HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07 Council Minutes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date:
June 18, 2007
Meeting Type:
Department:
S P R I N G FIE L D Staff Contact:
C I T Y C 0 U N C I L Estimated Time:
Regular Meeting
City Manager's Office
Amy Sowa, 726-3700 O}'
Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL MINUTES
ACTION REQUESTED:
By motion, approval of the attached minutes.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes:
a) June 4, 2007 - Work Session
b) June 4, 2007 - Regular Meeting
c) June 11; 2007 - Work Session
DISCUSSIONI
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
Sowalagenda/minutes AIS
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2007
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 4, 2007 at 6:04 p.m., with Council President
Lundberg presiding.
A TIENDANCE
Present were 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 Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Mayor Leiken was absent (excused).
1. Concurrent 0 Street Refinement Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Regarding
Property Near the Corner of 18th and 0 Street.
City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The applicant is requesting
these amendments in order to pursue a future professional office building on the subject site. The
applicant chose to apply for the GO Zone and Refinement Plan designation because the City's
existing definition of the GO Zone designates it as appropriate for areas which serve as a
transition zone, providing a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial
development.
On May 15th, 2007, the Plal111ing Commission held a work session and publiC hearing on the
subject applications (LRP2007-00012 & ZON2007-00011). Other than the applicant, there was
one additional testimonial at the public hearing. The testifying Springfield citizen noted that she
did not oppose the applications, but had questions about how future traffic issues would be
addressed. Staff responded by outlining the review procedures in the site plan review process, of
whiCh the applicant would be required to adhere to during Site Plan review of a new professional
office building.
During the Planning Commission deliberation, the Commissioners discussed the appropriateness
of the site as a future GO site. Discussion ensued regarding the location of adjacent Community
Commercial uses and how the existing high traffic volumes contributed to the sites undesirable
characteristics of remaining as a residential zoning district. Planning Commission discussion also
addressed the comparison ofthe site's characteristics in comparison to the definition of the GO
zone, and concluded that the site seemed appropriate for GO designation. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that both the Refinement Plan Amendment
and Zoning Map Amendment applications be sent to the City Council for consideration and
approval.
Mr. Reesor gave a power point presentation showing the subject property and the adjacent
properties. He said there was a provision in the Metro Plan that allowed approximately thirty-
two auxiliary uses in a residentially designated property. The zone was currently medium
density residential (MDR) and the applicant was requesting general office (GO) zone. There
were a number of other areas in Springfield with this type of zone within residential areas. The
I
City of Springfield
. Council Work Session Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 2
applicant's proposal included a taxed amendment, which created criteria for approval for future
General Office zones that might go into this refmement area and created a policy. He said it was
similar to the Gateway Refmement Plan policies and criteria for siting GO in the refinement
area. Mr. Reesor noted that a couple of edits had been made to the ordinances that had been
included in the agenda packet. He distributed the amended copies of the ordinances.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the transition of 18th Street between the back of the business
and Q Street. It was currently used as a short cut.
Mr. Reesor referred to one of the photos in the slide presentation which showed the area.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to page 3-71 in the agenda packet which stated, "Some of this
future development is in existing right-of-way that is proposed to be vacated in the future"..
Mr. Reesor said the applicant was in the process of gathering signatures to apply for a street
vacation for that portion of 18th Street. Their ultimate goal would be to include that portion of
the site in their site plan for a professional office building, if the proposed amendments were
passed. That would help to clean up that corner. During the development issues meeting, staff
from traffic was present and noted there would be no change regarding traffic. There would be
compensation to the City and the action would be coming to Council for approval.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to page 3-46 in the agenda packet, last sentence of the last
paragraph, "The Springfield Drinking Water Protection Overlay Map indicates at least part of the
site appears to be within the I-year Time of Travel Zone for the 16th and Q Street Wellfield". He
asked what type of mitigation would be included in the plan to address that.
Mr. Reesor said those types of requirements would be addressed during the Site Plan review.
The applicant would have to apply for a drinking water protection application. There was certain
criteria that needed to be met.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the developer would have to improve that street at their cost.
Mr. Reesor said that would also be addressed in Site Plan review. Any new development on that
property would be required to have frontage brought up to current standards, either at that time
or in an agreement that the improvements would be made in the future.
Councilor Pishioneri said there was other development in surrounding areas and he asked if the
improvements would fInish off that street.
Mr. Reesor explained circumstances that would involve the agreement for a future date. The
property owner would be assessed for their share of that improvement at the time of
improvement.
Councilor Pishioneri said he liked the idea of the proposal. He asked if there was enough
setback for the side of the building facing the traffic to be landscaped.
Mr. Reesor said there were provisions in the site plan criteria that addressed screening. He
hadn't seenthe conceptual drawing ofthe building. Currently, the applicant was just looking at
the zoning change. GO zoning was the strictest as far as what type of uses were allowed.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 3
Councilor Pishioneri asked if this would come back to Council later at the design stage.
Mr. Reesor said whatever the zone was now, the applicant was still required to go through the
site plan process, which would be coming back to Council and allow for public input.
Mr. Grimaldi said this zone amendment was not tied to a specific project. There were
protections in place and could ensure more review.
Councilor Woodrow asked if this was an overlay district.
Mr. Reesor said this was just a change in the refinement plan designation and the zoning. There
were other overlay districts, such as drinking water protection.
Councilor Woodrow asked if there could be a sunset date in case what was being proposed was
not done.
Mr. Reesor said the GO zone had specific lists of what were acceptable and allowable uses.
Most allowable uses were compatible with residential areas.
Councilor Woodrow asked about the residential properties currently on that land. He asked if
they could remain residential and if there was a potential issue regarding future sale or
refinancing of those residences.
Mr. Reesor said there were a lot of properties in the City in this type of designation. He
explained further.. .
City Attorney Joe Leahy said there was the potential for a problem. The houses would be
grandfathered in; however,.ifthe developer didn't follow through with this project, and the
property was sold, it could be a prob lem if one. of the homeowners went to get a loan on the
home. They could be denied from the bank due to the conflict in zoning. On the other hand, the
value of the property may go up with the zone change, which could encourage the use the
applicant was looking for.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the developer owned all the property at this time. Yes.
Councilor Ballew referred to page 3-13 in the agenda packet. She noted the chart listing the
designations in the Metro Plan. She said the proposal was a trivial amount, but asked how it
affected Springfield's overall buildable lands inventory.
Mr. Reesor said the applicant was supporting their proposal by listing out actual numbers within
the Refinement Plan area, calculating the number of acres of residential and commercial. The
proposal was not to change the Metro Plan. He discussed further the Metro Plan and the number
of acres considered for amendments to that plan. This parcel was smaller than the minimum.
amount that required a Metro Plan amendment. Mr. Reesor said the General Office was its own
zone. It would show up on the City's records as GO, not residential.
Discussion was held regarding the buildable land inventories and how these smaller parcels were
included in the inventories.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 4
City Planner Mark Metzger gave further clarification on this subject.
Councilor Lundberg asked if the City owned the easement or the property owner. She asked if
the property owner paid taxes on the easement.
Mr. Reesor said the easement was owned by the property owner and allowed certain uses. Right-
of way was owned by the City or County and was not calculated into the property owner's parcel
for tax purposes. Taxes were paid on easements.
Councilor Lundberg said ifthis was changed to GO, there was a potential for more tax revenue.
Mr. Reesor said it would most likely provide more taxes.
Councilor Lundberg asked ifthere were houses that would have to agree to street improvements.
Mr. Reesor said the street improvements were addressed in the site plan review. In a
development like this, the developers only made improvements fronting their property.
Improvement to the additional properties in the area were sometimes addressed through Local
Improvement Districts with approval of a certain percentage. In this case, it would likely just be
the portion along this property. Those would be issues that would be worked out through the
Site Plan Review. The applicant couldn't get Site Plan approval until they met all of the Code
requirements.
Councilor Lundberg asked if it could be a situation where only a portion ofthe block would have
sidewalks.
Mr. Reesor said that was correct. The City couldn't require sidewalks along the whole street. .
Councilor Pishioneri asked how much of the property near 18th and Q Street would be added to
the project. He asked about egress and ingress and if it would be off of Q Street.
Mr. Reesor said egress and ingress would be a Site Plan issue. The applicant would have to
work through the City Code.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was concerned about the number of trips and the curve in the road
at that location. He said traffic mitigation might need to be part of that plan.
Mr. Reesor said the traffic engineer looked at this and noted that at this level the proposal was
not considered significant enough to change the Metro Plan's compliance with Goal 12. The
City did look at access and traffic during the Site Plan review. If the developer wanted to
propose an access on Q Street, they would have to submit a traffic impact analysis to support
that. He referred to a past request to have access on Q Street by another applicant that was
denied.
Councilor Pishioneri said we didn't know what type of businesses would be going in or what
type of traffic.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 5
Mr. Reesor said at this level, staff looked at regional worse case scenarios by looking at all the
uses allowed. The traffic engineers felt the traffic trips were fine given the current infrastructure.
He noted other zone changes that would have significant impacts on traffic.
Mr. Grimaldi said the first reading on these ordinances would occur during tonight's Regular
Meeting.
2. Franklin Boulevard and Gateway/Beltline Project Funding.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt presented the staff report on this item. This is an
opportunity to provide Council with information regarding proposed work activities on both the
Franklin and Gateway/Beltline projects. These work activities will require contract amendment
and a new Architectural and Engineering Related Services contract. Cost, funding sources, and
work effort rationale is included inthe attached Council Briefing Memo.
The City currently has a Professional Services Contract with CH2M-Bill in the amount of
$556,000 to:
1. Refine the Gateway/Beltline project to a point where it can move forward for
Construction, and
2. Complete a Facility Plan for the Franklin Boulevard Corridor in Glenwood,
including concept consideration for the Franklin/McVay intersection.
The attached Council Briefing Memo describes staff's proposed changes to the current contract
and explains the need to enter into a second contract for work necessary to undertake a
Gateway/Beltline roadway design. Project funds are currently available from STP-U, Lane
Transit District and annexation agreement sources to cover increased cost.
Mr. Boyatt noted an error in the contract figure noted on the agenda item summary. The correct
amount was $566,000. He reviewed the discussion points in the Council Briefing Memo
included in the agenda packet, starting with Item 4. The first task in the contract for Franklin
Boulevard was to access the work program. This task would bring more of a public involvement
process that would have more iteration with the stakeholders and also a compressed time frame
of design and meeting with the Citizen Advisory Committee.
Discussion was held regarding charts for this type of item, and why it would have been difficult
to use them for this item due to the complexity of some of the issues.
Mr. Boyatt discussed Item 3. These were dollars that the City would have to spend in the design
process anyway to acquire the design base model. Staff was proposing to bring this into the
existing contract so the City could get the survey design model as soon as possible. The survey
design model would show specifically what was on the ground. This cost would be absorbed by
the project and would help to rush it through.
Mr. Boyatt discussed Item 2. This item was a cost the project would absorb after the work of the
current contract was done. Bringing it into this contract would enable the project to move
forward more quickly. He described the costs and the true increase to the project.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 6
Mr. Boyatt said the true increase was in Item 1. Staff was working with information that the
City had learned when developing the couplet project. They learned that the Environmental
Assessment (EA) addressed traffic that was forecast at that time, but development in Gateway
had accelerated the traffic in that area beyond estimates. The types of businesses going in were
better businesses, but generated more trips. In the EA, the cost identified for the couplet project
was between $20M-$22M in 2002 before construction costs increased dramatically. With
current prices, it was more likely that $22M was now on the low end of the estimate and that was
why staff was proposing to do some optimization now. Optimizing the EA was a basic process
of taking the current estimated volumes of 2008 and growing those on a trend line that agreed
with the EA trendline, and then looking to see where the system broke down first and what the
least cost, least impact, most beneficial solution would be for that problem. It would allow the
City to look at the elements within and outside the EA. Council's consideration of those
elements would determine other things. The City was still on the path of delivering the EA.
Focus meetings were taking place with property and business owners to discuss driveway
locations and crossover easements. The City could continue to pursue that path, but to fully
understand the advantages and disadvantages of the business decision by Council, this would
bring out the alternatives. Optimizing would also buy the City enough time to look at the future
of Gateway as it continued to evolve and grow. It was an increase of$176,000, about a forty
percent increase to the Gateway/Beltline contract, but it alone represented less than one percent
of the total project. Staff felt it was prudent to investigate it now.
Councilor Ballew asked about the Surface Transportation Program - Urban (STPU) funding.
Mr. Boyatt said the City did have it. He explained the amounts received by the City for different
projects.
Councilor Ballew asked about the meaning of photogrammetry.
Mr. Grile said it was mapping. He explained how they were created.
Councilor Lundberg said a lot of money had been spent on modeling and getting to the EA
couplet. She talked about the cost to get those access and rights of way. She felt the planning
horizons were too long and the couplet may end up getting thrown away and create something
that was more practical, longer term and more responsive to development. It was a better idea to
change it ahead oftime rather than going down a path that didn't work. It was a disappointment
to continue to spend extra dollars on these things. She would support the amendments.
3. Council Procedures Regarding Support Requests.
City Recorder Amy Sowa presented the staff report on this item. On April 2, Council discussed
a letter that had been received asking a Council member to write a letter of support for a
particular issue. It was determined that Council did not have an official process for handling
these types ofrequests. Council asked staff to prepare a process that could be used in these types
of situations and bring it back to Council for discussion. Attached was a draft process for
Council's consideration.
Ms. Sowa said if Council wanted to go forward with this as written or with any changes, it could
be incorporated in the Council Operating Policies and Procedures or as a separate policy.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 7
Councilor Pishioneri commented on #4. Everything else Council did was by Roberts Rules and
by votes which were recorded. He said endorsements were quite personal and he would like to
see the acceptance of these types of requests under the same guidelines as Roberts Rules. He
would not want his name attached to something that he was strongly opposed to. He asked that
only those that wanted to be associated with the letter have a line for their signature.
Councilor Ballew asked if the letter could just include the count of votes for and against, rather
than everyone that supported something signing the letter.
Discussion was held regarding the perception if a letter was sent out as being endorsed by the
Council, yet one or more Councilors were adamantly opposed to the subject matter.
Ms. Sowa suggested that if it was not unanimously supported, those Councilors that did support
the issue could send out their own letter.
Councilor Lundberg agreed.
City Attorney Joe Leahy suggested including a notation on the bottom of the letter stating the
names of the Councilors that voted "yay", "nay" and "abstained".
Council agreed with that suggestion.
Discussion was held regarding the types of requests Council received.
Councilor Lundberg said if it was unanimous, the letter could go out as such, and if not the letter
would list the votes.
Ms. Sowa asked if Council would like this included in the Council Operating Policies and
Procedures. Yes.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Sidney W. Leiken
Mayor
Attest:
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2007
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 4, 2007 at 7:06 p.m., with Council President
Lundberg presiding.
ATIENDANCE
Present were 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 Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Mayor Leiken was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council President Lundberg.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Krey Property Donation.
Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. Mrs. Millie Krey and her family
members representing property interests of the Krey Trust have reached agreement with the City
on the terms regardin~ the donation ofthe 0.9-acre property on the 4900 block on the southside of
Main Street. The donation agreement (Attachment 1 in the agenda packet) includes conveying
one-half the interest in the property to the City of Springfield with restrictions on how the
proceeds of any sale of the assets could be used by the City of Springfield.
The donation and a subsequent sale of the property (valued by recent appraisal at about $327,000)
would likely entail netting out some costs for legal services, and (based on a Level 1
Environmental Study) removal of asbestos tile and moldy debris, and other relatively incidental
costs. Initial estimates are $20-25,000 for these activities and these expenses would be deducted
from the proceeds after sale.
Chief Smith acknowledged the support of Mrs. Krey over the years and her most recent donation
of funds towards purchase of a Police dog.
Mr. Leahy noted the hard work done by the Police Department and the affection of Mrs. Krey in
wanting to help the Police Department. He discussed the patience of Mrs. Krey while legal
counsel worked through some ofthe legal issues around this property. He explained the other
property interest and how the proceeds would be separated and shared. This effort was a Millie
Kreyeffort. She had the idea and stuck with it while the attorneys and staff worked out the
details. It was a great benefit for the City.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes.
June 4, 2007
Page 2
Councilor Ballew thanked Millie Krey for her generosity. It was very appreciated by the City.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A Sl!;COND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO APPROVE A MOTION TO HAVE THE MAYOR SIGN AN
AGREEMENT BY MILLIE KREY REGARDING A RESTRICTED DONATION OF
PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FOR SUPPORT OF THE JUSTICE
CENTER AND POLICE SERVICES IN THE COMMUNITY OF SPRINGFIELD. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Purchase of Real Property.
. Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. The City's current plans for
the Justice Center Project identify the need for the City to lease or acquire additional land for
public and employee parking. On April 23, City staff discussed with Council the opportunity to
purchase the property located at 220 5th Street, located across the street to the west from City
Hall. The Council established financial parameters for the purchase and authorized staff to
proceed with the negotiations with the property owner. Staff has provided an offer to purchase
the property, within the Council guidelines, to the property owner and is requesting the Council's
authorization for the City Manager, upon acceptance by the seller, to sign the purchase contract.
Mr. Duey explained how the downpayment and subsequent payments would be made on this
property. The loan would be carried by Mr. Carter at seven percent interest. There was an early
pre-payment penalty often percent in the fIrst five years, decreasing after that to zero. Most of
the property was leased out, with the exception of a couple of areas. Staff was waiting for [mal
review from all parties and asking for Council's concurrence to move ahead with the contract.
Councilor Ballew asked about early payment penalties. She asked if it was possible to have those
penalties removed if Mr. Carter were to dispose of the contract and sell to someone else.
Mr. Duey said they could talk to Mr. Carter. Mr. Duey said he was not too concerned about the
first five years because of the existing leases during that time and the City would want to honor
those leases. After five years, the City had the ability to do whatever it wanted with the building.
The prepayment penalty would go down to eight percent in year six, and would decrease two
percent every year after that.
Mr. Leahy said times could change in the future and Mr. Carter might consider doing away with
that provision.
Councilor Ballew said she would like to consider a stipulation that if Mr. Carter no longer held
the contract, the prepayment penalties could be removed.
Mr. Leahy said they would ask Mr. Carter about that.
\
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT TO
PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 220 5TH STREET IN SPRINGFIELD.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 3
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Recognition of Millie Krey for Donation.
Police Chief Smith and Officer Charbonneau walked with Mrs. Krey to the front of the Council
Chambers.
Council President Lundberg said she was very happy to be the one to present this to Mrs. Krey
along with Chief Smith. Council President Lundberg read the following statement:
Millie Krey has been a long-time resident of Springfield. She and her late husband, Ken Krey,
have been strong supporters of the Springfield community and have always believed in the
importance of an effective Police Department providing for a safe and livable community. Millie
has been a much appreciated benefactor of the Springfield Police Department including previous
donations of time, energy and financial support for the Springfield K-9 Unit.
Tonight, we acknowledge and thank Mrs. Krey for her generous donation of one-half interest of
the property located at 4909, 4911 and 4915 Main Street to the City of Springfield for the use arid
support of the City of Springfield Police Department, and specifically for the support of the
proposed Springfield Justice Center (Police, Court and Jail Facility) currently proposed to be built
in the area bounded by A Street, C Street, Pioneer Parkway and 5th Street in downtown
Springfield. The City intends to sell the donated property and use the net proceeds from the sale
for support of Police services and the Springfield Justice Center as directed by donor Millie Krey.
'-
We present this plaque in honor of Mrs. Krey's generous gift and her support of the Springfield
community.
Mrs. Krey said she was just giving back to the community that had given so much to her and her
family.
Chief Smith said Mrs. Krey had been a long time supporter ofthe Police Department, putting the
best interests of the City in the forefront. He thanked Mrs. Krey for everything. .
CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM S.B. (Later changed
to S.a. - see below) REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND
o AGAINST.
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. May 14,2007 - Work Session
b. May 21, 2007 - Work Session
c. May 21, 2007 - Regular Meeting
d. May 29,2007 - Work Session
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 4
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
b. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract in the Amount of $159,785 with Clair
Company Inc~ for Special Inspection and Testing Services for the Justice Center Project.
c. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Cabo Grill, LLC, Located at 3344 Gateway
Street, Springfield, Oregon.
ITEMS REMOVED
City Attorney Joe Leahy said this was something Mike Harman from the Police Department had
worked through. He explained that the full document was not included in the Council packet.
The full contract was before Council now and had been reviewed by the City Attorney.
It was noted that the incorrect item was pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Mr. Leahy asked to correct the record to show it was 5.a. that was pulled from the Consent
Calendar.
5. a. Award the Subject Contract to Day Wireless Systems in the Amount of$47,415 for the
Regional Radio Project.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO APPROVE ITEM 5.B. AS MODIFIED AND CORRECT THE RECORD
TO SHOW THAT 5.A. WAS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ORIGINALLY. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit cOInments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available
at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may
not yield their time to others.
1. Concurrent Q Street Refinement Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Regarding
Property Near the Corner of 18th and Q Street.
ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 0 STREET REFINEMENT
PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING 1.17 ACRES OF LAND FROM MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO GENERAL OFFICE (GO) AND AMENDING THE
REFINEMENT PLAN TEXT TO ESTABLISH A POLICY AND CRITERIA FOR
LOCATING THE GENERAL OFFICE DESIGNATION WITHIN THE REFINEMENT
PLAN AREA (FIRST READING).
ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANC'E AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING
MAP BY REZONING 1.17 ACRES OF LAND IDENTIFIED AS LANE COUNTY
ASSESSOR'S MAP 17-03-25-24. TAX LOTS 3600.4700.4800.4900 AND 5000. FROM
MDR TO GO (FIRST READING).
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 5
City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The applicant is requesting
these amendments in order to pursue a future professional office building on the subject site. The
applicant chose to apply for the GO Zone and Refmement Plan designation because the City's
existing definition of the GO Zone designates it as appropriate for areas which serve as a
transition zone, providing a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial
development.
On May 15th, 2007, the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on the
subject applications (LRP2007-00012 & ZON2007-00011). Other than the applicant, there was
one additional testimonial at the public hearing. The testifying Springfield citizen noted that she
did not oppose the applications, but had questions about how future traffic issues would be
addressed. Staff responded by outlining the review procedures in the site plan review process, of
which the applicant would be required to adhere to during Site Plan review of a new professional
office building.
Dunng the Planning Commission deliberation, the Commissioners discussed the appropriateness
of the site as a future GO site. Discussion ensued regarding the location of adjacent Community
Commercial uses and how the existing high traffic volumes contributed to the sites undeslrable .
characteristics of remaining as a residential zoning district. Planning Commission discussion also
addressed the comparison of the site's characteristics in comparison to the definition of the GO
zone, and concluded that the site seemed appropriate for GO designation. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that both the Refmement Plan Amendment
and Zoning Map Amendment applications be sent to the City Council for consideration anq
approval.
Mr. Reesor noted the amended ordinances that had been distributed to Council during their work
session on this item. . .
Council President Lundberg opened the public hearing.
1. Paul K wake. 1867 17th Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. K wake said he owned property behind
the development and had sold the subject property to the former owner. He said the access
road approach on Q Street curve was usable and the site plan review could not stop that
access. He said he was concerned about putting a commercial building including access onto
Q Street. He discussed the danger of that particular curve. He said he was told there would
only be limited access from that site. This Council needed to understand that the approach
that was there now could stay. He was supportive of the development, but wanted Council to
know about the access.
Council President Lundberg said she had another Request to Speak card from Rick Satre,
representing the developer.
2. Scott McKee. 1742 Delrose Avenue.. Springfield. OR. Mr. McKee said he was the property
owner. He said he owned a company called the Quality Group and was interested in
expanding his business and putting an office building at 18th and Q Streets. He had sponsored
the American Legion team in Springfield and owned a business and lived here for ten years
and lived in Springfield for ten years. He said he understood Mr. Quake's concerns and
noted that they would not have access on Q Street. He spoke tonight to allow Council to put
a face to the business. He said he had a small fmancial planning business for twenty-five
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 6
years and was trying to expand from fourteen to twenty employees and needed a bigger
building. He said his company currently owned the building at 110 1 16th Street and had been
there since purchasing the building six years ago. He said he hired Satre and Associates to
help develop this site so his business could expand.
Councilor Pishioneri asked Mr. McKee ifhe would b~ vacating the business on 16th Street.
Mr. McKee said they would be moving from 16th Street.
3. Rick Satre 132 East Broadway. Suite 536. Eugene. OR. Mr. Satre said he was assisting Mr.
. McKee and speaking in favor of the applications. Council asked a number of very good
questions during the work session this evening regarding street vacation, street improvement,
access, traffic, trip generation, safety, design, landscape, setbacks, and neighborhood
compatibility. Planning and zoning was the first of many steps in the development process.
The site review would be the next step, which would address many of the questions brought
forward by Council. The Springfield Development Code and Engineering Design Standards
Manual from Springfield were two excellent documents. The GO zone included a well
defmed list of uses that could occur within that zone, including setback, landscape, visibility,
access and safety. He appreciated staff recommendation and the Planning Commission
unanimous recommendation of approval of both applications. He said he concurred with
suggested text amendments drafted by staff and included in the ordinance. The use of the GO
zone was appropriate in general because the Metro Plan allowed for small scale office uses
within the residentially designated areas such as the subject site. This type of amendment to
the Refinement Plan existed in many other places in the community of Springfield,
particularly in the Gateway neighborhood. Springfield's commercial land study noted there
was a shortfall of commercial land in Springfield. Although GO was not a commercial zone
and a commercial designation, it did help satisfy some of the commercial land supply need.
GO was an appropriate designation for this site because it was a transitional land use and
would serve as a buffer between the more intensive use of commercial and the less intensive
uses of residential.
Mr. Leahy said he received an inquiry from Councilor Pishioneri regarding Council review of this
matter. Mr. Leahy said he talked with the Planning Director. This was presently a Type II
procedure, which meant the appeal would go to the Planning Director; however, there was a
provision in the Type II that the Director may determine that the application should be reviewed
as a Type III decision. The Director was prepared to determine that in response to concerns
expressed by the Council if that was Council's direction. In that case, the Site Plan Review
would go to the Planning Commission as a public hearing to allow for public and neighborhood
input.
Council consensus was to go forward as Type III Site Plan Review.
Council President Lundberg closed the public hearing.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
2. Supplemental Budget Resolution.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 7
RESOLUTION NO. 07-23 - A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING RESOURCES AND
REQUIREMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING FUNDS: GENERAL. STREET. SPECIAL
REVENUE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. RIVERBEND DEVELOPMENT. FIRE
LOCAL OPTION LEVY. DRAINAGE CAPITAL PROJECTS. DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS. POLICE BUILDING BOND CAPITAL. STREET CAPITAL. SDC LOCAL
STORM IMPROVEMENT. SDC TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT. LOCAL
W ASTEW A TER OPERATIONS. REGIONAL WASTEWATER. AMBULANCE.
DRAINAGE OPERA TING. BOOTH-KELLY. REGIONAL FIBER CONSORTIUM.
INSURANCE. VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT. AND SDC ADMINISTRATION.
Budget Officer Bob Brew presented the staff report on this item. At various times during the
fiscal year the Council is requested to make adjustments to the annual budget to reflect needed
changes in planned activities, to recognize new revenues, or to make other required adjustments.
These adjustments to resources and requirements change the current budget and are processed
through supplemental budget requests scheduled by the Finance Department on an annual basis.
This is the last of four FY07 supplemental requests to come before Council. The supplemental
budget being presented includes adjusting resources and requirements in the General Fund, Street
Fund, Special Revenue Fund, Community Development Fund, Fire Local Option Levy Fund,
Drainage Capital Projects Fund, Development Projects Fund, Police Building Bond Capital Fund,
Street Capital Fund, SDC Local Storm Improvement Fund, SDC Transportation Improvement
Fund, Local Wastewater Operations Fund, Regional Wastewater fund, Ambulance Fund,
Drainage Operating Fund, Booth-Kelly Fund, Regional Fiber Consortium Fund, Insurance Fund,
Vehicle and Equipment Fund, and SDC Administration Fund. .
The City Council is asked to approve the attached Supplemental Budget Resolution.
The overall financial impact of the Supplemental Budget Resolution is to increase total
appropriations by $323,159.
Councilor Ballew asked for an explanation of the $IM change from Beltline to MLK Parkway.
Mr. Brew said PeaceHealth gave the City about $7M for a variety of projects. The area
concerned was the area where Beltline and MLK Parkway overlapped. Since both projects were
done, the books were being straightened out by applying the money to one project rather than the
other.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-23.
Mr. Grimaldi reminded Council to conduct the public hearing.
COUNCILOR WOODROW WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITHDREW HIS SECOND.
Council President Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 8
Council President Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WYLIE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-23. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
3. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (White - Case Number LRP2007-00016).
RESOLUTION NO. 07-24 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT
THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE
THE ANNEXATION.
City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. The property owner, Terry
White, has requested annexation of::!:15,888 square feet of property located at 4080 North Street.
The site currently contains one residence. The purpose of the annexation is to facilitate a
property partition and to allow the existing dwelling to connect with City sewer service. The
legal description of the property to be annexed is more particularly described in Attachment 1,
EXhibit A.
The City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate annexation upon receiving
consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory to be annexed and the
owners of more than half of the land to be annexed. Consent from all the property owners has
been given. Lane County Elections advises there are no registered electors at the subject
property. With Council approval, this resolution will be forwarded to the Lane Courity Local
Government Boundary Commission for further consideration.
The property to be annexed contains an existing house and is located inside the Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB). The current City limits run along the northern and eastern boundaries of the
site. The applicant requests annexation in order to connect the existing house to City sewer and
to facilitate partitioning the property in accordance with provisions ofthe Low Density
Residential (LDR) district.
In accordance with Springfield Development Code Article 6.030(2), the site already is (or can be)
served with key urban facilities and services, including but not limited to City utilities, police, fire
protection, library, parks and recreation, and schools. A full suite of public utilities are
immediately available to serve the subject property. An existing sanitary sewer line runs within
North Street along the frontage of the south property line. Additionally, there is a sanitary sewer
lateral stubbed into the northwest corner of the property adjacent to South Redwood Drive.
Because the required City utilities a,re immediately available to the property, it is the
determination of staff that an Annexation Agreement is not required for this annexation request.
. Council President Lundberg opened the public hearing;
No one appeared to speak.
Council President Lundberg closed the public hearing.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 9
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-24. THE MOTION PASSSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
4. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (Horton - Case Number LRP2006-00025).
RESOLUTION NO. 07-25 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT
THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE
THE ANNEXATION.
City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. The property owners, Don and
Lauren Horton, have requested annexation of approximately 1.40 acres of property located at 809
South 57th Street. The site currently contains one residence. The purpose ofthe annexation is to
facilitate subdivision ofthe property into nine residential lots. A portion of the property,
comprising approximately 0.14 acres, was ~dded to the tax lot through a recent property line
adjustment with tax lot 5103 to the north, which is inside the Springfield City limits. Therefore,
this 0.14 acre portion of tax lot 5300 is already within the City limits, and is excluded from the
area that is subject of the annexation request. The legal description of the property to be annexed
is more particularly described in Attachment 1, Exhibit A.
The City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate annexation upon receiving
consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory to be annexed and the
owners of more than half of the land to be annexed. Consent from all the owners has been given
and there are no registered electors at the property. With Council approval, this resolution will be
forwarded to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission for further
consideration.
The area to be annexed contains an existing house and abuts the current City limits which run
along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. The property that is subject of the
annexation request is located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and it is immediately
adjacent to the Springfield City limits. The applicant requests annexation in order to subdivide the
property into nine single family residential lots, consistent with provisions of the Low Density'
Residential (LDR) district. Existing utility connections are available to serve this property along
the South 5ih Street and South 58th Street frontages. Additionally, in accordance with
Springfield Development Code Article 6.030(2), the site can be served with key urban facilities
and services, including but not limited to City utilities, police, fire protection, library, parks and
recreation, and schools. Provision of public utilities to serve the future subdivision has been
detailed in an Annexation Agreement that has been negotiated with City staff and the applicant
(Attachment 4 included in the agenda packet).
Mr. Limbird noted that a portion of this property comprising of approximately 0.14 acres, was
added to this tax lot through a property line adjustment. That portion was inside the City limits
and not subject to the annexation request.
Councilor Ballew asked if the property was adjacent to City limits. Yes.
Councilor Ralston asked where they would get access.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 10
Mr. Limbird said along South 57th Street. He described the streets within the development.
Councilor Ralston said they seemed to be fairly small lots.
Mr. Limbird said all the lots met minimum frontage and area requirement of Springfield
Development Code. The plan before Council was a tentative plan.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the street would be City right-of-way. Yes. He asked if South 57th
was still a County Road. Yes. Councilor Pishioneri asked if that would be an issue regarding
connecting onto a County road regarding right-of-way.
Mr. Limbird said there could be further consideration for a partial annexation of right-of-way.
The current City limits were on the west boundary of South 5ih Street, then jogs across 5ih
Street to the east side of the right-of-way just north of this property. That had been developed to
City standards, so there was a possibility it could be amended to include portions of the right-of-
way. That would have to be discussed with the County.
Councilor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Councilor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-25. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
5. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (Nepute, Case Number LRP2007 -00017).
RESOLUTION NO. 07-26 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT
THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
APPROVES THE ANNEXATION BY EXPEDITED PROCESS.
City Planner Steve Hopkins presented the staff report on this item. The Property Owner, John
Nepute, has requested annexation of approximately 1.03 acres of property located at 1540
Kellogg Road. The subject territory is described as Assessor's Map Number, 17-03-34-22, Tax
Lot 800 and more accurately described in Attachment 1, Exhibit A. The site contains one
residence. After annexation, the land owner intends to subdivide the property into lots for single
family dwellings in conformance with the LDR (Low Density Residential) district.
Article 6.030(2) ofthe Springfield Development Code requires that territories considered for
annexation must be provided with "key urban facilities and services", as defined in Metro Plan
Policy 8.a, Page II-B-4. Among these key urban services are water, sewer, storm water facilities,
streets, electricity, parks, firelemergency services, and schools. Based on analysis and comments
from the service providers, staff finds that all key urban services are available to serve the
territory.
The City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate annexation upon receiving
consent in writing from a majority ofthe electors registered in the territory to be annexed and the
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 11
owners of more than half of the land to be annexed. Consent from the property owner, who is
also the registered elector, has been given.
Two sanitary sewer laterals have been stubbed to the property line to facilitate future connection,
pending annexation. The property to be annexed is located within the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) and is adjacent to the Springfield City Limits on all sides. The site already has most city
services, including SUB water and electricity. The site can be served with the minimum range of
urban services including but not limited to police, fire protection, library, parks and recreation,
and schools.
Acquisition of right of way along the subject site's southerly boundary can be acquired when the
site is partitioned or further developed. At that time, the site will be improved with curb, gutter
and sidewalk. No annexation agreement is necessary.
The City Council Resolution will be forwarded to the Lane County Local Government Boundary
Commission. The owners are requesting the Expedited Annexation procedure of the Boundary
Commission.
Council President Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Council President Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-26. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Craig Sheets. General Delivery. Mr. Sheets said he traveled and spoke to City Councils
around the nation. He said the last place he spoke was in Bend, Oregon. There was a
subterranean meth lab in Bend and there was also a large lab in Oregon located in Eugene.
He said it was a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) subterranean meth lab. He said he went
to the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) in Salt Lake City, Utah and spoke with an agent
who told Mr. Sheets he was right on the mark. He explained how the drugs were transported
and delivered. This had been documented by the FBI as well as federal judges. He noted that
railroads were also transporting cocaine. He discussed other locations with these
subterranean meth labs. He said he would like City Council members to write to Federal
judges about these issues, as well as utility companies. He said Council could use his name
in their letters if they chose. The first three letters in Dealer were DEA.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Robert and Daisy Lind, 2359 3151 Street, Springfield, Oregon
Regarding the Pierce Property (will be included in the June 18 packet when Marcola Meadow
is brought back to Council).
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 12
2. ' Correspondence from Patricia Keepers, 745 N. 71 sl Street, Springfield, Oregon Regarding the
Home Depot Proposal.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO APPROVE THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Historic Commissioner Confirmation and Appointment.
Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. On May 29, 2007,
the Council interviewed and tentatively re-appointed John Tuttle to serve his second, four-
year appointment on the Springfield Historic Commission.
John has an architectural design business in Springfield where he specializes in re-design,
remodeling, and construction of residential structures. He is a property owner and resident
living within the Washburne Historic District.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY
COUNCILOR WYLIE TO RE-APPOINT JOHN TUTTLE TO THE SPRINGFIELD
HISTORIC COMMISSION WITH A TERM TO EXPIRE APRIL 30, 2011. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Woodrow invited everyone to attend the K-9 Olympics on June 16 starting
at noon, at the Regional Community Center on 32nd Street. He said it was a terrific
event.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Leahy said he and Bob Duey had worked with Don Carter on the purchase of Mr. Carter's
property. Mr. Carter was driven by a mission to do something for the City of Springfield. He
encouraged Council to thank Mr. Carter when they saw him for his generous donation through
this transaction. He deserved the Council's thanks.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:54 p.m.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Page 13
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Sidney W. Leiken
Mayor
Attest:
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JUNE 11,2007
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 11,2007 at 6:22 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, and Woodrow.
Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorneys Joe Leahy and Matt Cox, City
Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Pishioneri was absent (excused).
1. Telecommunications Ordinance Update.
Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. The City's
current telecommunications ordinance, which reverted to its 1997 form when the Utility Tax was
repealed, is in need of updating. In addition, it is appropriate to modify the ordinance to account
for the recent decision of the Federal Communications decision on franchising of competitive'
cable television providers.
It is timely to make housekeeping revisions to the City's telecommunications ordinance to assure
. that it continues to comply with recent interpretations of Section 253 of the Telecommunications'
Act of 1996. In addition, it is timely to modify the ordinance to accommodate the actions of the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in providing alternative cable television providers
an accelerated path to access to public rights of way to provide their services. Staff will review
the draft ordinance and respond to questions from the Council. .
Mr. Goodwin explained some of the items that needed to be updated within the ordinance. He
discussed the appeals in the courts regarding sections in the current ordinance. He said there
were a couple of other issues the City was dealing with. He explained. This ordinance treats all
utilities the same, but this was not the Utility Tax. This only dealt with those companies that had
physical things in the right-of-way. He said the changes in the ordinance were to get away from
the franchise model. He explained how the change was made in the ordinance and how it
protected the City. The proposed ordinance did not deal with certain issues related to cable TV,
specifically obligations to serve the entire community rather than limit service to specific
sections of the City, and any obligation to provide public, educational, and governmental
("PEG") channels for use of the public. He explained further. To address this issue, he
suggested adding those provisions to the ordinance. That could be done now in the ordinance he
would bring forward for a public hearing, or after the FCC ruling in October or November. He
felt it made more sense to add that language in now, but it was Council's choice.
Mr. Goodwin recognized Mr. Robert Schroeter from Comcast who was in the audience. He
discussed an issue currently between Comcast and the City regarding digital voice, a form of
. City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 11, 2007
Page 2
telephone service. The City was telling Comcast that under their franchise, they didn't have the
right to provide telephone service. He eXplained why that was the City's position. He said he
told Comcast they needed to get a franchise for that service. The ordinance would not make any
difference in regard to that issue. Mr. Goodwin reminded Council that this was not the Utility
Tax. Mr. Goodwin had talked with the Chief Petitioner that had opposed the Utility Tax to
explain these changes. The Chief Petitioner understood what the City was doing.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the phone service provided by Com cast was through the same cable
as the internet. Yes.
Mayor Leiken said he was comfortable with the recommended action. He said franchises are
decreasing and Senator Wyden was pushing it that way. He said this presented an opportunity.
As technology continued to expand, the idea of hard wires in the ground would soon disappear.
The City needed to continue to look for opportunities for revenue stream. He asked if there was
a possibility of creating a zone, similar to Enterprise Zones, with in lieu of instead of fees for
companies that do business in Springfield. He said he was disappointed with the National
League of Cities because they were not looking at what cities could do to work on this issue in
the future, but just to protect what had been in place for years. He acknowledged that Mr.
Goodwin was one of the top experts in the State. He asked for Mr. Goodwin's thoughts on how
cities could approach this.
Mr. Goodwin said the reason telephone, broadband or cable companies succeeded was oecause
citizens had gathered together in a government, a city, a small location where it was
economically viable for them to make a success. Universal service funds were still in place to
deal with the costs of extended service in these areas. The cities charge to these companies
ought to relate to the fact that the companies could only prosper because we combined enough
citizens together in a small space. It was important to understand the relationship between the
density of population with profits of the companies that were selling these communication
servIces.
Mayor Leiken said the smart corporations would work closely with the local government so the
relationship would be a positive one. He appreciated all that Comcast and our other corporate
sponsors gave to the community, but in order for communities to provide quality service, those
businesses needed to be willing partners to pay in the City fund. He said he was not sure how to
get there, but encouraged working with the companies to fmd a way. He noted that Springfield
did a nice job of reaching out and partnering. Springfield had the opportunity to be a leader in
this area. Using the talents of Mr. Goodwin and other staff to negotiate some long-range
opportunities with these companies made sense. He appreciated Mr. Goodwin's feedback.
Councilor Ballew said if it got to a point where physical things were no longer put in the ground
and the City may need to go to a straight business tax. She asked if the City owned air space.
Mr. Goodwin said we did not.
Council asked that Mr. Goodwin put it all in one package as recommended and bring it back to
Council.
ADJOURNMENT
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 11, 2007
Page 3
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Sidney W. Leiken
Mayor
Attest:
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
"