The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/15/1994 Work Session ~ . . . City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1994 The City of Springfield Council met in Work Session in the Springfield City Council Chamber, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, August 15, 1994, at 6:45 p.m., with Council President Stu Burge presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Councilors Beyer, Shaver, Walters, Burge, Maine and Schanz. Mayor Morrisette was absent (excused). Also present were Acting City Manager/Assistant City Manager/City Recorder Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Administrative Aide Julie wilson and members of the staff. 1. Paint Ball Operations Chief of Police Bill DeForrest presented the staff report on this issue. The City Attorney has provided a legal opinion that paint ball guns used in paint ball operations fall within the City Code (5-11-1) definition of firearms. It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm within the City of Springfield. Unlike other means of recreational shooting, i.e., target, trap and skeet, there is no provision in the City Code where the Council may issue a permit for paint ball operations. Therefore, the current paint ball operations are operating in violation of the City Code. This issue was first raised by Councilor Shaver in January, 1994. The City Attorney was asked to provide a legal opinion on two questions, 1) Is a paint ball gun a firearm as defined by the City Code? and, if so; 2) Do paint ball operations need permission from the City Council to operate within the City of Springfield? Mr. Leahy's response is provided in the staff report. Mr. Leahy also indicated that because paint ball operations as a recreational activity have only recently emerged, it is safe to assume paint ball guns or paint ball operations were not considered when the current Code was drafted. There is no intent by the City to close the paint ball operations. However, there is a need to provide a licensing procedure whereby these operations may operate lawfully. The proposed ordinances were drafted to specifically include business license fees for paintball guns in shooting areas ($100). The license fee would be $100. Councilor Shaver recommended that regulations be posted at paint ball facilities to clarify that paint ball guns are categorized as a firearm and they are illegal to discharge at a location other than a paint ball facility. Mr. Leahy responded that this language could be included in Section 2 of the proposed ordinance. . . . Work Session Minutes August 15, 1994 Page 2 Chief DeForrest explained that he did not believe paint ball guns qualified as firearms under the State or Federal Law. Mr. Leahy stated that b-b guns could not be discharged within the City limits of Springfield. Councilor Walters questioned why b-b guns were not included in the ordinance under the definition of fire arms. Chief DeForrest responded that a number of different weapons were not specifically referenced under definition but the the statement, "any similar mechanism by whatever name known which is designed to expel a projectile through a barrel or tube by the action of any explosive substance, including but not limited to gun powder, flammable or nonflammable gas, compressed air, spring or elastic," would include a b-b gun. Council also discussed spud guns. Councilor Schanz discussed section 8-16-16(8) which addressed the license fee of $100. By Council consensus, staff was directed to proceed with the amendments to the Springfield City Code, Section 5-11-1, as discussed. BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL 1. Springfield Community Band. Councilor Beyer and Shaver praised the Springfield Community Band for their recent performance. 2. Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) Membership. Councilor Burge discussed the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) membership. He explained that current City of Springfield policy requires MPC Springfield membership to consist of two Council members. He also explained that this policy contained no provision for the Mayor to serve in that capacity (as he is currently doing). Councilor Burge explained that this issue has been raised by Commissioner Cornacchia and another MPC member. Discussion included the fact that mayors do not have voting power and are [probably] not representative of the Council consensus/majority and to serve on MPC without having voting authority on the Council seemed inappropriate. If this membership is to continue, Councilor Burge suggested that the Council board, committee and commission policy be revised to allow it since the Council was currently out of compliance. Councilor Burge also stated that since Mayor Morrisette was absent, the issue would be raised at a future date. Council requested that staff provide Council with information regarding the City of Eugene MPC membership policy. 3. Sidewalks on Olympic Street. Council discussed Olympic Street sidewalks. Councilor Burge explained Council could revise the sidewalk location/proposal. He supported curbside rather than setbacks with planter strips. He also explained that Councilor Walters supported a seven-foot sidewalk instead of a five-foot sidewalk and Councilor Burge thought this was acceptable. Councilor Burge supported a curbside sidewalk seven feet wide, from 28th Street east, but not all the . . . Work Session Minutes August 15, 1994 Page 3 way to 42nd Street. Councilor Burge explained that he spoke with commissioner Cornacchia regarding this issue. Mr. Cornacchia shared Councilor Burge's feelings regarding sidewalks from 28th Street east, but not to 42nd Street. Councilor Burge stated that there was no pedestrian traffic between 35th to 42nd Streets and did not see the need for sidewalks between 35th to 42nd Streets. Councilor Burge proposed that the sidewalk be a curbside, seven-foot in width, from 28th to 35th Streets. He felt sidewalks from 35th to 42nd Streets would be a waste of money. Councilor Beyer supported sidewalks to 42nd Street. Council further discussed this issue and suggested retaining the sidewalk at five feet, and noted that there is a bike path and the curbside sidewalk would be carried through to 42nd Street. Councilor Shaver felt that if a curbside was selected, a seven-foot sidewalk was necessary because the street is so busy. Supervising Civil Engineer Don Branch answered questions from Council. Councilor Walters stated he was in favor of going to a seven-foot proposal without a buffer strip and also stated that commercial users would not have to worry about maintaining the buffer parking strip. Councilor Burge was in favor of the seven-foot sidewalk until he found out there was a six-foot bicycle-path running along side it. He felt that provided enough buffer for a five-foot sidewalk. Public Works Director Dan Brown explained that if the seven-foot sidewalk was selected, it could increase the project cost. If the cost increases, staff would need to hold another public hearing. If the five-foot sidewalk was selected, this could decrease the cost and another public hearing would not be required. Councilor Burge stated he would propose a five-foot sidewalk with bike paths. Councilor Shaver recommended taking a look at adopting a second design standard which could consist of a seven-foot curbside alternate design standard in commercial and industrial areas and trees would be planted behind the sidewalks. This would be converting both sides to curbside from 28th to 42nd, the full length of project, with bike lanes on both sides of the street. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR SHAVER, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MAINE, TO APPROVE A FIVE-FOOT WIDE CURBSIDE SIDEWALK ON OLYMPIC STREET FROM 28TH STREET TO 42ND STREET, AND ELIMINATING THE PLANTER STRIPS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:15 P.M. Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson ~}f~ ATTEST: ~