2017 and August 14, 2017. This date range was
established so that construction could be accomplished after the July 4th holiday and prior to the start of school. The limited 14 day construction window has been set to help reduce the inconvenience to
the traveling public. The next available Council meeting for award of this project is June 5, 2017.
Delaying the bid award to June 5th may result in the need to postpone the construction schedule. The reduction in time from bid opening to bid award is important to achieving the goal of beginning street
construction in early July. The Municipal Code sets administrative limits on the City Manager’s signature authority to award bids
where cost exceeds certain limits imposed by the Code except in certain cases of City Council
approval. For this project to proceed at an accelerated pace, staff requests that Council authorize the City Manager to award this bid.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD THE BID FOR PROJECT
P21118 - 42ND STREET ROUNDABOUT WHITETOPPING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – STOEHR AND PISHIONERI).
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017 Page 18
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports
b. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 8:57 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________
Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest: ____________________
City Recorder