The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/14/1993 Work Session . . . .l City of Springfield Work Session Council Meeting MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1993 The City of Springfield Council met in the Springfield City Hall, Meeting Room 2, 225 N. Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 14, 1993, at 6:05 p.m. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Morrisette, Councilors Maine, Beyer, Shaver, Walters (6:10) and Burge (6:20). Councilor Schanz was absent due to illness. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, and members of staff. 1. MPC Conflict Resolution for Metro Plan Amendment Process Mr. Kelly introduced the item and gave the Council background information on the last Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting. Development Services Director Susan Daluddung framed options that have been or could be presented to MPC regarding conflicts to the Metro Plan Amendment process. Options included: 1. Everyone partipates (current practice) 2. Opt-in (except for the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) area, where everyone would participate) 3. Springfield Planning Commission (other city does not participate), in response to item #2 4. County assumes oversight 5. Majority rules (2 out of 3 partipate in process in urban transition & UGB areas) 6. Springfield develops own Comprehensive Plan and develops the UGB 7. Participants pick a compromise solution and agree to test it with the sunset being periodic review. Councilor Beyer asked why there is conflict now. Mr. Kelly replied there have been more applications in the last two years with more cause for conflict. Councilor Maine said the current process takes too long and the other jurisdictions have veto power based on issues other than land use in the metropolitan area. Councilor Maine gave background information on the options deemed acceptable and unacceptable by the Planning Commission, as well as to date attempts at negotiations with the City of Eugene and Lane County. Councilor Shaver asked what option #6 would cost the city. Ms. Daluddung replied the Comprehensive Plan effort would entail three FTE for a two to three year time frame. She explained the 1993 FTE budget totals $430,510 with $263,025 going to basic services, leaving a balance of $167,485 for comprehensive planning. She then explained what projects would not be completed if the comprehensive planning funding balance was used for the creation of a new Comprehensive Plan. . . . City of Springfield Work Session Council Meeting Page two By consensus, the Council agreed to add 10 minutes to this agenda item. Councilor Shaver suggested the Council decide on a minimal acceptance option to present at MPC. Councilor Burge responded by saying Eugene and Lane County have been given an ample opportunity to respond and make progress toward an acceptable solution. He said he was ready to make a motion to begin Springfield's own comprehensive planning process and not to participate in the periodic review process. Mayor Morrisette asked Mr. Leahy if Springfield, by creating its own Comprehensive Plan, would ensure land use planning was done without the city of Eugene's participation. Mr. Leahy replied yes, but they could appeal to the State Land Use Board of Appeals as an interested party. rhe Council discussed the opt-in option and clarified the appeal process versus the veto process which is currently in place. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR BURGE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MAINE TO BEGIN WORK ON A SPRINGFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE UPCOMING PERIODIC REVIEW PROCESS. Mr. Kelly explained to the Council that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) may approve comprehensive plans for Springfield and Eugene and request that they be similar. He stated the city of Eugene and Lane County may have budgetary issues with completing their own plans and he suggested negotiating through the periodic review process. Councilor Maine recommended giving the city of Eugene and Lane County, 30 days to either accept option #3 or #5, or Springfield would begin work on their own plan. Councilor Shaver suggested sending the city of Eugene and Lane County a letter stating they have a 30 day time frame to accept option #3 with acreage limits as negotiated. Councilor Walters stated he agreed with Councilor Shaver. COUNCILOR BURGE AMENDED HIS MOTION TO STATE, UNLESS THE CITY OF EUGENE ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS OPTION #3 ON OR BEFORE JULY 15, 1993, SPRINGFIELD WILL BEGIN WORK ON THEIR OWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PERIODIC REVIEW PROCESS. THE AMENDED MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCILOR MAINE. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. The Council directed staff to draft a letter to the city of Eugene, with a copy to Lane County reflecting the above motion for Mayor Morrisette and Councilor Maine's signatures. They stated the letter should be hand delivered by staff on June 15, 1993. Councilor Shaver asked Ms. Daluddung if we could use most of the information from the current Metropolitan Plan for our Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Daluddung replied yes, but the current inventories are not correct and we would need to create a new database. . . . ~ City of Springfield Work Session Council Meeting Page three 2. Proposed New City Charter (1989) City Recorder Eileen Stein gave background information on the Charter revisions which were performed by a review committee in 1989. She stated the revised city Charter was scheduled for adoption in August, 1989, but the election was not scheduled, due to another city measure on the ballot at the same time. Ms. Stein explained Mayor Morrisette requested this issue be brought back to the current Council for direction on how to proceed. Mayor Morrisette explained three options, as outlined in his June 3, 1993 memo to the Council. Option #1 would approve submitting one or both amendments along with the revised Charter for public approval in November, 1993. Option #2 would approve submitting one or both amendments for voter approval in November, 1993, but not the revised Charter due to lack of time to review the document. Option #3 would be to take no action at this time. Councilor Burge stated ward elections are not needed for a small community the size of Springfield, that all councilors are interested and represent the city as a whole and he is adamantly opposed to them. Councilor Shaver said the Charter is archaic and suggested revisiting the issue and making additions. He said the word "nonpartisan", for instance, is not in the Charter. He agreed with Councilor Burge that he does not want ward elections, but did like the idea of a 50% majority. The Council discussed issue of majority versus cost to the city for each election. Ms. Stein approximately $7,500 to $10,000 per election. extra costs to candidates for two (primary and plurality, as well as the told the Council the cost is Councilor Burge added the general) elections. Mayor Morrisette asked staff to schedule this item for a future work session and to re-activate the Charter Committee. Councilors Maine and Burge suggested the Charter review be done by the Council as whole. Councilor Walters asked if the park district was created out of a Charter amendment. Mr. Leahy replied a Special District Charter was presented to the voters to create Willamalane Park and Recreation District. Mr. Kelly stated staff would bring this issue back to the Council before their summer recess. He also explained the early September deadline for the November election. 3. Council Business Councilor Shaver asked what the status was on the panhandling issue. Mr. Leahy replied a meeting had been scheduled to look at the current state law versus creating an ordinance regarding enforcement actions in the median strip area. . . . .. City of Springfield Work Session Council Meeting Page four Mr. Leahy explained the process that he, City Prosecutor Dave Logan and Acting Police Chief Dick Golden are undertaking to find a solution that will work for the city. Council asked for a staff report on the panhandling issue at their next meeting on June 21, 1993. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Shari Higgins G~~~ Mayor ATTEST: ~c~ City Recorder #4241