HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/14/2009 Work Session (2)
City of Springfield .
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14,2009
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, September 14,2009 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor
Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Leezer, Simmons, and Pishioneri.
Also present were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder
Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Ralston Was absent (excused)
Mayor Leiken welcomed Sue Palmer from the Register Guard who was now covering Springfield
and Cheri Moore from the Planning Commission.
1. City Attornev Office Evaluation.
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery presented the staff report on this item. The results of the
annual evaluation had been received, tabulated and were now ready for Council review and
discussion with the City Attorney's Office (CAO).
The firm of Leahy, Van Vactor & Cox LLP received high marks recently during the annual
review of its performance of the city attorney duties which were summarized on Attachment 1.
Thirty -three evaluations were distributed; of those, fourteen were returned indicating ratings of
excellent, good and did not observe.
Council ratified the annual City Attorney contract at their regular meeting on July 7, 2009.
Mr. Towery noted that this was coming after the contract ratification due to conflicting errors.
Councilor Leezer said she was very impressed with the comments on the evaluations.
Mr. Leahy said they appreciated the good comments because they worked hard to do a good job
for the City. It was important that they remained flexible and implemented what the Council
wanted. They also needed to recognize that staff didn't always have good choices, and their goal
was to provide the best choice possible. There were times when some people didn't get the
turnaround time they wanted, depending on the current crisis. That was something the CAO could
always improve on.
Mr. Cox said he was pleased to see the positive remarks.' They had a good team now. He had
received a lot of positive comments regarding their staff including Mary Bridget Smith who had
helped with the jail operations. Ms. Smith had been very detail-oriented during that process.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 14, 2009
Page 2
Police Chief Smith said Ms. Smith brought experience from her past work with the Yakima Jail
in Washington. She was very helpful, insightful, and responsive to their questions. They had
received great performance from Ms. Smith.
Mr. Leahy said Bill Van Vactor truly enjoyed working with the City of Springfield, the Council,
and working in the area of Human Resources.
Councilor Pishioneri said all of his contact with the staff in the City Attorney's office had been
positive. He reiterated that Ms. Smith had been incredible, asking good questions and getting
good information. She was great to work with and so were the interns, who put forth a lot of good
energy and effort. Mr. Cox was great with statute research, as was Mr. Leahy. He had no negative
contact with the CAO.
Mr. Leahy said he felt they could do some things better.
Mayor Leiken said he had watched their office navigate the PeaceHealth project, Mr. Leahy in
particular. Over the last couple of years he had noticed more ofthe work focusing on the human
interest issues that affected the City. He was amazed with how the CAO was able to take the
downtown issues in an unexpected direction and their work with the Oregon Liquor Control
Commission (OLCC). Their office had been able to adapt and improvise, which was very
'Springfield'. It had been great and he appreciated the great work they had done to help Council
make those tough decisions.
Mr. Leahy said Meg Kieran put a lot of time in for the PeaceHealth project. He noted that two of
the clerks in their office this summer were Andy Wilson, son of Terry Wilson, former counsel for
the City of Eugene, and Taylor Murdoch, son of Jackie Murdoch, Assistant Community Service
Manager for Springfield.
Councilor Wylie said she loved the feeling of confidence she got from the CAO. Having them as
a resource was very valuable. She felt they really knew what they were doing. When Council was
faced with difficult situations, the CAO prepared them and briefed them.
Mr. Leahy said they had an experience factor.
Councilor Simmons said he had been on both sides of the City Attorneys, as a citizen and Council
member. He had a respect for Matt Cox and his courtroom skills. He noted the number of
opinions issued by Joe Leahy over the last 30 years. The City was very fortunate. The CAO had a
good foundation with past and present members.
Councilor Lundberg said she had also been involved with the City for a long time. Former City
Attorney Ed Harms had been one of her heroes in terms of his contributions to the City, his
confidence and ability to fmd a solution. She felt the CAO always picked partners that added to
that team making a smooth working team for everyone. She appreciated the CAO for the
decisions they had made in hiring.
Mr. Leahy said they would soon be moving to a new location. Their new office would be one of
the buildings that belonged to Island Park. They would rent in its entirety the larger building, and
sublet part ofthe building. Mr. Cox had the ability to buy that over some period of time. They
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 14, 2009
Page 3
wanted to fmd a place downtown. There was not a lot of commercial sites downtown, so they
were doing a fair amount of renovating. They would be moving in on November 1.
2. Storm water Management Plan Addendum.
Environmental Services Manager Ron Bittler and Environmental Services Supervisor George
Walker presented the staff report on this item. On July 22,2009, the elected officials of the City
of Springfield and Lane County met jointly and conducted a public hearing on proposed
amendments to the Metro Plan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). At that
hearing, testimony was provided raising concerns regarding the potential downstream impacts to
rural properties outside the Urban GroWth Boundary (VGB) and requesting that the City take
additional steps to ensure that future urban development and storm water conveyance facilities did
not negatively impact lands and property owners in the County outside the City's jurisdiction for
stormwater management.
- --- - . Since that meeting; City- staff had engaged in a collaborative process with affected downstrea.'!l
property owners and their representatives in response to their concerns raised by the Board at the
joint meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify their concerns and to develop additional
storm water policy guidance that would give property owners greater assurances that increased
stormwater runoff from future in-city development would not adversely affect downstream rural
properties. The document drafted and subsequently reviewed provided additional policy
clarification for the City's stormwater management activities beyond the UGB. This policy
replicated policy already in place within the City of Springfield.
Additionally, staff prepared a presentation describing the many elements of the Springfield
storm water management program and presented it to the Board of County Commissioners in a
work session on August 26, 2009. This occasion also provided an opportunity for the
Commissioners to see the proposed Addendum 1. Comments following the presentation were
generally favorable with staff to follow up on specific questions.
It was proposed that this stormwater management policy statement be included within the City of
Springfield Storm water Management Plan of 2008 as Addendum 1. It was also proposed that the
City Council hold a public hearing, and adopt/not adopt the amended Stormwater Management
Plan at the regular session September 21,2009.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how the August 26 presentation to the Lane County Board of
Commissioners had gone and how they absorbed the information.
Mr. Bittler said Public Works Director Susie Smith gave the presentation and it went well. The
Stormwater portion of the presentation was very educational to the Board. The Board commented
briefly on the addendum, indicating they did not have any issues with it.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to concerns the Board had during the joint elected officials (JEO)
meeting on July 22.
Mr. Bittler felt the Board was now comfortable with the Plan.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 14,2009
Page 4
Mayor Leiken said he had recently spoken with Board Chair Sorenson who told him the Board
was ready to go with this Plan. He had received very positive feedback regarding the
presentation. Staff did an excellent job.
Mr. Walker discussed the stakeholders meeting and how the addendum was developed. He agreed
the Board was very complimentary. Staff selected the Stormwater Management Plan as the
vehicle for the addendum because it was the City's policy document. The Stormwater
Management Plan also included the majority of things involved in the stormwater program. Prior
to drafting the addendum, staff researched Oregon Drainage Law and policies and found they
originated from case law rather than statute and were called Oregon Civil Law Doctrine of
Drainage. Staff also looked at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) hydraulics
manual, legal section because it was an accepted standard. This verified the Oregon Drainage
Law policy. They looked at other agencies around the State, and Oregon land use codes.
Mr. Walker said the stakeholders met on August 13 and invited those that spoke during the public
hearing in July to attend. The .issues were. discussed and thecutcome was a policy statement,
which was Addendum 1, which would be attached to the Stormwater Management Plan. The
addendum fell in line with the high level direction of the Oregon Drainage Law, encompassed the
public testimony from the property owners, and addressed the elected officials concerns. There
could be some Development Code revisions and more interaction with our Metro partners. A
good portion of Springfield's stormwater flowed into Eugene, so we needed to keep that in mind
as development occurred that created runoff. Doing this analysis was going to make for better
development in Springfield and make us better stewards. The next step was to hold a public
hearing on September 21, with Council considering adoption of the Stormwater Management
Plan with Addendum 1.
Mayor Leiken commended staff. He appreciated staff explaining the Plan to the two newer
commissioners. He appreciated Commissioner Dwyer's concerns as well. He thanked staff for the
presentation because it put the Board's mind at ease.
Councilor Lundberg thanked staff for their work to bring this full circle. They addressed the
issues and moved forward. She asked why most of our overflow went into Eugene.
Mr. Walker said Eugene was downhill from Springfield. We had three major outfalls for our
stormwater runoff; two of which were the McKenzie River and Willamette River. Back in the
1950's and 1960's, the Soil Conservation Service built the Q Street drainage channel which
crossed into Eugene jurisdiction at the intersection ofI-5 and I-105. Springfield also had a portion
of the Gateway area that crossed at the Beltline/I-5 interchange that flowed into the City of
Eugene's Willakenzie system. Springfield and Eugene worked together on those occasionally.
Councilor Lundberg thanked staff for their work and the Mayor for representing the City at the
Board meeting.
Councilor Simmons said Ms. Smith did an excellent job on the presentation in August and was
backed up by her staff. The City had to think about planning and treating the water that ran off.
The addendum treated the issue, but not the water. He referred to the runoff from 42nd Street that
came out in the Alton Baker reflecting pond by Ferry Street Bridge. The issues that came up at
the meeting were a representation of issues. The City needed to think long term. The interim
solution was good, but in the long term they needed to think further out in the facility process.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 14,2009
Page 5
There would be growth in Jasper Natron and the City needed to determine what was to be done
and how it would be funded. This was a nice step, and staff answered what could have been a
problematic issue professionally and quickly. Ms. Smith deserved significant accolades.
Mayor Leiken again thanked staff for their work. He was glad to hear Mike Kelly and Randy
Hledik were satisfied with the work done.
3. Further Discussion about the Impacts of Possible Mobile/Manufactured Home Park Closures.
Development Services Director Bill Grile and Housing Assistant Jodi Peterson presented the staff
report on this item. State law required mobile/manufactured home park owners to provide each
tenant (at the time of lease signing) with Oregon's policies and procedures concerning possible
closure of the park, including notice of the intended closure and compensation the homeowner
would be entitled to under certain conditions if displaced by the closure. At issue here was
whether the Council believed there were any actions the City should take to mitigate the impact
ofapark-dosure,-in-addition to the notice and compensation provisions of State law.- --- - -
This matter came before the Council in a work session on April 21, 2008, at which time several
options were identified and considered. Staff was directed to return with additional thoughts.
Local governments had a range of actions that could be taken to mitigate the impact of park
closures on homeowners, but nothing was required beyond that prescribed by the Oregon .
Revised Statutes. Attachment 1 was a memo that detailed the following three options:
1. Rely on State Laws and Regulations while responding with applicable referrals to available
services addressing the needs of individual mobile home park tenants.
2. Provide advocacy and information to affected tenants (housing counseling services, locating
suitable sites, relocating tenants or their housing unit; serve as a liaison between landlord
and tenant, and assisting tenants through their relocation process)
3. Assist in the development of other types of replacement housing
Any local government could consider if it wished to provide more mitigation for displaced park
homeowners than the Oregon Legislature had established in State Law.. When Council
considered the issue on April 21, 2008, consensus emerged to support park homeowners with
information about State Law, financial assistance from the Community Development Block Grant
and HOME Investment Partnership programs (for income qualifying homeowners) and possible
relief from the Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA).
Staff recommended a combination of options 1 and 3. Staff continued to work with our housing
development partners to provide quality affordable housing in Springfield (option 3). In the event
of a park closure, option 1 was attainable with current staffing and funding levels. The magnitude
of option 2, considering current resources, was out of reach.
Mayor Leiken said in the 2007 legislative session they came out with updated state law regarding
mobile home parks. During the last session, Senator Morrisette suggested legislation amending
that to bring in a Springfield only option. He asked if that was still an active bill.
Mr. Grile said the Senate bill had no action, but HB3085 did pass, but was only applicable to
jurisdictions that were not pre-empted prior to the 2007 session.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 14,2009
Page 6
Ms. Peterson noted that Senator Morrisette's bill was SB5l0. She said Councilor Simmons asked
that she provide a sample letter of the statement policy that mobile home parks give to their
tenants when they sign the rental agreement. She distributed that letter to the Mayor and Council.
She referred to page II which gave the State's requirements regarding closure ofthe park.
Ms. Peterson said the options staff was presenting were based on the minutes from the April 2008
Council meeting. She reviewed those options. Staff was recommending options 1 and 3. She said
staff had held forums in the past to talk with tenants of mobile home parks to let them know what
options they had if their park closed, which was part of option 1. Staff would work with the park
tenants. option 3 (Assist in the development of other types of replacement housing) had always
been a goal of staff's to work with non-profit and for-profit housing providers to fmd affordable
housing. She had worked with some of the non-profits that had affordable housing in place and
asked if they could give preference to those displaced by a park closure when vacancies occurred.
They had agreed to do that through attrition.
Councilor Pishioneriaskedifthere.l,vas a-potential plan.thattook care of the gap between closure
of a park and affordable housing.
Ms. Peterson said the parks were required to give one year notice, so tenants could put their name
on the list once notice was given. She noted that option 2 would be more active, but the City
currently lacked the capacity in financing and staffing to do that.
Councilor Lundberg said she liked the work and thanked staff for the concise options as they
showed concern for the people. She referred to the example letter and noted how it could be
confusing to the tenant. It needed to be clear that selling the property could mean the park would
close. She would support being pro-active as much as possible and option 3 regarding other
housing. It would be in our best interest to accommodate housing for those displaced. She liked
the suggestions and agreed we didn't have the staffmg for option 2. She asked about the
convention center project.
Mr. Grile said he was not aware of the current status.
Councilor Lundberg said she knew there were many mobile home parks in Glenwood. She liked
options 1 and 3.
Councilor Leezer said she realized people signed a document, but asked if the agreement was
brought up to the tenants after that as a reminder.
Mr. Grile said he was not sure what year the statute requiring that notice went into effect. There
could be some very old mobile homes that did not receive the notice at all.
Councilor Leezer said people felt it would be very unfair if they lost their home. They didn't
consider that when renting. She felt anything the City could do would be beneficial.
Councilor Simmons said he thought it was 1989 when the statute was adopted requiring notice to
tenants at the time of renting. He thanked Ms. Peterson for bringing the sample letter. There were
some substantial mobile home parks that could be impacted throughout the City and Glenwood.
He asked the City Attorney about mobile home parks in existence prior to the passage of the
statute in 1989. Those that moved in prior to 1989 may not have signed such a document. The
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 14,2009
Page 7
City needed to be careful in what we did. We had the State law in place, and if we went outside
that we could be putting the City in legal jeopardy. He favored protecting the tenants, but noted
that the City also needed to protect the owners of the property. There was a balance. He would
say to rely on state law and provide some assistance. He asked where the money would come
from to assist tenants if a large park closed. This needed to be generic for any mobile home park.
Mr. Grile said the statute was in place today so the notice requirements were applicable today.
Mr. Leahy said most leases would have been renewed since 1989 and would have had to sign a
notice.
Councilor Simmons said this needed to be general for all mobile home parks in Springfield. A
large number of people would be impacted by what the City did.
Councilor Wylie said what was here was a means of assisting with information. She discussed the
--- issoo f.of.mobikhome tenants that lost so much of the value of their. mobile home when a-park.
closed. Unfortunately, the City Council couldn't do anything monetarily about the loss of value
from moving a mobile home. It was a difficult situation. Once notice was given, the City could
rely on state laws and could compile information about parks with empty spots available in other
parks. She was supportive of that type of assistance, and working with other in finding housing
for relocation. She was supportive of what we could do in our role as a City, working with other
organizations and agencies around the community. She wanted to be able to say we were doing
what we could within our ability.
Mr. Grile said Community Development and Block Grant (CDBG) and urban renewal funds did
offer some forms of assistance.
Councilor Lundberg said we were talking about our most vulnerable citizens, so it was good to
have a mechanism to assist during dire times. There would only be a percentage of tenants that
would need assistance. The Patrician was different because the City had been an active
participant in the purchase of the property, so we had more of a responsibility.
Mayor Leiken asked about the law passed in 2007 and what that did regarding the City's ability
to come up with their own plan for assistance.
Mr. Grile said those laws required greater participation by the park owner. If a City wanted
voluntarily to provide additional assistance, there was no legal reason they couldn't.
Mayor Leiken said he would like staff to look closer into the issue ofliability. He noted that he
had sold his interest in his family's mobile home park. His family had owned one of the largest
mobile home parks in Douglas County. His family, as have many other park owners across the
State, had actually waived the rent for up to one year when times were difficult for some families.
Park owners wanted to cooperate. He wanted to make sure the City had dialogue with park
owners. The Patrician was fortunate that Richard Boyles owned that property because he had
been part of the community for many years. It was important to ask for Mr. Boyles' opinion of
what was fair. When buying a mobile home, buyers were told ahead of time that it depreciated
over time. People bought them because they were affordable and gave people a home. His
grandfather and father had been fortunate and proud of their mobile home park. They valued the
people that lived there and tried to work with the tenants. He agreed with Councilor Lundberg
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 14, 2009
Page 8
and was supportive of option 3. We needed to have something in place to have dialogue with the
property owner. He was fme with the City going above and beyond what the State required
because many of the tenants were long-time residents that had helped build this commUnity.
Property owners were not greedy, butwere looking for opportunities and he wanted to make sure
a dialogue was set up with those owners. As a past owner of a mobile home park, he wanted to go
above and beyond. All of the options were put together well by staff.
Ms. Peterson said staff was proposing a combination of options 1 and 3.
Mayor Leiken said that was good.
Councilor Wylie said she would like to have language included about working with other
organizations and having information available.
Councilor Simmons said he didn't have a problem with doing other things, but if we were talking
. about buildingsomething,-weneeded-the-moneyta do so. Currently, funds for HOME programs
could not be used for mobile homes. He needed to know where funds would come from for
assisting with housing. Sooner or later mobile home parks would go away in areas of
redevelopment. The City needed to develop a strategy for funding for whatever was adopted.
Mayor Leiken asked if there was opportunity through HOME or HUD funds to help alleviate
some of the costs.
Ms. Peterson said those funds could provide some relocation costs through an application
process.
Mayor Leiken said urban renewal was also a potential.
Ms. Peterson said the City could buy a mobile home park to provide space for relocation.
Mayor Leiken said St. Vincent DePaul was open to working with the City on housing issues.
Councilor Simmons' points were right.
Councilor Wylie asked if HUD had done anything regarding mobile home parks.
Mr. Grile said the HUD programs were income qualifying. If the City bought a park, the Uniform
Relocation Act would apply. Some tax increment funding could be used to defer some of the cost
of relocation. Those were policy choices the Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA)
Board could make.
Ms. Peterson said at the State level, tax credits were included to help tenants purchase their park
in a partnership. Eugene was working on that model now, but there were some issues.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if definition for mobile home parks was the same as the Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) with five spaces or more. Yes. He asked if they had checked into
Division 8 regarding a maximum income level for relocation.
Mr. Grile said the statute required one year notification. The redevelopment of many mobile
home parks would require a land use action, which often took more than one year due to appeals.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 14, 2009
Page 9
Councilor Lundberg said when someone needed to be relocated, it was better to have a set date
rather than a possible date relying on appeals, etc.
Mayor Leiken said no matter what the City did, it wouldn't be enough for some. The City may
not have the funding to help with relocation, but it was important to have something in place.
Glenwood was more likely to be redeveloped than the Patrician.
Mr. Grile said he had heard that Council wanted staff to condense this so a park tenant could
understand it, and be prepared to say what the City had done with our partners and what kind of
options were available.
Mayor Leiken said partnerships with St. Vincent DePaul (SVDP) and others would be key. He
appreciated the work and said staffhad done what Council had asked.
--ADJOURNMENT. .
The meeting was adjourned 7: 17 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
vA-
Attest:
~r-