HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 MinutesAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/26/2017
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. June 5, 2017 – Work Session b. June 5, 2017 – Regular Meeting
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY JUNE 5, 2017
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 5, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, 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. Councilor Moore was absent (excused).
Mayor Lundberg noted the earlier start time in order to allow the Council to take a two-month break in
July and August.
1. Developing an Affordable Housing Strategy.
Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
Ms. Belson said the Council had started to discuss the overnight parking program during their last
work session, but ran out of time. Staff put together a memo that answered some of the questions the Council had about St. Vincent de Paul’s costs associated with the program.
Ms. Belson said the City has a contract with St. Vincent de Paul (SVDP) to manage the program The contract with SVDP covers reimbursing for the hard costs (porta-potties, garbage service) of the
program. She reviewed the costs associated currently with the program, including soft costs which are not reimbursable. The cost per site varies depending on the number of units and number of people per site. Typically, the cost per site is approximately $1068/year. SVDP said they would have difficulty
absorbing the costs if there was an expansion. They have asked the City to consider reimbursing their administrative costs.
Councilor Woodrow said she reviewed the information and couldn’t see any reason to say no. Council is interested in accommodating and trying to help out. The additional cost is not enough to stop them
from doing it.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how much SVDP was asking for above current costs.
Ms. Belson said it is up to the Council to set an amount and next year’s agreement would be structured with that ‘not-to-exceed’ amount. If SVDP chooses to exceed that amount, as they have in the past,
they know they will be responsible for that additional cost.
Councilor Pishioneri said he wants to know what the expenses are going for if we provide more
funding. He wants to know how much more they want to expand. He wants to move forward, but wants more specifics on what they will provide. He wants to move forward, but wants more detail in a proposal from SVDP.
Councilor Stoehr said it looks like there are 7 single occupancy and 5 family sites. He understands the
City has funded $5000 and the program has required $8300 over the past two years. There are a lot of
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 2
other churches that are ready to be a part of this program, but are waiting to see what the City is
willing to do. He would like to propose funding up to $10,000 and see what other churches are willing to step up. If the funds aren’t expended, they could go back into the General Fund.
Councilor VanGordon said he is open to looking at the proposal, and paying their actual costs. They are currently absorbing $3000 in their costs. We need to have a cohesive plan, but he’s not sure if
moving the cap will necessarily expand the program. He is fine paying some of the administrative costs, but wants to make sure we have more churches who are interested. He wants to know what it
will take to expand the program.
Ms. Belson said the Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance (SSRA) is ready to market the program, but
was waiting to see if SVDP was able to fund more sites. Until they have some assurance the City will
put in more funds, they have not sent out the letter.
Councilor VanGordon said he is willing to pay more money for more sites, but there needs to be a cap
and some methodology for determining per sites costs.
Councilor Wylie said she worked in the non-profit world for a long time. It’s important for the Council to know what they are buying. She would like SVDP to sort that out and bring it back to the Council. They are all supportive, but need it written in clear language what they need so the City knows what
we are buying. Councilor Woodrow said maybe they could come back with more options at different levels of what
they could accomplish at different cost. The Council could then determine what they would like to support.
Councilor Pishioneri said he is in favor of reimbursing the hard costs, but is not sure about paying for administrative costs. He doesn’t see a problem going forward with the campaign and finding out
which churches are willing to commit to the program. Once they hear from the churches, they will
know the demand.
Councilor Stoehr said there is a hard cost, so SVDP will not profit if we set a cap. He would like to see how many people would participate if the cap was raised.
Ms. Spickard said the previous packet included three different variations: staying with the current $5000 allocating which pays for 4 sites; increasing the funding to $10,000 which would pay for 6 sites and some of SVDP staff time; or increasing the funding to $20,000. She said Council seemed to be
more comfortable with staff bringing back an option of $10,000, and talking with SVDP about the specificity of the plan.
Mayor Lundberg clarified that the program is administered by SVDP, but they are not recruiting. The City’s contribution to the program is to help SVDP run the program. The Springfield Shelter Rights
Alliance (SSRA) is working to recruit sites. There is some hesitation by churches to get involved
because of other activities they do on their site, and are unclear of their commitment. The recruitment piece will make the difference in how many sites we have. She has offered to put her name on a letter
from the SSRA saying the City supports this program monetarily. She is fine giving $10,000. If they
can’t find sites, they don’t get the money.
Councilor Pishioneri said he doesn’t want soft costs to absorb what is left over from the hard costs. He is fine with $10,000 for hard costs only, including mileage. They can assess it again later.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 3
Mayor Lundberg said each site has unique characteristics and mileage, and will be individual in terms
of costs. She asked about tracking the costs.
Ms. Belson said when SVDP submits their invoice, their costs are listed in detail. She explained how they try to keep their costs low by combining trips to sites. She asked if the Council wanted to reimburse any soft costs, perhaps with a limit.
Council agreed to a cap of $10,000, with a cap of $2000 for soft costs.
2. Police Special Option Levy Renewal.
Chief of Police Rick Lewis and Finance Manager Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item.
The current special operating levy for police services expires as of June 30, 2018. Council is being
asked to authorize by resolution the placement of a ballot measure on the November 2017 election for
either 1) a 5-Year Local Option Levy at $1.28 for the renewal of the current levy that expires on June 30, 2018; or 2) a 5-Year Local Option Levy at a rate no higher than $1.44 for the replacement of the
current levy that expires on June 30, 2018. To allow an adequate amount of time for the filing of the election and to conduct an information
campaign by the City, staff is asking that Council approve the authorizing resolution for the election prior to Council going on summer recess.
Mr. Duey said the public hearing for this item has been scheduled for June 19. He reviewed the results from the telephone survey that was recently conducted by Advanced Marketing Research. The results
indicate that people are willing to pay more to maintain the service level.
Councilor Stoehr asked if there would be any reference to the previous levy amount on the ballot title.
Mr. Duey said if the level stayed at $1.28, the ballot title will state that it renews the local option levy. If it is changed to a new amount, the ballot title will not include the word renewal and will state “this
measure may cause property taxes to increase more than 3%”. Councilor Stoehr said as a taxpayer, he wants to know if this will be more or less than he is already
paying; the dollar amounts per thousand don’t tell him that when they stand alone. His main concern about the survey is that those taking the survey may not see it as an increase.
Councilor Woodrow said those that didn’t change their mind once they had been given additional information, could have been because they were fully supportive or opposed already.
Mr. Duey said in looking at the full data, they could perhaps determine if that is the case.
Councilor Pishioneri said they tried 2822 calls to get 400 responses and said many people screen their
calls. They need to look at the demographic differences as they pertain to the responses. He would prefer to have the dollar amounts noted up front in the survey, and how it relates to the current levy in
terms of cost and services provided. Voters want to know how much it will cost them.
Mr. Duey said staff provided answers to some of the Council’s questions from the last work session
regarding budget and crime statistics. He noted additional revenue that was left out of the original calculation which was about $100,000 in delinquent taxes which equates to about $0.02/$1000. With the new calculation, the higher levy amount proposed could be lowered to $1.42/$1000 without
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 4
affecting current services. There are revenues associated with operating the Jail such as jail bed leasing
and promissory work. When the Jail levy was first adopted in 2006, we included $700,000 in jail bed rental revenue. When the levy was renewed last time, that amount was reduced to $335,000. That
figure is even less and closer to $200,000. Part of the increase in the levy is the outstanding revenue we thought we would bring in from other services is not materializing. The $1.42/$1000 amount is the maximum proposed and would not affect current services. He has calculated that they could probably
do the same at $1.36/$1000 by transferring some things to the General Fund (GF). The differences would be behind the scenes at the City, not in services. A renewal at $1.28 would make it very
difficult to not affect services.
Councilor VanGordon agreed that the language in the survey should have included the dollar amounts.
He asked what amount per thousand would be needed if they just did cost reductions without cutting
positions. Mr. Duey said dropping it to $1.36/$1000 would involve both moving some Court positions to the
General Fund and making other reductions.
Councilor VanGordon said he felt the 62% who showed support in the survey was high compared to what would be the actual numbers. Citizens want the same level of service, but he would be more comfortable with the $1.38 or $1.39 range, finding reductions elsewhere. Someone is going to need to
run a campaign for this levy. Councilor Pishioneri said he is a proponent and has been straight forward with the public regarding the
cost of the levy and the services it provides. He wants constituents to feel comfortable with what they are getting for the amount. He doesn’t want to reduce staff in the General Fund any further in order to
maintain current levels in the Police Department. He is concerned about the cost to the public if they
put the rate at $1.36/$1000. He supports the program and doesn’t want any cuts in this program.
Mr. Duey said they came up with $1.36/$1000 with compression in mind. The more we raise the levy,
the more it affects compression and revenue for all of the affected agencies.
Councilor Pishioneri said he is willing to look at something less, but not as low as $1.36. Councilor Woodrow asked how they got to the figures presented.
Mr. Duey said originally he calculated $1.44/$1000 was needed to maintain full level of service, but after finding the additional revenue from delinquent taxes, was able to change that to $1.42/$1000.
The other amounts were increments based on FTE. Councilor Stoehr said he thinks it will be more important how it’s presented on the ballot.
Councilor VanGordon said he would like to land on a figure that is just a little lower than $1.42, but
something that would challenge the department to trim other expenses while keeping everyone on the
levy, and try to save some money for the taxpayers.
Mr. Duey said he had given equal weight to where the positions would be funded – the levy or General
Fund. If the choice is to not move the Court positions to the General Funds, that would be about $0.02. If the choice is to not eliminate the positions in Police services, that would be about $0.03.
These calculations are based on property taxes increasing 3% per year. Councilor VanGordon said he would be comfortable with $1.40.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 5
Councilor Pishioneri said it is good for the public to hear that the Council has looked at reducing the amount from $1.44 to $1.40.
Mr. Duey said it sounds like the Council would like to include statistics in the ballot comparing a homeowner’s previous tax bill to the new tax bill, or just the monthly average.
3. Springfield Museum – Funding & Management.
Rob Everett, Library Director, presented the staff report on this item.
At its April 10, 2017 work session, the Springfield Museum Board proposed that the City resume
management and operation of the Springfield Museum under the aegis of the Springfield Public Library. Council referred the topic of funding and managing the Museum to a future Work Session,
June 5, 2017.
The council briefing memo included a summary describing what steps would need to be taken to
successfully integrate the operation of the Springfield Museum into the overall operation of the Springfield Public Library. Mr. Everett met with the current interim Museum Director, the prior Museum Director, Board Chair and a number of City staff who have specific knowledge of the
Museum’s operation and funding mechanism. He tried to evaluate what level of additional resources, particularly staff, would be needed to sustain and improve Museum services while retaining the Library’s ability to meet its growing demand for services. He also explored ways in which programs
already in place at the Library could be used to support an improved Museum services. He tried to put an accurate price tag on what those changes might bring. He noted that he has years of experience
operating and managing a Library, but no experience operating and managing museums. He noted
that this would be the last time he would be before the Council as Library Director before his retirement. He thanked the Council for giving him the opportunity to lead the Springfield Public
Library. Their encouragement and support have helped him by the best Library Director he could be,
and he is grateful.
Mr. Everett said he came up with two scenarios for managing the Museum and Library by looking at the daily staffing and operations of a Museum, planning and implementing a requisite number of programs and display. The Museum is also to organize, protect and preserve archival materials, an
area that likely needs enhances. The Museum must also engage in community outreach and fundraising activities, volunteer coordination, work with the Museum Advisory Board and maintain an accounting portion for the overall Library budget. The starting point would be 1 FTE credentialed
museum management professional, which he based on an entry level librarian position, and 1 FTE support technician. Both would receive Library and Museum cross training. The second scenario would include only 1 FTE Museum Manager position. They would then have to rely on existing
Library technician staff and volunteer support to provide the additional staff support that would be needed. This option retains a full-time manager to address all aspects of the Museum operation or to
develop fundraising, grant writing, etc. This option would directly impact the Library, and would draw
on the same work force and volunteer force.
Mr. Everett noted the many enhancements made by the Library over the years with fewer FTE than 19
years ago. The funding with 2 FTE would be $209,012, offsetting that would be existing revenues of $65,181 which includes the current allocation of $45,000 of transient room tax (TRT) dollars. That
leaves an additional amount needed of about $143,831. The funding for 1 FTE would be $124,406, with the same revenues, leaving an additional amount to be allocated at $59,225. Currently the funds for the Museum are TRT funds. The estimated TRT revenue is $1.4M and the City has currently
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 6
programmed approximately 80% of those funds, leaving $260,000 one-time funds to be used annually.
In addition, there is currently a $600,000 reserve in the TRT. Either Museum proposal could be funded with current TRT and future TRT funds.
Mr. Everett said currently the Museum is a 501(c)(3) with its own governing board who hires, fundraises, etc. Moving forward they would need to find a way to integrate the activity of the Museum
Board as an advisory board with the Library Advisory Board. They would also need to find a way to integrate the Library Foundation and Friends of the Library with the Museum’s fundraising capacity
so they are presenting a united front and coordinating efforts. They would also want to integrate and
coordinate grant writing.
Mr. Everett reviewed the liabilities if the Library assumed responsibility for managing the Museum.
Both agencies could struggle to maintain their current level of service. The Library wants to continue to build on their recent successes in expanding their services, but they would also want the Museum to
be equally successful under their leadership. The assets would be that it would utilize existing Library
resources to enhance and improve Museum operations, would provide an additional venue for Library programs and displays, and provide opportunities for more cross marketing library and museum
programs. Another asset would be that it could allow the Museum Manager and Museum Board to develop a more robust private fundraising capacity.
Mr. Everett said the transition will include the recruitment and hiring of a new Library Director which will be at least two months. Also, recruitment and hiring of a new Museum Manager is currently underway. The necessary steps to integrate the functions of the Library, including the boards,
operational pieces of the Library and the advisory entities, could take until the beginning of the calendar year.
Councilor VanGordon said the decision is whether or not we want a Museum. He’s not sure if more money will make it better, but he is ready to do something different. He is willing to go with the 1
FTE, knowing there are a lot of questions and a lot of work to do. It will give them a chance to look at
the Museum, decide what it should be, and build some type of a business plan. They also need to look at how they could make the Museum and Library Boards one advisory board. They need a business
plan to see how to make it successful. In a year from now, they may need to look at capital or operational investments. It is helpful in terms of staffing, that the Museum is not open a full 40-hour week.
Councilor Stoehr asked what the duties would be if they were able to get more than one employee.
Mr. Everett said currently the Museum has a grant funded employee for half-time. Having that as a permanent position would help provide the day-to-day, open the doors, take out the garbage, take messages, etc. The Manager would be working on developing resources, and developing contacts for
exhibits. Having staff support gives them time to do those things, including outreach.
Councilor Pishioneri said going with 1 FTE for now makes sense. They could look at it again next
year. He discussed the TRT funds and said the Museum’s purpose is to bring people to see and enjoy Springfield, so that is why TRT funds can be spent. He asked if those funds are not being spent
somewhere else for tourism, or will we gain more with the Museum. If they could prove that pencils
out next year, he could support adding more. He wants to know what the community will get for that investment.
Councilor Wylie commended Mr. Everett for putting this information together. Merging the governance is a good idea, and will strengthen both boards. She believes there is a relationship, and
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 7
both the Library and Museum will benefit from the cross cultural relationship. She suggested a
different structure for days and hours open, perhaps closed Sundays and Mondays. They could hire a manager for 30 hours per week working 10am-5pm, and hire a 20-hour part time tech. They have
always asked the Museum to do more with less and it has been hard on the Museum. Looking at different structures so people can back each other up is a good idea, as well as developing that dedicated volunteer staff. There might be people on the Library Board who might want to jump in on
the Museum. She hopes they can move in this direction and make both profitable to the public.
Councilor Woodrow said she never questioned whether or not to have the Museum. Putting more
money is not the answer; it has to include a professional who is experienced in archives, public contact, etc. The Museum is a downtown draw, and the City needs a place for our history. That is a
major part of the purpose of the Museum. They need that solid foundation so people feel confident
when donating things to the Museum that it will be preserved. If it takes more than 1 FTE to ensure that, she is comfortable as long as they have it as our purpose. It may end up that the combination of
the foundations may not work, as they do have a separate purpose or direction. She suggested getting
input from the current Library Board and Museum Board.
Mayor Lundberg said the building and collection belongs to the City, City staff does the maintenance, and City employee Brenda Jones staffs this in some part. The Museum can be a big draw to downtown. The Wildish Theater and Emerald Arts Center have both done well, and we need to take
care of the Museum. We need to have a better way to take care of items that have been donated. She is in favor of 1 FTE with the idea that it will take someone awhile to get on board. She likes the idea of a business plan. The Library has done an amazing job with the Springfield Library Foundation, and
she sees the same possibilities with the Museum. They can also apply for bigger grants when they are combined. LCOG does grant writing, so it may be worth having a conversation with them. One of the
biggest tasks is how to create a technique to archive and maintain materials, and find space for storage.
She is happy they are working towards this change.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 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, JUNE 5, 2017
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:08 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore (by conference phone), Stoehr, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary
Bridget Smith, Assistant City Attorney Kristina Kraaz, 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. Friends of Fall Creek Watershed Recognition.
Mayor Lundberg acknowledged the work done by the Friends of Fall Creek Watershed who
worked to remove garbage, human waste, and broken down vehicles, led by Jennifer Moss a
Glenwood resident. Encouraged by the success of the event, Ms. Moss and the other volunteers formed the Friends of Fall Creek Watershed, which is partnering with SOLV, the nonprofit
organization that organizes beach cleanup.
b. Rick Thomas Recognition.
Mayor Lundberg recognized Mr. Rick Thomas and presented him with a letter thanking him for his service to the community. Mr. Thomas received, “Refuse Hauling Driver Of The Year,” from
DriveCam, a trucking industry-standard on-board camera system that tracks safety in driving activity; and was also given the 2017 National Waste and Recycling Association award for “Driver Of The Year” in New Orleans at Waste Expo. The NWRA is the main garbage hauler
association in the US, and Rick was chosen out of all trash/recycling drivers in the country to receive the award. It is the top award in the industry. These awards effectively make Rick Thomas the #1 waste/recycling driver in the nation!
c. Men’s Health Week Proclamation.
Mayor Lundberg read from the proclamation and encouraged all our citizens to pursue preventative health practices and early detection efforts.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 2
2. 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
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters a. Approval of Liquor License Application for Bobbi’s VIP Room, located at 1195 Main Street,
Springfield, Oregon. b. Award the Subject Contract to Emery and Sons Construction Group for Project P21132; 2017
Sanitary Sewer Rehab – C in the Amount of $623,415.50. 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.
1. Exclusive Garbage Collection Franchise Ordinance. [Anette Spickard] (10 Minutes)
ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE REGARDING THE EXCLUSIVE GARBAGE COLLECTION FRANCHISE OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, TO PROVIDE FOR NEW
OPPORTUNITY TO RECYCLE ACT REQUIREMENTS, AND RESTATING THE
FRANCHISE, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6011 (SPECIAL), AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 6309 (GENERAL) (FIRST READING).
Anette Spickard, Director of Public Works, presented the staff report on this item.
The Oregon legislature has revised the Opportunity to Recycle Act law and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality has adopted rules implementing the law, necessitating an update to the language in the City’s exclusive garbage collection franchise ordinance.
The Opportunity to Recycle Act is found in ORS Chapter 459A and was revised during the 2015 legislative session. New administrative rules have since been adopted by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) to implement the new provisions of the law. The City of Springfield, by virtue of our population size and proximity to Portland, is required to comply with the new laws and administrative regulations by January 1, 2018.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 3
At the May 15, 2017 Council work session, staff briefed Council on the new requirements and proposed a new set of program elements that can be implemented by both the City and Sanipac to
maintain our compliance with the law with the least financial impact to rate payers. To prepare for the January 1, 2018 deadline, staff proposes replacing the current ordinance No. 6011
(Special) with the proposed ordinance which includes revised language in Section 6 – Opportunity to Recycle Act. This language is to ensure that Sanipac provides the programs that qualify the City for
compliance with the Act. New language is also proposed in this section to require Sanipac to prepare
the City’s annual Opportunity to Recycle report for the DEQ. Lastly, this section also makes clear that the City has the authority to approve the recycling and waste prevention programs that are delivered
by Sanipac to comply with the Act.
All other terms and conditions remain.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
No action requested. First reading only.
2. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield – Annex a 0.66 Acre Parcel Located at 2345 Laura Street.
ORDINANCE NO 2 – AN APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND WILLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION
DISTRICT; AND WITHDRAWING THE SAME TERRITORY FROM THE RAINBOW
WATER DISTRICT (FIRST READING).
Andy Limbird, Senior Planner presented the staff report on this item.
Eric Olsson, on behalf of IJBS Investments, has submitted a request for annexation to the City of
Springfield for a parcel located at 2345 Laura Street (Assessor’s Map 17-03-27-11, Tax Lot 900). The subject property is surrounded on all four sides by the City limits and has existing urban utilities along the public street frontage.
ORS Chapter 222 and SDC Article 5.7-100 authorizes the City Council to act on annexation requests. In accordance with SDC 5.7-155 and ORS 222.040, 222.180 and 222.465, if approved the annexation
will become effective 30 days after signature by the Mayor or upon acknowledgement by the State – whichever date is later.
The subject property is contiguous with the City limits on all four sides as it represents an unincorporated island within the incorporated City limits. A full suite of existing urban services are
available along the property frontage on Laura Street, and for this reason an Annexation Agreement is
not warranted for the subject annexation request. The staff report confirms the annexation request meets the criteria in SDC 5.7-100.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 4
The subject property currently has a zoning and comprehensive plan designation of Medium Density
Residential (MDR) with Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District (UF-10). At present, the property contains a single family dwelling and detached shop building. Future development would be subject
to the provisions of the City’s Development Code for the MDR District, Section 3.2-200. Staff recommends the City Council conducts a public hearing and gives first reading to the adopting
Ordinance to annex the subject territory to the City of Springfield and to the Willamalane Park and Recreation District; and to withdraw the same territory from the Rainbow Water District.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
No action requested. First reading only. 3. A Request to Withdraw the Goshen Rural Fire Protection District from Certain Segments of McVay Highway Right-of-way said Withdrawal Having Been Omitted when this Territory was Annexed to the City of Springfield under Ordinance No. 6290 on April 1, 2013.
[Greg Mott] (10 Minutes) ORDINANCE NO. 3 – AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN
TERRITORY FROM THE GOSHEN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT IN GLENWOOD INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF SPRINGFIED. (FIRST READING).
Greg Mott, Planning Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
The City Council adopted Ordinance No 6290 on April 1, 2013 annexing most of the Franklin
Boulevard and McVay Highway rights-of-way located in Phase I of the Glenwood Refinement Plan. This action created “adjacency” for abutting properties and with it the right to annex consistent with
the development scheduling pro forma of the property owners. Annexation ordinances may include the
concurrent action of annexation to Willamalane Park and Recreation District and withdrawal from special service districts whose function will be provided by SUB and the city upon annexation. The
withdrawal of the Goshen Rural Fire Protection District from this roadway annexation was inadvertently omitted from Ordinance No 6290; this public hearing is intended to correct that omission
Ordinance No 6290, adopted by the City Council on April 1, 2013, included the following concurrent
actions: annexation of Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway rights-of-way out to the urban growth boundary on the west and south margins, to the City of Springfield and the Willamalane Park
and Recreation District; and withdrawal of the same territory from the Glenwood Water District. Withdrawal of the Goshen Rural Fire Protection District was inadvertently omitted, and not because it was necessary to maintain this circumstance in preference to service delivery from Eugene-Springfield
Fire Department.
ORS 222 City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawals provide the rules, standards
and regulation for withdrawals of all or part of a service district when the city will assume that service: when the city… “will provide for the service to the part of the district that the district provided before
the incorporation or annexation, the city may cause the part to be withdrawn from the district in the
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 5
manner set forth in ORS 222.120 or at any time after the incorporation or annexation in the manner set
forth in ORS 222.524.” Emphasis added. Notwithstanding the adoption of Ordinance No 6290 on April 1, 2013, the Council may withdraw this right-of-way from the Goshen Rural Fire Protection
District through adoption of the ordinance, and establishment of an effective date. Staff recommends the City Council approve the withdrawal of territory from the Goshen Rural Fire
Protection District.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if any contact had been made with Eugene Water and Electric Board
(EWEB) regarding any aspirations they have for this property.
Mr. Mott said this is publicly owned right of way. EWEB owns property that abuts this property and
was notified, but they did not contact City staff. Staff only heard from one individual, David Gray, who called in on the phone.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
1. Elijah Allen, Franklin Blvd, Eugene, OR. Mr. Allen said he received notice of this in the mail and was unclear if he was in the City limits of Springfield. There was a fire immediately behind his home last year and the Goshen Fire Department responded. He would like to know if his property
is in City limits and which fire department would be responding to any fires near his home from this point forward.
Mayor Lundberg asked staff to meet with Mr. Allen and respond to his question. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Sydney Lions, J Street, Springfield, OR. Ms. Lions said she is speaking on behalf of her neighbors. There is a problem house in the neighborhood with many cats that are not taken care of,
that spray on her door and any packages left near her door. She has talked with a lot of neighbors
who have talked to the homeowner. There is an elderly man who lives there, and the son says his father breeds cats. The neighbors don’t know what to do. They tried to call animal control with no
luck. They were told to contact code enforcement, but were told there are no ordinances or rules regarding cats. They suggested going to the Police Department to report neglect of the animals. An officer drove by and some of the abandoned cars did get removed after that, but that was a month
and a half ago and nothing else has been done. She is hoping the Council will consider this issue.
Mayor Lundberg asked Police Chief Lewis to speak with Ms. Lions. Sometimes we can get creative
with solutions. She asked the Chief to report back on this situation. Councilor Wylie asked about the group that was doing spaying and neutering of cats.
Mayor Lundberg said they left the Booth Kelly site, and the City has lost touch with that group.
Councilor Wylie said they need to look at the rules about cats, animal abuse, and limiting the number of cats. She would like to look at that during their strategic planning session.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 6
2. Sean Dixon, Springfield, OR. Mr. Dixon spoke on this same issue regarding the neglected cats.
When people have pets like that, they are likely diseased and pollute the rest of the neighborhood and cause other animals to get sick. The cats will spray directly into his house if his window is
open and they have caused thousands of dollars of damage. When he went to try to complain to the person, the smell from the house was so strong he couldn’t get close enough to knock on the door. It has actually been making him sick. He has been to several different doctors and they think
it likely has to do with this situation. He has to clean his front door five or six times a day. Because there are no laws, so nothing can be done. There are elderly people in the neighborhood
and he is concerned it is affecting other people as well. When he moved to Springfield, he was
required to make sure his pets were vaccinated and spayed or neutered. He is not sure if that was a city ordinance or a rule of the property management company. He has missed work due to medical
issues. The cats are poisoning him and others.
3. John Brewster, Springfield, OR. Mr. Brewster said he is complaining because when he goes to the
Senior Center, there is someone who parks his bike at the metal barricade with a trailer. It is there
constantly and looks very bad. He has complained to Willamalane and the Police Department, but nothing has been done. He is wondering if something can be done.
Ms. Spickard said Willamalane and Development and Public Works staff has been working together about issues where the road ends, and has worked with the Police Department. She can follow-up with
Willamalane and report back to Mr. Brewster. 4. James Platt, Springfield, OR Mr. Platt is the block captain of Neighborhood Watch in his
neighborhood. He wanted to thank City staff. They had major issues in their neighborhood, but with the support of Andy Limbird who provided information about open space and cell tower information. When it came time to replace street lights, it required some major work to rewire.
Dean Bishop, Briand Barnett and City Manager Grimaldi were all very helpful. They started the issue in late January and by April 20, the work was completed. He appreciated that kind of quick
support and response.
The neighbors do have a concern about a planned multi-use path that will go from B Street at River Heights Drive, through to Marcola Road. One of the major concerns is that the cul-de-sac
that ends at 37th Place is separated by a 100 foot rocky bluff up to Vitus Lane. Without street
lights, that has become a major hangout for non-residents. They are concerned it leads to vandalism in their neighborhood. The street lights are now lit on 37th Place, they have a
Neighborhood Watch sign in the neighborhood, and they have people comfortable calling the non-emergency Police line. They have made a lot of progress and people are happy. They are concerned about the multi-path as it will create a new entryway to their development at 37th Place.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
Mayor Lundberg said it is helpful to be reminded when the project does start, and also if things get worse.
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS
ORDINANCES
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 7
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Arts Commission Applicant Appointment.
Thea Hart, Librarian, presented the staff report on this item.
The Arts Commission has one vacancy on its board of nine commissioners. One position opening was
advertised. This vacancy was due to term expiration on December 31, 2016. The seat remained vacant after an extended deadline for recruitment for three vacancies earlier this year. The Arts Commission
seeks to fill one full term expiring December 31, 2020. One applicant attended the Arts Commission
meeting on May 9, 2017 for an interview. The Arts Commission unanimously voted to recommend applicant Danielle Knapp to be interviewed by the Council. The City Council interviewed the
candidate during the May 22, 2017 work session. The Arts Commission requests that the Council
formally ratify the appointment during tonight’s Regular Meeting.
In response to a press release in October 2016 for an initial deadline of October 25, 2016, the Arts Commission received one application for three vacancies. After extending the deadline to November 25, 2016, the Arts Commission received a total of two applications for the three vacancies. The Arts
Commission interviewed two applicants during its December 13, 2016 meeting and the City Council interviewed and appointed these applicants in January 2017. In response to a press release in April 2017 for a deadline of May 1, 2017, the Arts Commission received one application for one vacancy.
The Arts Commission interviewed the applicant during its May 9, 2017 meeting. The Arts Commission recommends that Danielle Knapp be appointed to the Arts Commission to fill one
vacancy for a nearly full term that expires December 31, 2020. The Arts Commission believes the
candidate is eligible and qualified to serve on the commission. The City Council interviewed the candidate during the May 22, 2017 work session.
Council Operating Policies state in Section IX, Subsection 1.3) Springfield's boards, commissions, committees, and task forces bring together citizen viewpoints which might not otherwise be heard.
Persons of wide-ranging interests who want to participate in public service but not compete for public office may choose to be involved in advisory boards, commissions, committees and task forces instead. They also help fulfill the goals of the City’s adopted Citizen Involvement Program to have an
informed and involved citizenry. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO APPOINT DANIELLE KNAPP TO THE ARTS COMMISSION WITH FULL TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2020. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1) Mayor Lundberg said they met regarding Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
funding to figure out how to divide up the funds for the Eugene-Springfield and Salem-Keizer areas. She is happy to say we have about $1.5M for the Central Lane MPO area
which will begin in 2019. She hopes that amount will stay about the same.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 8
2) Councilor Pishioneri said he attended the Emergency Management Committee meeting where they discussed the solar eclipse. In our location, we could get 98-99% of the eclipse.
That could impact our area, so there is a lot of planning behind that event. It will be a fantastic phenomenon.
Councilor Pishioneri said he attended the Springfield Police Advisory Committee (SPAC) meeting. They looked at the armored vehicle which was very impressive and very low key.
They received several police officer commendations and only two complaints, both of
which were unfounded. They are very proud of our Police Department.
b. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
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 4 – 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
Mayor Lundberg read from the script for this portion of the meeting. “Now is the time in the agenda
for the Council’s deliberations 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. The Council conducted the public hearing on this matter on May 15, and the hearing and record were closed. The Council will discuss their decision on this matter but will not take any additional public testimony.”
Mayor Lundberg noted that she listened to the recording of the May 15, 2017 public hearing since she was not present at the meeting. She asked if those council members who were not in attendance at that
meeting if they had listened to the recording. Councilor Pishioneri said he listened to the recording. Councilor Stoehr did not.
Mayor Lundberg asked the council members if they had any ex parte contact or conflict of interest.
Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Stoehr, Woodrow, Pishioneri, VanGordon, Moore, and Wylie announced they had no ex parte contact or conflict of interest.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 9
Andy Limbird, Senior Planner presented the staff report on this item.
The applicant has submitted concurrent Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendment applications
for six contiguous residential properties on the east side of 5th Street between Q and T Streets. The proposed amendment would change the Metro Plan designation and zoning for the property from LDR to a combination of MDR and HDR to facilitate future redevelopment of the site. A Metro Plan
diagram amendment automatically amends the refinement plan diagram or map.
The subject site includes six contiguous parcels immediately north of the Fred Meyer store on 5th
Street; the properties are addressed as 1975 – 1995 5th Street (Map 17-03-26-34, Tax Lots 4600 – 5000). Five of the six parcels are developed with single family homes; the sixth parcel is vacant. All
of these parcels are zoned and designated low density residential consistent with the Metro Plan, the Q Street Refinement Plan, and the Springfield Zoning Map.
The City Council conducted a public hearing for the proposed plan amendment and zone change at the
regular meeting on May 15, 2017. At the public hearing meeting, two people spoke in favor of the proposal, one speaker was neutral, and 18 people spoke in opposition to the proposal. All of the
testimony is included in the agenda packet. Among the issues raised by opponents of the proposal are noise, traffic, crime, dwelling unit density, building height and setbacks, interface between existing homes and the proposed development, privacy, and preservation of the neighborhood for single family
housing. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposal on April 4, 2017 and
unanimously adopted a recommendation of approval, with an amendment to change Tax Lot 4601 from High Density Residential zoning and designation to Medium Density Residential. At the City
Council public hearing on May 15, 2017 the applicant’s representative stated that the developer is
amenable to the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change as recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff is providing an Ordinance to approve the application as amended in the Planning
Commission recommendation. A first reading is required if Council wishes to approve this version.
Mayor Lundberg noted that all questions from the Council will be directed to Mr. Limbird. She noted
several questions she had asked of staff, and the responses that were in an email back to her. Copies of
that email were provided to the rest of the Council.
Councilor Moore asked if they were voting on the original application or the one recommended by the Planning Commission.
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said the Council can decide whether or not they go with the original ordinance, the one with the Planning Commission recommendation, or deny.
Councilor Stoehr said as the Council liaison to the Planning Commission, he attended the meetings in which the Planning Commission discussed this item. During the Planning Commission meetings, the
Planning Commission carefully considered the testimony given, and proposed an amended plan which
created a buffer between the neighborhood and HDR units proposed. They did leave three HDR, but also created additional MDR. He reiterated that the Council is bound by the approval criteria which are
laid out by law. There is only a certain amount of discretion the Council has, which is subject to the
criteria set forth in the Q Street Refinement Plan and Statewide Planning Goals.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 10
Councilor VanGordon said any project will have to go through the site plan review. When the project
gets developed, there will be an opportunity for public comments including the traffic discussion.
Mr. Limbird said the rezoning and plan amendment is the only time the public can directly address in person the decision makers. Subsequent to that, the site plan review will be a neighborhood notification and an opportunity to provide written comments. It is not a public hearing forum.
Concerns would be and have been addressed through the staff report. All written comments are incorporated into the staff report, and everyone that provides comments gets a copy of the decision.
Councilor VanGordon said a citizen can appeal the decision during the site plan review and it would come back to the Council. The neighborhood has a lot of valid points. The zone change part is very
specific with criteria. How to make sure this is a livable neighborhood and address the concerns are
addressed in the site plan review. He does not see how the application does not meet the criteria. The concerns brought up by the neighbors will be addressed during the site plan review. He is comfortable
taking this first step knowing the neighborhood will be able to provide comment at the next step. He
asked the neighbors to continue to come forward with their concerns during site plan review.
Councilor Woodrow said she has deliberated for a long time. She is comfortable with the amendment from the Planning Commission which creates the buffer between the HDR and the neighborhood. The setbacks will be important and how to give a pleasing sense between the neighborhood and MDR.
That issue can be addressed during site plan review. She does like the Planning Commission amendment and does not see that it does not meet the criteria.
Mr. Limbird said a site plan is required with abutting MDR and LDR. The applicant would be well advised to take the neighborhood into full consideration if they move forward with a development plan
and incorporate the neighbors’ concerns for access, and buffering for visual and noise.
Councilor Wylie asked if the ordinance as written included the Planning Commission
recommendation.
Mr. Limbird said the Planning Commission recommendation is the zoning configuration for three lots
to be HDR, and the three outermost to be MDR. The ordinance with that configuration is an attachment in the agenda packet, but would have to be given a first and second reading before adopting.
Mayor Lundberg said she has an apartment going in her backyard so she is familiar with the concerns of the neighbors. In the situation near her house, there was no zone change so the only place she had
an opportunity to offer input, which she did, was in the site plan. She suggested the neighbors ask for no windows facing their houses, and anything else they feel is important. The neighbors need to read the information carefully, determine what will happen, and give the maximum amount of input of how
to interface with the neighborhood. She understands the changes that occur. The neighbors need to be aware and take advantage of all possibilities.
Councilor Moore said she took the opportunity to drive through the neighborhood. She understands their concerns. She has had the opportunity to stay in an old neighborhood on the east coast that is
surrounded by apartments, but the result has been pleasant. She is expecting this could be a positive
outcome for the entire neighborhood. She understands this is difficult and suggested the neighbors provide input in the next step.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 11
City Attorney Mary Smith said they had asked Council members who had missed the public hearing to
announce whether they had listened to the recording of the hearing. She recognized that Councilor Stoehr had participated in the Planning Commission meetings and had reviewed the written materials,
but since he did not listen to the recording of the hearing, the most conservative approach would be for him to recuse himself from the vote.
Councilor Pishioneri said he hopes people understand this is one of those times the elected officials are directed by law on how to respond. It takes the discretion out of a lot of things for them.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSTENTION –
STOEHR) Ms. Spickard read the title of the updated ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 1.96 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR); CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING THE SAME APPROXIMATELY 1.96 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO MDR; AMENDING THE
METRO PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 1.39 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR); CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING THE
SAME APPROXIMATELY 1.39 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO HDR; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
A second reading will be held during the next regular meeting on June 19, 2017. 2. Temporarily Waiving System Development Charges for Accessory Dwelling Units.
[Sandy Belson] (20 Minutes)
RESOLUTION NO. 1 – A RESOLUTION TEMPORARILY WAIVING THE CITY’S
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR NEWLY PERMITTED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1, 2017 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019.
Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
The City recognizes that there is an affordable housing issue within the community. One aspect of the
Council’s affordable housing strategy is to encourage ADUs, thereby adding market-rate small-scale rental dwellings to the extremely tight housing supply. One way to promote this type of infill
development is by waiving SDCs, making construction more affordable. Council has been discussing the concept of SDC waivers or discounts at several work sessions focused
on developing an affordable housing strategy. After reviewing various options at its April 10 work session, Council gave direction to staff to bring forward a resolution to temporarily waive all city
SDCs for ADUs. The Council also stated that it would request our partner agencies, Willamalane
Parks and Recreation District and the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, consider waiving their SDCs for ADUs to maximize the incentive for property owners to construct an ADU.
Ms. Belson said the SDCs for an average ADU is about $6000. Staff proposes that the temporary
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 12
waiver be for a period of two years, beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2019, to allow time
for the City to get the word out and to give property owners enough time to take advantage of this opportunity. A cap was not included at this time, but staff will report back to Council in a year.
Increasing the housing stock will provide an opportunity for the city’s population to increase and will
increase the city’s property tax base, both of which bring in general fund revenue in the long term to pay for the corresponding increase in demand for services.
Waiving the SDCs means that the city is not collecting funds that otherwise would go toward planned
infrastructure capacity projects in the transportation, stormwater, and local sanitary sewer systems. FY18 capital projects are already programmed based on actual SDCs received, so there is no short term impact on the capital projects list. It must be recognized that by waiving these SDCs, the city is
potentially delaying some of the future capacity increasing projects that would be paid for through SDCs and is not receiving reimbursement for projects already constructed. It is expected the new
ADUs will be on lots already served by sanitary sewer, stormwater, and transportation systems.
Depending on the extent to which these are concentrated in a single neighborhood or spread throughout the City, it is unknown whether this infill development will cause an impact to any of these
systems within a particular drainage basin or street network. The two year waiver period allows the
City to evaluate the popularity and desirability of locating ADU’s in different neighborhoods and the extent of those impacts.
Councilor Pishioneri said if they do get a surge of activity, the Council could take another look at the resolution.
Ms. Smith said they could amend or repeal the resolution if needed.
Councilor Moore said currently they only allow ADU in LDR. She asked if this was the case here. Ms. Belson said this resolution does not change the Springfield Development Code. Code provisions
in place now will remain in place. If the Code is amended during the two-year time frame, this resolution would apply to those ADUs in the MDR as well.
Councilor Moore asked if she recuse herself from voting for this in the event they eventually change the Development Code to allow ADU to MDR, and she were to take advantage of this waiver.
Ms. Smith said there are potential and actual conflicts of interest, and this would fall under a potential conflict of interest. She should announce that she has a potential conflict and then could participate or
recuse herself. Councilor Pishioneri said he has multiple properties and has a potential conflict of interest, but has no
plans to build an ADU. Ms. Smith said it all depends on the facts of the situation. In his circumstance, the most conservative
approach would be to call it a potential conflict of interest and still participate and vote. She suggested the full Council declare any conflict of interest before they vote.
Mayor Lundberg, Councilor Moore, and Councilor Pishioneri declared a potential conflict of interest.
Councilors Wylie, Councilor VanGordon, Councilor Stoehr and Councilor Woodrow have no
potential conflict of interest.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2017 Page 13
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2017-15. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 3. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 8:21 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor Attest:
____________________ City Recorder