HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting CMO 7/2/2007
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF 1HE WORK SESSION lvU:JOltNG OF
1HE SPRlNGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JULY 2, 2007
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225
, Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 6:00p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding. ' ,
ATIENDANCE
I'resent were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishicineri. . Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and
members of the staff.
I. Choices for Establishin" a Downtown Urban Renewal District.
Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger presented the staff report on,this item. Attachment I
illustrates two different approaches and election dates for establishing urban renewal downtown.
Inherent in choosing a fall 2007 election date would be the need to give staff specific direction at '
or before the July 23'" meeting with Team Springfield to avoid returning during the August
recess. The spring 2008 alternative would provide more time for planning and decision making,
but would delay the capture of tax increment revenues for a year.
,
Attachment 2 provides an aDarysis of the pros and cons related to the questions identified in the
issue statement above.
Fall 2007 versus a Spring 2008 election. A successful fall election would allow tax increment
revenues to begin accruing July 1,2008. A successful spring '2008 election would start the
revenue accrual on July I, 2009. Meeting the deadlines for a November election requires a tight
schedule that is achievable but leaves less time than a spring election for coordination and
communication with the public, and affected taxing bodies. ,
Form a new downtown renewal district or expand the Glenwooddlstrict? State laws allow
for the expansion of an existing urban renewal district by up to 20% of the established district's
area. Forming a new district allows a new boundary to be designated, without being limited to an
acreage that is 20% of the Glenwood district (about 120 acres). Expanding the Glenwood district
would allow increment revenues from Glenwood t~ be used in the downtown and vice versa.
Forming a new district would keep the revenues separate.
Attachment 3 shows three potential renewal district boundaries. If the Glenwood district.is
expanded into the downtown, then Boundary I or a similar boundary must be chosen to meet the
20% statutory limitation. '
"Date ReceiVed:~! OJ '.
Planner: DR ' '(~,'" ,)
, '. ,7 p,1-Z,-~
..' ..,"
, ,
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 2
Mr. Metzger said there was a number ~f staff that hiul worked on this. He acknowledged,
Community Services Manager John Tamulonis, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery,
Development Services Director Bill GriIe and other staff that had contributed to this item.
Mr. Metzger said the first question was regarding timing of an election. He discussed some of
the advantages an~ disadvantages of going with either election date. The taxing partners at the
CEO level were supportive of an urban renewal district in downtown. '
Councilor Pishioneri said he liked the idea of setting up the downtown urban renewal district
(URD) independent of the Glenwood URD. The citizens voted for the Glenwood URD and this
was a different area. He asked if there was any cost associated with eitherelection.
Discussion was held regarding whether or not the~e would be a cost at either election.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would encourage staff to go for the General election unless there
was an urgent need to go sooner. It was important to do the job right.
Mr. Metzger asked for clarification on which election Councilor Pishioneri was referring to.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was referring to the election in the spring of 2008 (actually the
Primary Electionl. He said either election would be fine as long as staff felt they could do a good
and complete job. '
Mayor Leiken said the November 2007 election was not a General Election, but rather a Special
Election. He said Mr. Grimaldi had mentioned thejnvestment already made in downtown'by
private developers. Waiting until the Primary would delay collection of the tax increment until
January of 2009. Capturing investment was important, but making sure the public was on board
, and supportive was also very important.
Councilor Ballew said she didn't recall that Council had made a decision to form an URD in
downtown. '
Mr. Metzger said it was in response to a Council goal set in January 2007 to form an URD in
, downtown. In April, staff came back and talked about a plan for revitalization and the URD was
, one way to move, that along: Council would take formal action whether or not to form an URD at
, a later date. ' , ,
, ,
Councilor Ballew said'she liked waiting for the Primary Election be~e; or even the Gen~ral
Election in 2008. There weren't any milestones yet in the Glenwood URD, so she was concerned
about staff time spent on both areas. She felt the two areas should be separate, and downtown
, shouldn't be an extension of Glen wood. There would be more money coming from a downtown
URD than the GJenw06d URD. She also noted that regarding the boundary choices, she preferred
Boundary One, and would be reluctant to extend it to Boundary Two.
COUlicilor Woodrow said he agreed the downtoWn URD should be a new,one arid not combined
, with GJenwood. He ,felt they should go for the November 2007 election to allow SEDA to
capture tax increment from the new development ofLithia, Wynant's Food Store and others. It
would be beneficial to start collecting those funds in 2008 rather than waiting until 2009. He had
,"..
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 3
confidence that if staff said they could do it properly and be ready in November2007, that they
could. H;e would support Boundary Two because it included all of Booth-Kelly.
Mr. Metzger said he' would like to give Council some additional information regarding the
boundaries following the discussion regarding timing of the election and new or expanded
district.
Councilor Ralston asked if an election was required ifthe Glenwood boundary was expanded.
Yes. He said there had not been a lot of success in Glenwood. He didn't want to go much farther
than Boundary One for downtown and felt that joining with Glenwood might help to get things
going in GJenwood. Both areas would need to develop together at some point. He thought the
November election might be too aggressive of a schedule.
Mr. Tamulonis said one of the advantages in ihe downtown area was the number of studies that
had been done over many years. GJenwood was a new area with new projects.
Councilor Ralston, asked if the property values were locked in once an area was identified.
Mr. Tamulonis said the County Assessor's office would set the property values as a base value
starting January I of the year following Council adoption. If the URD was passed at the
November 2007 election, it would go into affect January 1,2008. If they waited for the May
2008 election, it would go into affectJanuary I, 2009.
Councilor Ralston said if they chose Boundary One, success would move out along the whole
corridor. He felt'choosing Boundary Three cut too much into taxes for the GeneralF~d. Trying
to convince the public that a Downtown URD was the right thing would be difficult. ' '
Councilor Lundberg said she was most in favor of Boundary Two. Getting past a' certain point
might be harder to make it a single vision. She felt that there was time to prepare for a November
2007 election regarding educating the public. If it didn't pass in Noveinber, they could work to
bring it back for a vote in May. The partnership issue was stronger in Downtown than iD.
GJenwood, so she felt it would be easy to get the stakeholders on board. She was a proponent of
going out to voters in Nove,!,ber 2007 and felt staff could get everything ready by then.
Councilor Wylie said she thought that if it was feasible, the earlier timing for ,the election was
best. She felt the downtown URD should be separate from Glenwood. She thought going out to '
Boundary Two would be best at this time. Twenty percent could be added at a later date without '
an election, taking it' out to Boundary Three. She asked how an URD affected a residential area
(Willamette Heights). "
Mr. Metzger explained the principals used to determine the different boundaries. The first'
principal was where investment needed to be made to revitalize downtown and nearby
neighborhoods. In Willamette Heights, there were infrastructure issues that were affected. The '
, east side had the potential for redevelopment and an URD could assist with some of the
infrastructure. He discussed apartment complexes on the north end and how strategic
investments could help clcitn up that area. The boundaries were drawn with the idea of capturing
revenue and in areas where investment ,could be made to help the overall area grow. That was
one of the rationales for Boundary Three. There were advantages and disadvantages with all
, City of Springfield
Council Work Session MinUtes
July 2, 2007
Page 4
boundaries. He explained why staff originally thought Boundary Three might be best. He agreed,
however, that people's vision of downtown was a smaller, more compact area.
Councilor Woodrow said if the rest of the Council'was supportive, he would approve of
Boundary 1bree. He referred to Councilor Ralston's suggestion to combine the downtoWn URD
with GJenwood's URD. He felt that would be unfair to Glenwood because it was a unique area
and combining them'might cause undue concern 'by Glenwood residents. It was correct that
development that could occur in the downtown URD should help generate more in the Glenwood
URD. Progress in Glenwood had been slow, but that was the nature of an URD. He discussed the
difference L~" ~~u downtown and GJenwood. He agreed that the November 2007 election was
the right timeframe for the downtown URD to go to the voters. That would still give ample time
to getthe word out and explain to the citizens why an URD was a positive thing and could
further the efforts started by the Wildish Theater, schools and other businesses to make
, downtown a better place: "
Councilor Pishioneri said he had no problem going to the voters at the earlier date as long as
staffhad adequate time to do thejob right and get it passed, rather than having to do it twice.
Councilor Wylie asked how the URD worked with',historic preservation.
Mr. Tamulonis said there were several options. One option was to use URD money to reinforce
historic buildings to meet current codes and seismic requirements.
Mr. Metzger said the URD was a financial tooJ.ai1d the SEDA Board could determine how to use
that money for different projects. '
Mr. Tamulonis said it was a: way to separate an income stream that would allow targeted projects
or programs to be done. He discussed how the funds could or couldn't be used.
Councilor Wylie asked for more details on what could or couldn't be ,done with URD funds.
Mr. Tamulonis discussed a couple of options and noted that often the funds were used for ,
infrastructur6, to purchase buildings and build parking areas. He said ideas from the Coun~il
would be explored to see if they could be done. The first phase ofthe'URD would include getting
input from the stakeholders of downtown regarding potential projects. "
Councilor Wylie asked about the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs that
assisted homeowners with roof repla~ement, paint and other maintenance,needs.
Mr. Tamulonis said a similar program had been set up by SEDA in Glenwood called th6
Glenwood Residential'Improvement Program (GRIP) that was patterned on the federal program.
'. . .
, , ,
, ,
Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Tamulonis to send an email to the Councilors regarding specifics on
what types of projects could or couldn't be done with URD funds.
Mr. Tamulonis said he could do that. He would 'include projects that were' currently happening
downtown. "
. .,'
CitY of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 2. 2007
Page 5
Councilor Ballew suggested getting consensus, or close to consensus from Council on when the
election should be held and whether or not to make the downtown URD separate from
Glenwool '
Mr. Metzger said that would be helpful to staff.
Councilor Lundberg asked fIrst for input on whether to create the URD's separately or together
with Glenwood. '
Councilor Ralston said he wasn't opposed to URD and was more than willing to support the
November election and through Boundary Two. The reason he was considering combining the
two URD's was because the SEDA Board was already in place for Glenwood.
, Mayor Leiken said the SEDA Board would remain the same for both URD' s.
, Council consensus was to create the downtown URD separate from Glenwood.
Five Councilors supported going to the November 2007 election with the downtown URD. One
Councilor (Ballew) preferred waiting until May 2008.
Mr. Metzger said staff ~ould work towards the November 2007 election and if there was
concern they would not he well prepared, they would notifY Council and determine if they
should wait forthe May 2008 election.
Council agreed.
Mr. Grimaldi said Mr. Tamulonis would distribute some figures regarding the differences
, between the different boundaries. Those fIgures would be sent to Council before their July 23 .
Council meeting.
'Mayor Leiken said that although they were not all visible, there had been a lot of successes in
Glenwood thanks to Mr. Tamulonis and staff. He noted the relationships formed with residents in'
Glenwood by Mr. Tamulonis and ownership by those residents in Glenwood. He noted the
number, of people interested in that area. Downtown was a different situation, with project~ ~ady
to go immediately. Mayor Leiken said he spoke with the Senior Forum this morning and they
were v!'ry supportive of a downtown URD. '
2. , Concurrent Metro Plan/Refinement Plan Man Amendment and Zoj,;"l' Man Amendment
Rellardinll Pronertv Near 44" and Main Street,
, ,
. .' .'
City Planner David Rees~r presented the' staff report on this item. The applicant requests
approval of a Metro Plan / Refinement Plan Map Amendment to the East Main RefInement Plan
and a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment. Therequest involves two parcels, and is located on
approximately 5.24 acres identified as Tax Lots 400 and 402 on Assessor's Map No. 17-02-32-
00. Specifically, the applicant proposes to change the Metro Plan designation from Light
Medium Industrial (LMI) to Commercial and a concurrent Refmement Plan Amendment and
Zoning Map Amendment from LMI to CC. The applicant seeks approval of these applications in
order to facilitate development of a future Medical Office building on the site.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 2. 2007
Page 6
On June 5th, 2007, the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on the
subject applications (LRP2007-00013 & ZON2007-00012). One citizen, Nancy Falk, testified in
opposition to the proposal at the fIrst public hearing and requested that the record be left open for
seven days. The Planning Commission granted the request and instructed Staff to leave the
record open until Tuesday, June 12th, 2007. Staff received one written testimony from'Lauri
Segel, Goal One Coalition Planner. on June 12th, 2007. A written rebuttal to Ms. Segel's letter
was then submitted by the applicant the following day, June 13th, 2007. Both letters were '
received within the specifIed deadlines as noted in the Planning Commission public hearing on
June 5th, 2007. The original Staff Report and exhibits are attached for Council's review.
, '
After reviewing all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated on the
applications on June 19th, 2007, and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that both
applications be sent to the City Council for consideration and approval.
Mr: R~esor presented a power point p~esentation on the subject property, based on maps and
photos included in the agenda packet.
Councilor Ballew said it was difficult to distinguish on the maps which areas were Medium
Density Resi\lential (MDR) and which were Low Density Residential (LOR).
, Mr. Reesor said often when comparing zoning maps with metro'maps, there were differences.
, Some of those were plan zone conflicts. Those conflicts ,would eventually be corrected through a
rezone process. Mr. Reesor discussed the commercial uses already on Tax Lot 402. Those had
been in place for decades. This application would bring the'nonconforming uses into conformity
with the zone. , '
- '
Mr. Reesor said the applicant cited the 1992 Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and the 2000
Commercial Lands-Inventory as part of the bUrden of proof. The City had worked with the
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) transportation analysis because Main Street was
under ODOT's jurisdiction. He noted a recommended 'condition of approval regarding trip caps.
He described the basis for that condition.
Mr. Reesor said one p~rson testified in opposition to this amendment o'n June 5 before the
Planning Commission. The speaker had requested that the record remain open for seven days. At
the end of the seven days, staff had received one "Jitten comment from Lauri Segal of Goal One,
Coalition. The applicant then had one day to provide a rebuttal. All of those written statements
were included in the agenda packet. The Planning Commission deliberated after hearing all
comments and voted unanimously for approval.
Mayor Leiken confIrmed with Development Services Director Bill Grile that SpringfIeld had a
surplus of Light Medium Industrial (LMI) property, but a defIcit ofCoinmunity Commercial
(CCl. This would rezone from LMI to CC. "
Councilor Woodrow asked if ODOT would be' able to come in and take away their curb-cut if
this was rezoned and the site plan was approved. '
, ,
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 7
Mr. Reesor said access would be considered during site plan review. Often, ODOT would
consolidate accesses if needed.
Councilor Pishioneri noted that the commercial building adjacent to this P,v,,-'~i that was
'ali'eady occupied had limited access for all the employees. He said he wasn't opposed to this
project, but wanted to make sure there was adequate access. , '
Mr. Reesor said the City worked with ODOT to try to make it a safe environment for traffic.
PeaceHealth was going in on the application with the owner of the property and would need to be
aware of the concerns. '
Mayor Leiken agreed with Councilor Pishioneri arid the need for adequate access for people
coming and going to a medical, facility. He encouraged working through this issue with ODOT
with a common sense approach.
Councilor Ballew asked if there 'was a north/south conilection bounding the property.
Mr. Reesor said there was not. There was no 45th Street on the north side.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
0\\ f\'
~9<vK.
Sidneyft'. Leh.d.
May~,' ,
Attest:
, ~ .JrruJ6---- .
Amy.,sow8. ' ,
City Recofder ' ,
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
.
, MINUTES OF TIm REGULAR MEETING OF
TIm SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JULY 2, 2007
, The City of Springfield COlmcil met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fiftli
'Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 18, 2007 at 7:02 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATIENDANCE
, Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, BalleW, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City. Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery,
City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Matt Cox,'City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the
staff.
pLEDGE OF ALLEGL\NCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
Mayor Leiken reminded everyone to vote for Springfield, Oregon for the Simpson's Movie
Premiere Contest.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM 3.B
REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH i\ VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. June 18,2007 - Work Session
b. June 18, 2007 - Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
a.RESOLUTION NO. 07-30 - A RESOLUTION OF TIm CITY OF SPRINGFIFT.n
, AMENDING AND RESTATING TIm CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. OREGON
RETIREMENT PLAN" '
b. Removed
4. 'Ordinances
, " ' " . '1/101
, ' Date Recetved: ,
',Planne"r: D, R ,('/,&::, /VI .-<"'"
),P./IQC )/
5. ,Other Routine Matter<
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 2
a. Award the Subject Contract to Brown Construction in the Amount of $196,328:80 for
Project P20524, Olympic Street Restriping. '
b. A ward the Subject Contract to Brown Contracting, Inc. in the Aniount of $416,490.00 for
Project P20526, Martin Luther King Parkway Barrier Rail.
c. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Fourth Amendment to !he Contract with URS
Corporation for the Stormwater Facility Master Plan Contract P5028 I.
d. Accept the Bid from Clyde West Equipment for Purchase of One (1) Vibratory Roller in
the Amount of $32,475.
ITEMS REMOVED
Mayor Leiken recused himself from, item 3.b. as he had a personal involvement in the
development.
3. b. RESOLTmON NO, 07-31 - A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROJECT
P30408: CLEAR VUE ESTATES
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE ITEM J.B FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available
at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may
not yield their time to otherS. , '
I. Vacation of One Block Segment ofB Street Public Right-of-Way Between 4"' Street and
Pioneer Parkway East, Case No, LRP2007-00019:
ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 66 FOOT WIDE BY ),64 FOOT
LONG PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWN IN BOOK 1. PAGE 1 OF PLAT
RECORDS OF LANE COUNTY. OREGON. DATED APRil. 5,1872.
City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. On May 7. 2007, City Co~cil
initiated an action to vacate public right-of-way for the segment ofB Street between 4"' Street and
Pioneer Parkway East to facilitate development of a secure police parking lot and ancillary
building serving the Springfield Justice Center.
On February 28. 2006, the Springfield City Council considered four site options for the Justice
Center project. The site option selected by the City Council utilizes City-owned property which
is located between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East. and which extends from A Street to the
mid-block alley north of B Street., The selected site option incorporates a one-block segment of B
Street right-of-way into the development area for use as a secure police parking lot, and a
building pad for an ancillary building serving the Justice Center. '
, The subject right-of-way is a 66-foot wide by 264-foot long segment of public street running east-
west along the northern edge of the existing police and courts parking lot. The City owns all
abutting tax lots that have frontage on the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. The
Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 5 and 19, 2007, and adopted a
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 3
recommendation in support of the proposed vacation at the Public Hearing meetiIig on June 19,
2007. Nine people presented testimony at the public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Seven of those nine provided verbal testimony in support Of the vacation, two provided written
. testimony in opposition to the vacation and one individual provided verbal testimony in addition
to his written testimony in opposition of the vacation.
Mr. Limbird noted that the approved Justice Center site plan could be constructed without the
vacation of this portion of B Street.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
Mayor Leiken asked if any of the Councilors had aconflict of interest or exparte contact.
Councilor Woodrow said he was on the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Justice
Center.
Councilors and Lundberg did not have any conflict or exparte contact to declare.
Councilor Ballew observed that the current temporary closure of that section ofB Street for
construction was inconvenient, interrupted a collector street, and interfered with access to the
river.
Mr. Leahy spoke regarding the Quasi-judicial hearing. He said criteria were set forth in the staff
report. Speakers should address their comments to that criteria and if they had specific comments
for or against this land use request, they should address ,their comments with sufficient
particularity or specificity so Council could consider them in relationship to the criteria, If
speakers wished to raise concerns about the substance or legality of this, they should do so with
sufficient specificity so it was in the record. If speakers had concerns about this action that they
planned to file an appeal about, they needed to state their concerns sufficiently so that they could
be identified and addresse9-. If a speaker failed to raise a particular matter through the public
record with the Planning Commission or through public testimony, and it wasn't raised tonight,
the speaker may be precluded from f1ling an appeal on the basis of a particular concern, alleged
irregularity or illegality. Those concerns needed to be put into the record so the Council could
address those and think about them. If anyone wished the record to remain open, they had an
opportunity to do so by request. .,
Councilor Pishioneri said he also attended the CAC meetings and public information gatherings
during the process for the design phase. That would not sway his judgment in either direction.
, .
, ,
Councilor Ballew said the case made for a greater public use to vacate B Street was not
demonstrated to her. '
. ." . . . .
Mr. Leahy said the purpose of Council declaringfueir observations was t~ let those testifying
, know before they testified. ' ,
I. Scott Olson. 1127 B Street. Soringfield. OR. Mr. Olson said he bad two requests tonight. He
hoped Council would drop this effort, but if not he would expect to be appeaIing this decision
to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBAl. He asked that the record, remain open for the
submittal of additional materials supporting his objections. He said he would demonstrate that
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 4
the CitY had constrained the ability of the public to affect tbe initial decision to build in the
street and was requesting that the minutes and public process records for the following City
decisions related to the Justice Center be added to the record for this decision: II the basis for
the bond measure funding level (was it an acceptable taxing level or was it based on a
functional space requirement); 2l the functional space planning process; 3) the,a1ternatives,
development and selection process; 4) code change that allowed the Justice Center as an
allowed use in the zone; 5) the zone change; 6) the discretionary use approval; and 7) the site
plan review. Mr. Olson said he was not opposed to this project, although that is the manner in
which staff had characterized his complaints. He remained steadfastly committed to
,preventing the vacation ofB Street. He said his objections were primarily founded in his
belief that the integrity of the street grid and the functional continuity of the collector and
arterial street system was the foUndation upon which great communities were created. He said
he had worked over the last fifty years to make the Oregon land use system meaningful. The
City could have both the Justice Center and the downtown planned and envisioned. The
Justice Center would be a des~ble addition to the neighborhood; however, it must be built
within the greater planning context. In his opinion, the manner in which the City had stifled
consideration of viable alternatives and manipulated the land use approval process had
significantly weakened the City's position upon appeal. The problem Was that well-
intentioned people saw the closure of the street as a relatively minor thing and the lowest cost
way to build the most Justice Center. They were not correctly informed or did not accept the
fact that Springfield's rules, aka the land use impediment, would not accommodate the street
closure. A thinly veiled effort to insert alternative criteria in the Code to allow the street
vacation in spite of the Comprehensive Plan policies, the Transportation System Plan, the
Downtown Refmement Plan and other specific Code criteria related to block links and street
connectivity. The City had failed to provide any balance and consideration of the issue cif
street closure. The applications had been incomplete and inadequate for all of the land u~e
decisions. This put the burden on the review staff to develop all of the supporting arguments.
It was disappointing that all of the Development Services review comments throughout this
process were supportive of the street closure and tend to be argumentative against any issues
that were raised questioning the wisdom of doing so. ,In the end, he believed that would work
against the City. He recommended Council drop the misguided effort now and get on with
spending the rest of the funds on building a great facility and leave the street to all citizens. A-
LUBA appeal would be expensive and he found' no personal satisfaction in carrying this
matter out. He was 'doing this because he felt it was, the best thing for Springfield. He
suggested putting the secure parking across the street where it belonged, designating the on
street parking adjacent to the building for Police and Court use and get on with it. '
, ,
2. Steve Sin"Jeton 7.52 No,!h 65'" Street. Snringj';drl OR c Mr. SiIigleton served as the '
Chairman of the Police Planning Task Force (pPTF) and as Vice Chair of the CAC that was
formed to consider all of the options for the Justice Center. He reiterated four points that
Police Chief Smith had already said. As a PPTF member and in his position on the CAC,
these points stood for him and for his decision to stand in'support of this closure: II Security,
functionality and control were the three main issues involved. Regardless to what those
opposed say, any Justice Center facility that was split was going to 'greatly hinder security,
traffic, safety and functionality., If the building needed to be evacuated, where would the
Police go to control prisoners? Part ofthe enclosure of having it all on one site allowed that to
, . be done and also provided security for the employees; 2l Secure fleet and employee parking
was a problem; 3l Safety for Police 'officers and other citizens was also a problem. The
property would remain in the public trust no m~tter what happened in the futUre. Down the '
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Juty 2, 2007
Page 5
road it would not be sold for private use. It was being closed for the purpose of creating a
Justice Center. The people of Springfield had spoken. There were many, many options and
plans for the building. This was not adopted haphazardly or by a misinformed group. The
CAC was well informed throughout the process. People of Springfield spoke loud and clear
twice - one to fund the construction of the building and one to fund the function of the center.
It would not be in good faith or the public interest to incur the added expense of major
changes to the project at this late date or send everything back to the drawing board, which
would occur. The result in security and effective usefulness of this entire project, in his mind,
far outweighed the inconvenience of an added few seconds of drive time. He noted that
downtown Eugene had opened and closed their through streets in that area several times over
the years and people adjusted. He said the roundabouts put in throughout Springfield,
including the first one in his Thurston neighborhood, were met with skepticism, but had
turned out to be the greatest thing that happened to Thurston. At best, the traffic closure and
reroute would be a minor inconvenience. Please compare that to the majar changes that
would have to be undertaken if Council were to deny this closure; changes to a plan that was
discussed at great length, and agreed to and voted on by a'majority of the CAC andthe people
.of Springfield. He said he believed everyone dreamed of a new revitalized downtown
Springfield and the Justice Center was a giant step in that direction. Unfortunately, nothing'
new or nothing changed came without some cost. If a few seconds of drive time is the cost,
hewas willing to pay that.
Mayar Leiken noted that Mr. Olson had requested that the record be left open.
'Mr. Leahy said per that request, tJie record needed to remain open for at least seven days. During
that time, information would likely be added to the record so there should be an opportunity for
the staff to review it 'after the seven days and submit information in response. Mr, Leahy asked
about the upcoming Council agenda schedule. He asked staff how much time they would need for'
their response. The Planning Director indicated that staff could provide a response in one day. ,
The record would remain open until 5:00pm July 9, with staff response by July II.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO HOLD THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL 5:00PM ON JULY 9 WITH A
TWO DAY REBUTTAL PERIOD FOR STAFF IF NEEDED. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
" NO ACTION REQUESTED ON THE ORDINANCE. FIRST READING ONLY.
2. Proposed Amendments ta Article 26 - Hillside Development Overlay District Extending the
Potential Use of Density Transfer (Cluster Developmentl.
ORDINANCE 'NO.2 - AN ORriINANCJ;::AM.J;:N.P.~Q.,SECTIQNS 26.030. 26.050
(INCLUDING TABLE 26-11AN1l26.070 OF ARTICLE 26 "lID HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT' OF THE SPRlNGFlI<;L,D,DEYELOPMENT
,CODE TO EXP AND THE APPLlCA T10N'OF "DENS]TY TRANSFER" TO MAKE
MORE EFFlC]ENT USE OF REMAINING BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL LANDS' '
--------- ,
REOUIRING DEVELOPERS TO PAY FOR PEE\t,REVIEWQF TECHNICAL STUDIES
REOUIRED FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT: AND ADOPTING A SEVERARIlJTY
CLAUSE. '
,
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 6
Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. Development
standards currently allow a "density transfer" from steep slopes to areas of lesser slope on south'
facing hillsides in exchange 'for the preservation of the steep slopes. At issue is whether to extend
the density transfer provision to north, west and east facing slopes.
The proposed changes to Article,26 include: I) various changes needed to implement an
extension of density transfer to all-facing hillsides with a slope of IS tf) 25%; 2) allowing,
"average slope" to be used when calculating the number of units eligible for density transfer; and
3) the addition of a requirement in the Development Code that the developer pay for "peer
review" of the sophisticated geotechnical and engineering analysis by a consultant of the City's
choice for hillside development in order to ensure safe development and stable slopes.
Density transfer is proposed for use in the Heritage Park development (Gray-Jaqua p,v"~':J in
South Thurston Hills) on a north-facing hillside to, allow an exchange of higher density
development on lower slopes and the preservation of the upper slopes for park land. The pre-
development agreement signed by the City with the developer of the Gray_Jaqua property
includes a provision allowing consideration of a density transfer on the north facing slope of the
'property, pro\~ded thafsuch density transfer is consistent with the City's development code and
land use regulations. Other developments are beiD.g considered in the Thurston Hills iliat would
benefit from an expanded application of density transfer to north, east and west facing slopes.
In work session on June 25th, Council requested a table showing the relationship between percent
of slope and degree of slope, ' Attachment 4 includes a conversion table showing percent slope
and degrees of slope. Additional information and illustrations are contained in the attachment
describing grading and siting practices for hillside de,-:elopment. '
The Planning Commission met three times between February and April 2007, to evaluate the
safety and prudence of allowing the proposed expansion of density transfers and voted
unanimously to approve the proposed changes. Minutes of those meetings and submitted
testimony are found in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3.
Councilor Ralst~n aSked about a conver~ion table regaclmg percent to sloPe.
Mr. Metzger said it was included as Attachment.4 in the agenda packet:
,(
,
Councilor Ballew asked if staff could look back to see why the density transfer was originally' ,
ouly allowed on south facing slopes.
Mr. Metzger said considerable research was done on ,that condition. Initially, there was no'
,answer, so staff considered if there was anything unsafe about building on south ~acing slopes,
but there was not. The Development Services Department (DSD) staff joined the Public Works
, (PW) staff and it was reported that there was speculation that the south facing slope issues related
to solar access issues. The authorization that Council would be approving would not waive any
solar access standards, engineering design standards, or other building standards.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
, No one appeared to speak. '
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 7
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
NO ACTION REQuEsTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
3. Concurrent Metro Plan/Refmement Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment
Regarding Property Near 44th and Main Street. ' ,
ORDINANCE NO.3...: AN QlWrNANCE AMEm>IN_G _mE METRO PLAl'J:
DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMA TEl.Y 5.24 ACRES OF LAND. IDE~ J I.~ leU AS LANE
COIJNTY ASSESOR'S MAP 17-02-32-00. TAX LOTS 400 & 402 FROM L1GID:
MEDIUM INDIJSTRIAL !l.MI'\. TO COMMERCIAL WITIl AN AUfOMATIC
REDESIGNA TION TO THE EAST MAIN REFINEMENT PLAN FROM LMI TO
COMMUNTIY COMMERCIAL (CCl.
ORDINANCE NO.4 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIElD ZONING
MAP BY REZONING APPROXJMATEL Y 5.24 ACRES OF LAND IDENTIFiED AS
LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP 17-02-32-00_ TAX LOTS 400 & 402, FROM LIGHT
MEDIUM INDIJSTRIAL 0,MI) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ICC),
City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The applicant requests
approval of a Metro Plan / Refinement Plan Map Amendment to the East Main Refinement Plan
and a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment. The request involves two parcels, and is located on
approximately 5.24 acres identified as Tax Lots 400 and 402 'on Assessor's Map No. 17-02-32-
00. Specifically, the applicant proposes to change tbe Metro Plan designation from Light
Medium Industrial (LMI) to Commercial and a concurrent Refinement Plan Amendment and
Zoning Map Amendment from LMI to CC. The applicant seeks approval of these applications in
order to facilitate development of a future Medical Office building on the site.
. . , .
On June 5th, 2007, the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on the'
subject applications (LRP2007-000l3 & ZON2007-00012). One citizen, Nancy Falk, testified in
opposition to the proposal at the first public hearing and requested that the record be left open for
seven days. The Planning Commission granted the request and instructed Staff to leave the record
open until Tuesday, June 12th, 2007. Staff received one written testimony from Lauri Segel, Goal
One Coalition Planner, on June 12th, 2007. A written rebuttal to Ms. Segel's letter was then
, submitted by the applicant the following day, June 'I 3th, 2007. Both letters were received within
the specified deadlines as noted in the Planning Commission public hearing on June 5th, 2007.
The original Staff Report and exhibits areattacbed for Council's review.'
'"
Mer reviewing all oral and written testimony, tbe Planning Commission d~libenited on the
applications on June 19th, 2007, and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that both '
,applications be sent to the City Council for consideration and approval.
Mr. Reesor noted that the applications had been duly noticed in the newspaper to the' general '
public, neighboring residents and Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCDl.'
The applicant referenced the 1992 Buildable Lands Study and tbe 2000 Commercial Lands Study
to support their proposal. Staff and ODOT had reviewed tbe traffic concerns since ODOT had
' jurisdiction of Main Street. One condition ofapproval was recommended for a trip cap. Written
comments received during the extended period of time the record was open, as well as the
rebuttal from the applicant, were included in the agenda packet. ' '
, ,
, , ,
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 8
, '
" ,
Mr. Leahy, asked Mayor Leiken to ask Council for any bias or ex parte contact
, Mayor Leiken asked Council to disclose ,any bias or exparte contact.
Mayor Leiken and Councilors Wylie, Pishioneri, W oodroow, Lundberg and Ralston had none.
Councilor Ballew said she spoke with Philip Farrington to ask about the nature of the ,building.
Mr. Leahy reviewed the quasi-judicial process for this public hearing. Speakers were advised to
direct their comments to the criteria, because those would have an affect on the Council's
decision making. Speakers needed to speak with enough specificity or particularity so the Council
could understand the speaker's concerns and consider them. If the speaker failed to bring matters
to the Council's attention with enough specificity and particularity, 'they may waive those on any
subsequent appeal to LUBA. If anyone requested the record remain open, Council would be
, required to 'leave the record open for at least seven days.
Mayor Leiken opened tbe public bearing.
..1"
1. . Philin Farrincton, PeaceH~.alth, 123 International Wav, Sorin<>field. OR. Mr. Farrington said
this application was presented on their behalf for the larger parcel so they could have the
entitlement to construct a future medical building. He said their model would include more
consolidated offerings in one location that militated fmding a bigger site, It had been a
challenge to do that to serve the growing needs ofthe SpriD.gfield area. ,This site seemed to be
suitable to develop a clinic similar to their Barger Clinic. The application would give
PeaceHealth the entitlement to build this clinic, which was not currently allowed in the
Industrial Zone. It would also allow the neighboring property to get out of nonconforming
status. The application demonstrated that there was a surplus of LMI property, there was a
deficit of needed commercial land as expressed in the Springfield Commercial Lands
Inventory, and the clinical use musi be located in a commercially zoned parcel. Other sites in
, east Springfield would have required rezoning much needed residential property Approval of '
, this application would allow for long-standing commercial uses on the smaller parcel to no
longer be nonconforming and allow for employment generating uses on the bigger parcel that
were needed to serve this east Springfield area. Those employment opportunities would pay
, higher incomes than the traditional industrial uses that bad been on this site and would result
in a higher employment density than the industrial 'uses, The application demonstrated that
Goal 12 bad been met by imposition of a trip cap to limit traffic from future commercial useS
to that which would be no higher than the worse case scenario for the ,existing industrial
zoning. The application met Goal 9 standards by complying with the Springfield Commercial
Lands Study's policies and the Metro Plan's policies ,without debiting the inventory of needed
industrial land. This proposal fulfilled four of Council's goals: by utilizing resources
efficiently to meet the needs of citizens by providing these needed services; maintaining the
t;ansportation infrastructure through the trip cap; facilitating redevelopment of Springfield;
and enhancing the economy through the conmiercial development of this proposal.
, , ,
. . ",
2. John Hvland, 89006 White Water Road :Sorin~fielrl OR, Mr. Hyland said be was the current
owner of the subject property and owned the Hyland Business Park to the east of the
property. ,Rezoning this property to commercial for the clinic would enbancethe area, and'
that was needed. He strongly recommended approval of this application. He said this area '
,
. City' of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 9
was already saturated with business parks and felt the medical clinic would be a better use for
this property. ,
3. Geoffrev Amirre. 4475 Daisv Street #57. SorinQfield. OR. Mr. Aguirre said he was a
resident living in Springfield and a 3'" year law student at the University of Oregon School of
Law. He was speaking on behalf of Goal One Coalition. He noted that Goal One had several
procedural concerns about this development.
. First, the proposed plan amendrilent didn't comply with provisions of the Metro Plan and
Springfield's Development Code for the initiation of Metro Plan amendments. Staff
failed to require the applicant to address the plan review policies of the Metro Plan and
had erred in finding that the applicant's choice of applicable Metro Plan policies and
elements was sufficient. PeaceHealth Oregon should not have been allowed to propose
the subject plan amendment or zone change. Because they were not the owner of the
subject properties, such a proposal was inconsistent with the proper initiation of proposed
Metro Plan amendments explained in Section 7.010 and 7.030 of the Springfield
, Development Code. Metro Plan Amendment Policy 4, Initiation of Metropolitan Plan
Amendments, established that a Type II amendment may be initiated at the discretion of
anyone of the three governing bodies or by any citizen who owned property that was
subject of the proposed amendments. PeaceHealth Oregon was the applicant, but not the
owner of the property, thus the initiation of these amendments did not comply with the
requirements of ~e Metro Plan. '
. Second, the applicant incorrectly referred to the suhject properties as being subject to
Mixed Use Area 2 policies. The subject properties were zoned Light Medium Industrial
(LMI). Since the proposed development lot was not within the Mixed Use area, no
Mixed Use area argmnents were applicable and the property was not subject to East Main
Refmement Plan (EMRP) Mixed Use Elements Policy 2, which was specific to Area 2.
The policy did not say anything about criteria for rezoning or redesignations, but merely
established what uses were allowed under CC zoning in Area 2 only. The EMRP
defmition of CC neither allowed nor encapsulated medical facilities, offices, clinics or'
hospitals. ,
. ,Third, the EMRP's commerCial element under criteria for a commercial Refinement Plan
designation ,at I.d, specified that the CC Refinement Plan designation shall be applied
under the following circumstances - where legally created commercial uses exist: The tax
records for tax lot 402 did not reflect the three existing businesses actually conducting
business on tax lot 402. The City staff had not been able to locate any recent permits for
the three existing businesses; therefore, the three existing businesses did, not appear to be
legal and were not legally created commercial useS.
Mr. Aguirre thanked the Council for their time and the opportunity to speak
. '. .' - . .
4: Andv Head. 25519 Fleck Road Verieta. OR. Mr. Head said he was the owner of-the property
on the southwest corner of 4434, 4436, and 4440 Main Street. He had owned the property for
about three years, but the business had been in eXistence since about 1951. When he
purchased tlie property, there were three businesses located at this site. They were a
barbershop, tanning salon, and a hair barber. He understood these were nonconforming since
1951. The barbershop had been established since 1953, aDd originally started out as a donut
shop~ He felt the medical clinic would be a great deal for Main Street o~ the east side of
Springfield. It was beneficial for the surrounding businesses to have a business nearby that
was comparable or nicer. He noted the assisted living facility that >yas just a block and a half
away and this would d=ease miles traveled for those teriants. He brought some maps
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 10 '
showing an aerial view of the structure as it was in 1960. The maps were entered into the
record, Mr. Head said his building had about eleven employees and he felt this change could
help business improve.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. .
Councilor Pishioneri asked Mr. Farrington about the building and the functions of the proposed
building. He asked if there were plans for any type of emergency mitigation in that area. servicing
the east side of Springfield. He, referred to emergency preparedness.
Mr. Farrington said probably not. The proposed clinic would house general practitioners, and
other services such as imaging, pharmacy and other ancillary services.
Mr. Leahy reminded Council that in making their decision, they stay with the criteria.
Mayor Leiken noted that during the Work Session it was identified that the City had a sUrplus of
LMI and a need for CC. '
NO ACTION REQUESTED, FIRST READINGS ONLY.
4. Conduct a Public Hearing and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Fees in Springfield's
Department of Development Services Community Services Division "Building Safety
Codes'~.
ORDINANCE NO. 6199 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF TIlE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING ARTICLE l. TABLE 3-A. S1RUCTURAL
PERMIT FEES: TABLE 3-B ELECTRICTAL PERMIT FEES, TABLE 3-C PLUMBING
, PERMIT FEES: TABLE 3-D MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES' TABLE 3-F OTHER
INSPECTIONS AND FEES OF THE "SPRINGFIELD BUlLDING SAFETY CODE
,ADMINISTRATIVE CODE" OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPAR1MENT. COMMUNITY SERVICES DMSION "BUILDING SAFETY CODES"
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Community Services Manager Dave Puent presented the staff report on this item. The State of
Oregon has delegated to the City of Springfield the authority to issue permits and perform
inspection services required by the State Building Code. The City has the ability by statutory ,
authority to adjust permit fees to recover all reasonable operational costs, associated with
, performing permit and inspection services. '
. . . . -
" ,
Springfield has notincr~as~d Specialty Code permit fees since calendar year 2001. During this' '
period the Community Services Division has been able to recover all costs associated with
providing permit and inspection services. As a result of the significant increase in development
activity and the continuing demands for inspection services, two additional'inspector positions
were added to FY 08 Base Budget. The cost of the two inspector positions to Fund 224 (a permit
and inspection service dedicated fundl is approximately $264,000 including City indu-ects. '
Although ,past permit fee revenue has exceeded ] 00 percent cost recovery for the last several
years, the proposed fee increase is necessary to offset a significant portion of the additional cost
, in order to sustain a reasonable reserve account and to maintain effective service levels to the '
,development community.
City of Springfield
Council Regular MeeliIig Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 11
The pn:,posed fee increase allows the Co~unity Services Division to continue to recov~r all '
costs assoCiated with providing permit and inspection services.
The proposed fee increase'is approximately a 10% increase of existing fees and should generate'
an estimated $160,000 to $170,000 of additional revenue at existing construction activity levels.
, ,
Mr. Puent explained that notice was sent around the state to interested parties and no appeal was
filed. No negative comments were received from Mr. Puent. This was the first significant fee
increase for building fees since the fall of 200 1.
Councilor Ballew asked how much revenue this increlis,e would raise.
Mr. Puent said it would bring in between $]60,000 to $]70,000.
Councilor Ballew noted that the estimated costs were over $200,000.
Mr. Puent said that was at current activity levels. They expected to provide some other services
, that would bring in additional revenue. This would be self-supporting.
Councilor Pishioneri asked what would happen if our current activity dropped.
Mr. Puent said if activity went down, some services couldn't be provided.
Mayor Leiken confirmed that the,HomeBuilder's Association had been contacted regarding these
increases. Yes. He appreciated that.
Mayor Leiken' opened the public hearing., ,
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
, .
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG 'WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6199. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM TIfE AUDIFNr;E '
1. H.P. Oldfield. 5] 96 Forsvthia Drive. Surin!!!ield, OR Mr. O]dfield spoke regarding th~
lack of control of cats in Springfield. He would like to see something done about ,it. He
said it was a daily ritual trying to keep the cats out ofhis yard, Some people don't take
care of their cats and he would like to see something done about it. '
Councilor Ralston agreed. He noted the problems of dealing with cats. He said he would also
like to have an answer, but didn't know what it would be.
, ,
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there were ordinimcestmit limited any iypes, of animals at
'residences for health reasons.
<
City of Springfield ,
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 12
Mr. Grimaldi said in the past there had been situations where there were nuisances because of
health issues. Those were rare. It had to be on the site the cats were residing.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if a resident could call in if they saw fifteen or twenty cats running'
around another residence and if the City had a mechanism to deal with that type of call.
Chief Smith said when they had ~countered hu-ge number of cats, there were health issUes and
potential for cruelty to animals. The City had the ability to use the State law when that was the
situation, but it did not limit the number of cats. The City did not have ordinances that restricted
cats in any way.
Councilor Wylie asked about a policy for wild and feral cats.
" Chief Smith said the animal control officer'didn't deal with cats unless there was a health or
cruelty issue.
Council~r Lundberg said there was a traveling van that dealt with feral cats twice a year. She had
been asked to include this information in the TEAM Springfield newsletter. A low-cost spay and
neuter clinic was put in and that was a starting place, to control the numbers. She explained where
the clinic was located. She would like to have that publicized as much as possible. Some progress
had been made, but it was an enormous problem. '
Councilor Woodrow said Dr. Kelly ROzen was the, Veterinarian that had opened up the low-cost,
spay and neuter clinic. There was also a Feral Cat Coalition that could be called. They would
come out, trap feral cats, have them spayed or neutered, but would return them because they
couldn't displace them somewhere. Another group called SMA worked out of Eugene and
helped relocate cats. He agreed with Councilor Lundberg that strides had been made, but with the
, set up at Lane County Animal Regulation Authority (LCMA) and the limited resources of the
City, help was needed from the citizens that had cats. ,
, ,
, , ,
, "
.. . . ". .
Councilor Pishioneri asked about looking at limits per household' on cats~ not just for health
issues. He would like to look at the pros and cons.
Mayor Leiken said that would be challenging to enforce.
, '
, ,
Councilor Ralston said the issue was not whether or not they were taken care of, but that they ran
outside. Limiting the number may not solve the problem. Cats were hard to control and the public
neederl to be educated. There needed to be a consequence for uncontrolled cats.'
Councilor Woodrow said part of problem with an ordinance limiting cats, would OIiIy limit those
that took care of their cats. Those with ten or fifteen cats, would not be likely to obey a limit law,
but may turn them loose: As much as he would like to see something done with feral cats, it
wouldn't be consistent with the Goals of this Council to punish those citizens that did take care of
their animals. ' ,
Councilor Ballew said thiS issue had been debated often. The effort to do more neutering ~d"
spaying and providing public edncation was a good thing, This might be something sponsored by
, City' of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 13
TEAM Springfield because it was a livability isSue. She suggested putting together a package of
livability issues that could be provided to citizens.
, , ,
Councilor Pishioneri said the difference was that both graffiti and littering were illegal and there
were consequences for those. There weren't any consequences for cats. If a pet owner was
responsible, they wouldn't draw the attention of enforcement. They couldn't solve this tonight,
but he wanted it to be,brought up so everyone was aware. Council needed to do something.
Councilor Ballew said the City didn't have the fuiances for a lot of things and didn't have the
resources to enforce anything at this time.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Craig Enberg, 725 D Street, Springfield, Oregon Regarding the
Simpson's Contest.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A,SECOND BY
COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
,
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COT}NCIL
1. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
.. . .
, ,
. . '" .
I. Councilor Woodrow said he attended the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG)
meeting for Councilor Pishioneri. At the end of the meeting, Jane Lee from ODOT
asked how 'she could help Council's co=unicate better with ODOT, so that ODOT
'could help negotiate for the cities. There was a discussion of lack of trust between
cities and ODOT, and cities with each other. There was a suggestion that there should
, be better COmmunication. Councilor Woodrow suggested Mayors getting together
, onCe a month along with a Council member, and reporting back to the full Council.
, Two of the Mayors thought it was a good idea and the other two didn't say.
2. Councilor Ballew reported on Lane Workforce PartnerShip. Annual awards were
given for businesses and she thought perhapirCouncilcould think about honoring
some Springfield businesses next year.
3. Mayor Leiken said the Governor signed fIB3337. The OfficiaJ Eugene' '08 One-Year
Kick-off for the Olympic .Trials was held last Saturday. Ther~ was an official clock
counting down the days located at the 5'" Street Market in Eugene. The Trials start on
'June 27, 2008 and it would be a special occasion for our area. Some of the greatest'
'athletes in the world would be in our area for about two weeks. Springfield was
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007 '
Page 14
playing an important part in this and Council contributed funds for the efforts. The
international scope of the media would be housed in Springfield.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
I., Lane County Adult Work Crew.
Assistant Public Works Manager Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. Because
of budget reductiOns at Lane County, the Lane County Sheriff now is able to deploy adults
serving their sentence outside of a secure facility by providing manual labor to other agencies.
The Public Works Department can take advantage of these services to perform work that is
needed but generally not within the priorities of assignments to regular personnel. '
For a number of years the Lane CountY Sherriff has operated aroad crew. Participants in the
Road Crew have been convicted of criminal activity but are not incarcerated. These individuals'
are sentenced to serve a specified number of days perfonning general labor, as an alternative to
incarceration. As part of the restructuring in anticipation of the loss offederal timber revenues,
Lane County Public Works has terminated its road crew program. The Sheriff is now exploring
opportunities to be able to continue to provide non-custodial supervision of these offenders. The
Sherriff will charge $75.00 per hour for services performed by the work crew.
City staff have identified a nuinber of projects, including graffiti removal, alley cleanup and
vegetation removal, which could be performed by the crew at a cost far below what would result
if regular City staff were used. Public Works Environmental Services Division staff have also
identified a number of projects, general involving vegetation management, that exist at various
parts of the regional sanitary system. Money is available in the current budget to fund a modest'
program which would provide the City and the Regional Sewer System with the equivalent of
two days of work each week.
StaffrecoInmends that the Council approve the City's participation in the Adult Work Crew
Program by authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute an intci-governmental
agreement with Lane County substantially in the form of Attachment B.
Mr. Goodwin said the City was now keeping annual costs for this contract to $40,000, but'w<iuld
evaluate to see if that amount could be increased ata later time. The road crew would not present
any security issue and could provide a great service to the City. There were no issues with the
City's collective bargaining group, but AFSCME would like to bargain on the practical impact of
this change with the City. City staff would sit down withAFSCME representatives to discuss this
issue, but didn't feel it would interfere with the contractual relations with AFSCME. ,
Mayor Leiken said he was personally touched by the fact that Sheriff BUrger ~~ present and
made positive remarks during the groundbreakiug of the Justice Center. Mayor Leiken felt,this '
contract was'a positive thjng for our co=unity and a good program. '
Councilor Ballew asked if the $75/hour, included sheriff staff. Yes, it was the entiie cos( She
asked if we had insurance liability for this.
Mr. Goodwin said the County assumed ;Ulliability. They were selfU;sured.'
City of Springfield '
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007 '
Page 15
Mr. Leahy said the agreement was in front of Council. He referred to the section that addressed
the County.'s self-insurance program which was aVailable to meet the indemnity requirements.
Councilor Pishioneri said he started overseeing the, road crew when it first began. They had done
a lot of work in our co=unity. The workers worked very hard and showed a lot of pride in what
they had done. He had high regard for this program and felt the City would benefit. He said he
would recuse himself from voting since he was vested in the program, although it wouldn't affect
his vote. '
Councilor Ballew said it sounded like a great deal for the City and a great use of people's time.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR,
WOODROW TO APPROVE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
'"" J.t.J<.GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LANE COUNTY AUTHORIZING
THE LANE COUNTY SHERlFFTO DEPLOY MEMBERS OF THE ADULT WORK
CREW TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE MAINTENANCE DIVISION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 recused-
Pishionen")
BUSINESS FROM TIIE CIlY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
ThMine meet Ring wrdas aAmdjournsed at approximately 8: 17 p.m,' l\ ,;' '_ \", ( n I.
utes eco er y owa ~ \../ if
Sidney 'VI LeiktJ '
. Mayor , "
-
Attest:
~
, City Recd01er
S'PRINGFIELD 1.oo.io.I"
.
.
Jip)
~0
\, . t'easeJ, iilit'(j9mme!its
. : :J;/':3jt'!lliijJj~~:r!;fi~:f~t),~~; :,t:~
, .~;Sp'eakefsJnaY'not:;..:.
<" ,;" " ;:r','; '.. "~'.'c " ..:. 't, .:-;; ,'..
":;yzekI thezr..tzme .. ;,";
~~,~ ;t;/.6fh~t~.~;~<~ i;;'::~~';;'~~1li~~\~
~,P"'NGFO.CD ~,"''' ,..~
.~
-=-
p-\\ A- .3 !II
Date Receiven.7 }?-! 0 1
Planner: DR
~' - '~, '. '", 1 " ',~,. ,!I. ..
a~e.liTIJ.it 'qomments
, . .'~ '.It-,. .
" o';J mmutes.
"SfJeaklffs miLY'ilOt .-
",y~e.ldtheir ,tiifi,e ' ',' ,
'~;:':~ (O}ll!!~f~4flr;~i",.-;, ;lr .:::t>t,;"f;.
(0
I wish to address the Springfield City Council during:
o BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
(This part of the agenda is for you to speak on any item other than a public hearing)
What topic do you wish to discuss?
Is your topic on tonight's agenda? Dyes D nO
IX PUBLIC HEARING '
rWhatis~~;Wf~~ ~IE-
. ~[am in favor of the proposalD I ~m against the proposal
d ~EN COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE TOPIC
What is the topic?
(Please see agenda for when item is scheduled)
Phone:~~ . -Sill Date: 1- ( "L/tn-
~ity: ~PIU IJ~ rrfll>
'Pf5ACf.~ y",",b"'odwmm''',, ",m,)
~
Name
AddreS5:
I represent:
NOTE: RETURN TillS CARD TO THE CITY RECORDER AT THE FRONT DESK
(j)
I wish to address the Springfield City Council during:
o BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
(This part of the agenda is for you to speak on any item other than a public hearing)
What topic do you wish to discuss?
Is your topic on tonight's agenda? Dyes D no
PUBLIC HEARING
What is the topic of the public hearing?
jfL ZON)~17 or:.. /AA' L-dI ~?'O ,NE...vJTO'
'~ I am in favor of the proposal D I am against the proposal
l-IYt:.;!>>O J.3dS JlliES5 ,PA.ti.lf& 'I~6c> MAPI/$T.
o WHEN COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE TOPIC
What is the topic?
(Please see agenda for when item is scheduled)
Name ,TC,;-j)./ JI~~:,~:lO. Phone: ,'12.1. ~d"'P I Date: 7/~'1
Address: <z 9 ,;?Ob hI/i/7.J: NATEA{' A'O. City: <;PA')N6=Ae~.b
[represent: HJ'tt-A#j) .(3#5)/1113'55 .P./!7iJ1 .
(Print your name OR your busjnesslc~mmittee name)
NOTE: RET~ TillS CARD TO THE CITY RECORDER AT THE FRONT DESK
"
SPRINGFIELD
P \\ 'fY~
- ~-=-.~, :".".. . .;!~...: ~'-; -,' ....~.:.,
Please-ilimit't"drizmentS;
,"_;r'::, - .-;.t.... ,<C,.. ,.....,...
to'3;mitlUtesf < '.'.1 '<4
<<' ~"_..' ,_~__. _ ,_., <l... '.f
Sp'e"akersj may'not, .,;;:
_', ,"', -..' . __"t._
,yiidd;their':tirne: ,;:, ,.'
t~~dtMff~~~K~' ,;~ '" .~ '.;
SPRINGFIELD ,.. I ....
~-
~
I wish to address the Springfield City Council during:
o BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE ,
(']'his part of the agenda is for you to 'speak on any item other than a public hearing)
What topic do you wish to discuss?
Is yuur topic on tonight's agenda? Dyes D no
~LIC HEARING , ..
What is the topic of the pu!21ic hearin_g? '7 ' '
C.cc-.c(/rre,..~ r-t1':A,,[? ~~:,,1c,,/'{i:~~N~",,\.(~-'?C~^ e.1: (.IC~ c.MAl',",
D I am in favor of the proposal ~magainst the pr~posal
o WHEN COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE TOPIC
What is the topir'
(Please see agenda for when item is scheduled)
Name h;,Jt'~...., 1),l..--~ffL
Address: ':ff2<:::. cl:';~:ri'~ :;; S-:i
-, I
I represent: ~Oq\ 1- roc..\,..\.;o,",-
Phone: (Y: \ SI'f 4 175 Date31) ), do:::> 7
rity: ~;~Sd ~ ()(? ~7-f78
v
!print your name OR your business/committee name)
NOTE: RETURN TillS CARD TO THE CITY RECORDER AT THE FRONT DESK
I wish to address the Springfield City Council during:
o BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
(This part of the agenda is for you to'speak on any item other than a public hearing)
What topic do you wish to discuss?
Is your topic on tonight's agenda? Dyes D no,
~J ' ' 'PUBLIC HEARING "
{) * What is the topic of the public hearing?
\ . .1/ Jim ,,,,,h. i M. ,,,,", 'Y-.< \.L....1l-L
Date Received. h :_...',n favor of the proposal D.I am against the proposal
Planner:, DR
, ease'liTpit cqm,r,iriis,
6 3 ;minutes.,'" ' .,,~
~_ "1'.
, ,Speakers'may, not. . 'F
, yield the'irtime,. ' ,,!j
ta 'Others 0., >:"
'." ~ "L~-......_;j;~".,,"-.-...'.. .~'.. ..,,,',~;
" 0 WHEN COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE TOPIC
What is the topic?
(Please see agenda for when item is scheduled)
Name IL.;.J, J.e.<; 0\ Phone:
,'- I '(Ple<l:\ellrint)
Address: 2:;5 I~ 'iC\u \....- ~.J.
I represent:
3!:/IJ-2">'YI Date:
rity: ,1,,,..1.
(hi""'"
(print your name OR your busine.>skommitll:e name)
NOTE: RETURN TillS CARD TO THE CITY RECORDER AT THE FRONT DESK