Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2009 Regular City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16,2009 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 16,2009 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. AITENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Lundberg, Wylie, Leezer, Simmons and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Bill Van Vactor, City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Children's Bookmark Context Winners 2009 Library Manager Barbara Thompson presented the eight young artists chosen as the winners of the Library's 2009 Children's Bookmark Contest to the Council. For 29 years now, the Springfield Public Library had held a boo~ark contest for grades kindergarten through middle school. This year, 350 students created original bookmarks and entered the contest. All their designs, about books, reading, libraries or the year's theme, "Free to Read!", were currently displayed in the children's department. The winners for this year's contest were: Elementary Kindergarten: Bella Navarro 1 sl grade: Tiana Littlejohn 2nd grade: Silas Kress 3rd grade: Whitney Jorgensen 4th grade: Cody Fuller 5th grade: Carmelita Ochoa-Wright Middle School 6th grade: Megan Borns 8th grade: Savannah Knebel Ms. Thompson distributed laminated copies of the winning bookmarks to the Mayor and Council. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 162009 Page 2 2. Employee Recognition: John Umenhofer, 25 Years of Service. City Manager Gino Grimaldi acknowledged John Umenhofer for his 25 years of service with the Springfield Police Department. Mr. Grimaldi noted Sergeant Umenhofer's passion for his community and profession. Mr. Grimaldi discussed some of the events Sergeant Umenhofer had been part of in the Police Department. He presented Sergeant Umenhofer with a plaque as recognition. Sergeant Umenhofer said it had been a privilege working for the City with the support of the community. Councilor Pishioneri said he and Sergeant Umenhofer started their careers at the same time. CONSENT CALENDAR IT W AS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 1. Claims a. Approval of the October 2009 Disbursements for Approval. 2. Minutes a. November 2,2009 - Work Session b. November 2, 2009 - Regular Meeting c. November 9,2009 - Work Session 3. Resolutions a. RESOLUTION NO. 09-48 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD TO OPEN A BANK ACCOUNT AT USNB FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANAGING THE INMATE TRUST ACCOUNT FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL JAIL. b. RESOLUTION NO. 09-49 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING A DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES POLICY. 4. Ordinances a. ORDINANCE NO. 6249 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4.1-11O.B. 4.3- 11O.A, 4.3-llO.B, AND 6.1-110 OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCORPORATE THE ADOPTED STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, BY REFERENCE, AND DEFINING THE TERM STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE : 5. Other Routine Matters City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 16 2009 Page 3 a. Approval of the Franklin Boulevard Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Springfield and Lane Transit District and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement on Behalf of the City. ITEMS REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. 1. Adoption of Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis, Case Number LRP2007 -00030. RESOLUTION NO.2 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING THE 2009 PRELIMINARY SPRINGFIELD RESIDENTIAL LAND A-ND HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS IN FULFILLMENT OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO "COMPLETE" THE PRELIMINARY INVENTORY, ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION BEFORE JANUARY 1. 2010. Planning Supervisor,Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. On October 20,2009 the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to receive testimony on the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. After consideration of oral and written testimony and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission forwarded a recom.-nendation to the City Council to adopt the analysis, with one typographical error correction - page iii, last paragraph, third sentence was amended to change 493 acres to 463 acres. The fmdings and conclusions of the study indicated that 5,980 addition<l:l units would be needed to provide a 20-year supply of housing to meet Springfield's needs and that the housing mix (single family vs. multi-family dwellings) would need to change to meet shifting population demographics. The study provided technical analysis to determine the amount of land that would be required to provide for the needed dwelling units, based on the inventory of land available under existing Metro Plan residential designations, Plan policies, and statutory provisions for making such a determination. The Study concluded that the available supply of residential buildable lands in Springfield and the metro urban area east ofI-5 would not provide a 20-year supply ofland to meet the housing needs, density and mix under current plan designations and policies. Springfield had a residentia11ands deficit to overcome for this new 20-year plan period and must next determine how to address that deficit. Ms. Pauly said notice of tonight's public hearing was published in the Register Guard, City Planning Website on November 6,2009, and was sent out to a list of interested parties. She said the staff report was included as Attachment 1 of the agenda packet and the City's response to the testimony received was Attachment 2. Some new comments from Steve and Sheri Tofflemoyer were received after that hearing date and were included as Attachment 6 ofthe agenda packet. Those comments were directed to the UGB alternatives analysis. Ms. Pauly said lIB3337 mandated that the City conduct a residential )ands inventory study by December 31,2009, and to subsequently identify individual UGBs for Springfield and Eugene. She explained what the residential lands inventory needed to include~ The land inventory needs City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 16 2009 Page 4 analysis was performed by ECONorthwest, a consultant for the City, in conjunction with City staff and the stakeholders committe~. A summary of the planning process was included in the agenda packet as Attachment 1, page 121, and was documented in the record. The findings and conclusions of the study indicated that Springfield would need an additional 5,980 estimated units of housing and that our needed housing mix would need to change to provide for the project population demographics. As discussed during the work session earlier in the evening, the constraints data was continuing to be refmed. Staff was recommending that the Council continue this public hearing until December 7 in order for staff to bring additional data. Ms. Pauly said the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis was consistent with the relevant Statewide planning goals, Oregon Revised Statutes, and Oregon Administrative Rules that governed the requirements for the inventory and analysis necessary to make the needs determination. No amendment to the Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) was proposed in this action. Adoption of the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis established a factual basis for subsequent amendments to the Metro Plan involving the creation of separate UGBs and separate land inventories for Springfield and Eugene. Staff would bring draft policies in January 2010 that would be incorporated in a new Refinement Plan for all of Springfield. At that time, they would move forward with the alternatives analysis for the UGB study, coming to Council with land use efficiency measures and determining if expansion of the UGB was needed. Mayor Leiken reminded the Council and the audience that tonight's resolution did not expand the UGB. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. 1. Mia Nelson, 975 W. 5th #5, Eugene, OR. Ms. Nelson was repre~enting Landwatch Lane County. Ms. Nelson said everyone agreed that they did not like to go to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on appeal. In that spirit, she asked Council to accept her comments as suggestions of how this document could be made better and they could move forward in agreement instead of conflict. There were several things wrong with the study. The first was that there were a number of non-residential uses, such as parks and schools that were needed and were identified in the study. The problem was the study assumed that all of those uses would go on the buildable residentia11and. City staff didn't dispute her contention, and the only defense offered was that it was a good idea to have parks and other facilities mixed in with other residential. She agreed with that, however, page 5 of the memo stated, "There are 474 acres of park land within the UGB. Of this, 381 acres (80%) are designated park and open space in the Metro Plan". This study assumed no future parks would be located on park land, but would instead take up buildable residentia11and, which she felt was unreasonable. Her second concern was that the study assumed no parks could be built on lands over twenty- five percent sloped; however, there were many parks in the City that were over twenty-five percent slope, including a 100 acre park recently completed. in the Mountaingate community. She didn't feel that was reasonable. The third concern was that the study didn't consider that Willamalane had quite a bit of park land (about one-third) outside the UGB which did provide park service for Springfield residents. This study assumed that those lands were not there to serve, and budgeted more land to serve future residents. She did not find that reasonable. Her fmal concern was that the study assumed that no land over twenty-five percent slope could site homes. It seemed they were considering about 1,000 acres as unbuildab1e.' , City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 162009 Page 5 2. Dan Egan, 850 N 6th Street, Soringfie1d, OR. Mr. Egan said he served as the Executive Director of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce, and had been active on the Commercial Industrial Buildable Land (CIBL) process and Springfield's new UGB. This had been a very conservative approach, and the City was doing a responsible job that was mandated by the State. They had approached this very carefully with a lot of efficiencies and iooking at flexibility for the future out twenty years. Much of this would be driven by the market over the next twenty years, as it had been in the past. Our job was to' look at how best to use the existing UGB and look at how best to provide for jobs and housing both inside and outside the UGB. He had been impressed with the consultant, and noted the number of people that had participated. All had been heard. He asked Council to move forward to meet the January 1, 2010 deadline. People that would come to Springfield in the next ten to twenty years would appreciate that we took considerable amount of time to do it right. He thanked Coun,cil for their work. ' 3. Sid Friedman, Reoresenting 1000 Friends of Oregon, 189 Liberty Street NE, Salem, OR. A document was distributed to the Mayor, Council and staff from 1000 Friends. Mr. Friedman recognized the considerable amount of work that had gone into the draft before Council. He noted several concerns. At the Planning Commission level, several Planning Commissioners also had some concerns, but were assured this was a work in process and the analysis would most likely change as it moved forward. He asked that Council direct the changes as appropriate prior to adopting the analysis on December 7. He said they felt the analysis overestimated the amount of land Springfield would need, underestimated the capacity within the existing UGB, and most importantly could lead to a plan that wouldn't provide for housing that met the needs of Springfield's current and.future residents. It could undercut Springfield's efforts to revitalize and redevelop downtown and Glenwood. Their technical concerns addressed in the letter would be worked out, but the policy questions were appropriate for the Springfield City Council to focus on as the policy making body. The analysis did an excellent job of documenting that the historical mix of housing in Springfield had not met the housing needs of Springfield residents to buying houses that were affordable. The current analysis documented that, but suggested a housing mix that allocated sixty percent of future housing to the lowest density residential zone. They felt that was the wrong policy and asked Council to ask staff to allocate more housing to the more affordable medium and high-density housing. Park land was essential for the livability of any community, but a huge amount ofthe projected residentia11and deficit was a result of the assumption that all future park land must be buildable land. That was inconsistent with historical record in Springfield. Wil1ama1ane's plan allocated a considerable amount of parks and natural areas and trails which would be well suited in some of the constrained areas. 4. George Grier, 1342 Y266th Street, Soringfie1d, OR. Mr. Grier presented a document regarding the East Main Street Planning that was passed around to the Mayor and Council to review. A copy was maintained for the record. Mr. Grier said he was a board member and treasurer of Lane County Farm Bureau, had served on the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAe) to the Commercial Industrial Lands Inventory and the CAC for the System Development Charge (SDC) analysis. The study before Council was a very complicated document driven by a deadline. On the CAC's that he had served on, it was constantly undergoing re-ana1ysis as staff had indicated. It was not a vision for the future. That was the job of the Mayor and Council as policy makers. The Farm Bureau had been concernea since land use law came into existence in Oregon. They were concerned about any expansiori of the UGB that might unnecessarily take part of farm land. They worked with the University of Oregon (UotD) to look at alternatives to allow the City to continue to meet its economic and housing needs City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 162009 Page 6 inside its existing UGB. He commended staff on the excellent work they had done in Glenwood regarding redevelopment planning that woulp create a vibrant economic base, and also meet housing needs by taking an area that was underuti1ized. They envisioned this could happen on east Main Street in a robust way if Council took it as a vision for the future. He would like the Councii to consider some alternatives hefore pushing out the UGB. He was encouraged by staff's comments that this document was a work in progress and could potentially be revised. He was concerned about the cost to expand the infrastructure in the current UGB, and was not sure how the City would be able to afford to expand further. He didn't feel the study said the City needed to build outside our UGB. He thanked Council for their time. Mayor Leiken said the record would remain open until December 7. Mr. Mott said the record should remain open for the next seven to ten day for purposes of entering information and allowing staff time to prepare the new information on December 7 when Council was scheduled to make their decision. Michael Farthing, P.O. Box 10126, Eugene, Oregon, a member of the audience, said he was counting on the hearing remaining open until December. 7 Councilor Simmons asked how the record could remain open until December 7 if the Council was to take action that evening. Mr. Gri1e said staff would like the hearing continued to December 7 so additional information could be considered at that time. The statute required Council make a determination by December 31, 2009. That determination was not a land use action nor appealable to LUBA. All of this information would be brought back to Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners as such time as Springfield came forward with a decision to propose a UGB expansion. Council could consider whether or not they were prepared to make a decision on December 7. The statue required the decision be made by December 31. Mr. Farthing said if new information was provided by December 7, the public should have the right to respond to that new information. Mr. Van Vactor said if new information came in, staff could prepare a report for the packet and citizens could respond on December 7. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. Shawn Hyland, 3535 Grand Vista Drive, Springfield, OR. Mr. Hyland said he was here to talk about the cost to develop in Springfield, specifically site review costs. When he submitted for a site review last week for another business park similar to that which they owned on Main Street, the site review costs were calculated for the size of his project on impervious surface at a cost of $4,222, plus $317 per thousand square feet. That totaled $102,783 for a site review. Paying a person $48/hour, that amount would equate to one person working on this for 265 days nonstop. That seemed excessive. After that cost, before a fmal site review was approved, they would pay ten percent of that cost ($10,000). He felt it was an exorbitant amount of money for something that would bring business into Springfield. They were asking to build a project on land that was appropriately zoned light medium industrial. If they were to build this project on land they already owned in Eugene, a site plan City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 16 2009 Page 7 review would not be required. If they were required to have a site review in Eugene, the cost would be $5,800. The Hyland Company had invested about $100,000 in professional fees, and still had no building design or permits. His company was invested in Springfield, he grew up in Springfield and their business was in Springfield. He would like Council to take a hard look at the fees charged to developers. There seemed to be a mass of over-regulation, and they would like to see Springfield get back to a business friendly community. 2. Michael Reeder, 800 Willamette Street, Suite 800, Eugene, OR. Mr. Reeder said he represented Hyland Business Park LLC, John and Shawn Hyland. He distributed a letter to the Mayor and Council. He spokc regarding the site review fees. The project Hyland had been working on for many months was a project Springfield could be proud of. Time and money had been spent preparing the application for site review. When he was told of the cost to process the site review, he was alarmed. He felt application fees for all site reviews were too high. They were bad policy, bad economics for the City, and violated State law. It also violated the City Goals for 2005-2010. Site review was generally very low on the land use ladder. He prepared a list of jurisdictions in the State of Oregon and their fees for site or design review. The combined average for the ten cities listed was $4700. He spoke on how they believed Springfield's fees violated State law, ORS 227.175(1) which stated "the application permit fees should be based on that actual cost to process those fees, or the average cost to process those fees". He felt $102,000 for this site review application was unreasonable and violated State law. They were here tonight to provide constructive criticism and suggestions for the City. He and the Hylands would be happy to work with staff and the City Attorney to develop something that passed scrutiny under State law and was good and appropriate for the City of Springfield. 3. John Hv1and, 89006 Whitewater Road, Springfield, OR Mr. Hyland said he had lived in Springfield all of his life and always felt that Springfield was open for business and he was proud to be here. He felt since PeaceHealth and Wa1-Mart arrived in Springfield, the City lost sight of what local developers could pay. He referred to the list in Mr. Reeder's letter. He had always been proud to say he worked and lived in Springfield and had done a lot for the City with their work on the Jail and different schools, and he took this as a slap in the face. The big push for big development was over and maybe they needed to trim staff back so they could afford not to charge these types of fees. Something was not right. Over the years they had been proud to say they lived and worked in Springfield, and that Springfield was open for business. If something wasn't done, he would move the business park to Eugene where it would cost him $5,000 in fees rather than $100,000. Mayor Leiken asked staff to provide information on this topic. Mr. Grimaldi said staff would look at the information provided, as well as historical perspectives and policy issues. Staff would then talk to Council leadership and provide a memo or schedule a work session to discuss it with the Council. Mayor Leiken asked that be done in a timely manner. Mr. Grimaldi said staff would try to get information to the Council before their winter break. Councilor Wylie asked for information on why our fees were so high compared to other communities. City of Springfield Council' Regular Meeting Minutes November 162009 Page 8 Councilor Simmons said the City needed to be cautious since Hyland has representation from legal counsel. Information was needed by the City's legal counsel before responding. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence from Mr. R.F. Peterson, 3624 Cherokee Drive, Springfield, Oregon Regarding the Local Improvement District (LID). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO ACCEPT 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. Springfield Library Advisory Board Appointment. Library Director Rob Everett presented the staff report on this item. Mr. Lian was the incumbent in this Board position and was the current Chair of the Board. His term expired on. December 31 S\ 2009. He was the sole applicant from this recruitment. The Library Board reviewed all applications and interviewed Trevor Lian on November 3rd, 2009. Mr. Lian indicated his desire to serve a second 4 year term ending December 31,2013. He is a parent, educator, private business person, and Library patron. He and his family reside in the Thurston area. Trevor had been an enthusiastic and effective member of the Board as well as serving as the Board chair this past year. Following a formal interview conducted on November 3rd, 2009 the Board voted unanimously to recommend his reappointment. Mayor and Council reviewed applications at the Nov. 9 Work Session and by consensus, directed staff to bring this forward tonight for formal appointment. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO APPOINT TREVOR LIAN TO THE SPRINGFIELD LffiRARY ADVISORY BOARD WITH A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31,2013. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. b. Budget Committee Appointments. Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. The City Council interviewed candidates for the Budget Committee in work session on November 09th. Current vacancies are for Wards 2, 5, and 6. No candidates applied for Ward 2. One candidate was interviewed for Ward 5 and two candidates were interviewed for Ward 6. The City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 162009 Page 9 Council agreed to appoint Ken Hutchison to the Ward 5 position for a three year term expiring December 31, 2012. The Council also agreed to appoint Paul Selby to the Ward 6 position for a three year term expiring December 31, 2012. Staff would re-advertise immediately for the recruitment of a Springfield citizen for the Budget Committee from Ward 2 Mr. Duey reminded Council that their mid-year Budget Committee meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, December 1. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCJLOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO APPOINT KEN HUTCmSON TO THE WARD 5 POSITION OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WITH A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31,2012. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO APPOINT PAUL SELBY TO THE WARD 6 POSITION OF THE , BUDGET COMMI~TEE WITH A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31,2012. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Business from Council a, Committee Reports - There were none. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (4851, 4857 & 5001 Franklin Boulevard; Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lots 3000, 3100, 3200 & 3300; arid Map 18-03-02-32, Tax Lot 3800) Case Number C SP 2009 - LRP2009-00009. ORDINANCE NO. 6250 - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, LANE COUNTY METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER SERVICE DISTRICT, AND WILLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT: AND WITHDRAWING THE SAME TERRITORY .. FROM THE GLENWOOD WATER DISTRICT Planning Supervisor Jim Donovan presented the staff report on this item. The City Council conducted a public hearing and gave first reading to the annexation ordinance on November 2, 2009. No testimony was submitted at the public hearing meeting. Upon second reading, the City Council could act on the annexation request and adopt or not adopt the annexation ordinance. The annexation request was submitted on August 14,2009 (Attachment 1, Exhibit B of the agenda packet). The subject annexation area was mostly vacant industrial land located between McVay Highway and the west bank of the Willamette River. The site contained a two-story office and maintenance shop building that faced McVay Highway. The requested annexation area was about 38.28 acres in size and was contiguous with the Springfield City limits as defmed in ORS 222.111 (1). An annexation agreement that addressed urban service provision and fmancing responsibility between the City and the property owners was attached (Attachment 1, Exhibit C of the agenda packet). The Staff Report (Attachment 1, J;':xhibit D of the agenda packet) included an analysis of the annexation request and recomm~nded Council action. Maps I City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 16 2009 Page 10 and a legal description of the annexation area were included as Attachment I, Exhibit A of the agenda packet. The City Council was authorized by ORS Chapter 222 and SDC Article 5.7-100 to accept, process, a..'1d act on annexation requests. If approved, the annexation would become effective 30 days after signature by the Mayor consistent with SDC 5.7-155 and ORS 222.040, 222.180, and 222.465. The annexation area was currently zoned Light Medium Industrial (LMI) and was located inside the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB). Urban services were available at or near the west boundary ofthe subject site, or could be extended to serve the property. The total assessed value of the requested annexation area was listed as $1,242,796 according to Lane County Assessment and Taxation records and would be expected to increase over time following annexation. Recommendation: The Director's recommendation to the City Council was to (a) approve the annexation of territory to the City of Springfield, Willamalane Park and Recreation District, and Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District; and (b) withdraw the same annexation territory from the G1enwood Water District. Mr. Donovan addressed an error noted by Councilor Simmons in the staff report regarding solid waste services. Councilor Simmons said as long as the Annexation Agreement was correct regarding garbage service, he was fme. He just wanted the staff report corrected. Mr. Donovan said to address the error, the following changes would be made: · Attachment 1, Exhibit D, Page 6 under Solid Waste Management ./ The fIrst sentence would be changed by deleting the word 'residential' ./ The second sentence would be deleted. ./ A period would be place in the third sentence after 'solid waste disposal service can be provided' . Mr. Donovan explained the changes and how they correctly reflected City Code. He also noted that although there was reference to the ordinance in the staff report, it did not rise to the level that would prevent adoption of the ordinance. Councilor Simmons said he didn't want an issue if someone read the staff report out of context. Mr. Donovan said he appreciated Councilor Simmons comments. Mayor Leiken noted that Randy H1edik was in the audience representing Wi1dish. He thanked Mr. Hledik for his patience, and thanked the Wildish family. Mr. Hledik thanked the City. It had been a long process, but they worked through it and were ready to move forward. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6250 WITH THE ,PREVIOUSLY STATED CHANGES BY STAFF. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 162009 Page 11 Mayor Leiken thanked staff for their work on this item. 2. Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. RESOLUTION NO. 09-50 - A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL NATURAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN. Deputy Chief of Operations for Fire and Life Safety, Mark Walker presented the staff report on this item. The cities of Springfield and Eugene updated their Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP) between July and October 2009 and were now required to approve the plan. The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) received grant funding to assist with the Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan update. The cities expected to receive "pre- approval" pending adoption from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by the end of November 2009. In order to receive' formal approval' for the addendum, the cities must adopt the addendum via resolution. Formal approval allowed both cities to apply for federal disaster mitigation funds. A current mitigation plan was also required for some FEMA mitigation grants. The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) would facilitate communication between both cities, Oregon Emergency Management, and FEMA. A formal approval letter would then be sent to both City Councils once the formal approval process was complete. The Mayor and Council received a memo describing the approval process with a copy of the plan attached in their October 29 Communication Packet. Note: Mitigation Plans were non-regulatory in nature, and did not set forth new policy. Mr. Walker noted that the plan allowed for two things: the ftrst was the safety and well being of the community by preparing for disasters; and the second was to allow us to be eligible for grant funding. Councilor Simmons said when Council first received the plan in the Communication Packet, he found a defect in the process. The plan he read over in Fire and Life Safety (F&LS) said it would cost a certain amount for infrastructure replacement in the event of a subduction zone earthquake. He felt the level of damage from such an incident was grossly understated. He noted that both Eugene and Springfield City Halls would collapse in such an event. He didn't want to be on record supporting faulty estimates of value in case we needed to apply to FEMA for money in the event of such a disaster. He referred to the section in the binder for 'things to do' which referenced the inundation zone. Those were the plan maps submitted by the Corps of Engineers years ago that showed what the elevations would be in the event of a failure of reservoirs. The report said those plans and maps were not here yet, but those had been on file since the mid- 1990's. He commended staffs effort, but felt there were missing components. He wanted the Council majority to vote yes because it was required, but he would vote no because of the defects. This plan was a work in progress and he wanted Council to move forward. Mr. Walker said he had brought Adam Crawford from the Oregon Partnership of Disaster and Resilience who was a key member of the team who could address Councilor Simmons' question City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 162009 Page 12 on the earthquake damage. The Corps of Engineers was updating their inundation maps and that was why they were not in the current plan. The City's GIS department would have those available. He agreed that the plan was designed to be a work in progress. In the plan, they had identified that the Lane Preparedness Coalition (which he served on as the Vice Chair) would review the plan on a regular basis. This plan was meant to be a living, working document. Councilor Simmons said in reading the minutes from the meeting, he was impressed by the level of staff work. Springfield's first responders were top of the line. Mr. Crawford said the numbers regarding infrastructure came from the United States Geological Survey, as well as the Department of Oregon Geology and Mineral Industries. He agreed that they had undervalued the damage that would be incurred. Those numbers were approvab1e and hard and fast. The inundation maps were being updated by the Army Corps of Engineers, and they hoped to get those shortly in conjunction with the City of Springfield and the City of Eugene, to address dam inundation and a wide variety of other hazards. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 09-50 . THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (SIMMONS). BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:05 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa Attest: Ci~~