HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07 Council Minutes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date:
July l6, 2007
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
Meeting Type:
Department:
Staff Contact:
Estimated Time:
Regular Meeting
City Manager's Office
Amy Sowa, 726-3700 ~ .
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 25, 2007 - Work Session
b) July 2,2007 - Work Session
c) July 2, 2007 -' Regular Meeting
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
Sowalagendalminutes AIS
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 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 25,2007 at 5:33 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and 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.
1. Proposed Amendments to Article 26 - Hillside Development Overlay District Extending the
Allowed Use of Density Transfer from South-Facing Slopes Only to All-Facing Slopes
(Cluster Development). '
Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. Approximately 48%
of Springfield's remaining inventory of residential land is affected by steep slopes. The
Springfield Development Code allows for a transfer of the calculated number of homes that
might be built on steep slopes to south-facing hillsides with slopes between fifteen and twenty-
five percent through a "density transfer."
Density transfer is proposed for use in the Heritage Park development (Gray-Jaqua property in
South Thurston Hills) on a north-facing hillside to allow an exchange of higher density
development on lower slopes and the preservation of the upper slopes for park land. The pre-
development agreement signed by the City with the developer of the Gray-Jaqua p~operty
includes a provision allowing consideration of a density transfer on the north facing slope of the
property, provided that such density transfer is consistent with the City's development code and
land use regulations. Other developments are being considered in the Thurston Hills that would
benefit from an expanded application of density transfer to north, east and west facing slopes.
Density transfer has been allowed since the Development Code was first adopted in 1986.
Attachment 2 provides background on the origins of Article 26. Public Works has indicated that
there is no known design or safety rationale for limiting density transfer to south-facing slopes.
Staff is proposing to extend the density transfer provision to north, west and east facing slopes of
fifteen to twenty-five percent. All engineering and construction standards that have applied
historically to development on south facing slopes would apply to the broader application of
density transfer under the proposed revisions.
The proposed changes to Article 26 include: 1) various changes needed to implement an
extension of density transfer to all-facing hillsides with a slope of fifteen to twenty-five percent;
2) allowing "average slope" to be used when calculating the number of units eligible for density
transfer; and 3) the addition of a requirement in the Development Code that the developer pay
for "peer review" of the sophisticated geotechnical and engineering analysis by a consultant of
the City's choice for hillside development in order to ensure safe development and stable slopes.
The Planning Commission met three times between February and April 2007, to evaluate the
safety and prudence of allowing the proposed expansion of density transfers. These meetings
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 25,2007
Page 2
spanned the time when the MountainGate slide was under scrutiny. Density transfer issues are
not related to the circumstances of that slide. The Commission then voted unanimously to
approve the changes to Article 26 found in Attachment 3 that will come before the Council at a
public hearing on July 2nd.
Councilor Ballew asked if the reason density transfers were only allowed for south facing
properties had to do with the fact that it could dry out faster.
Mr. Metzger said that may have been the original thought, but it would not be substantial.
Councilor Pishioneri asked for clarification of the percentages.
City EngineerKen Vogeney said a one hundred percent slope was a forty-five degree slope.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the slopes were figured pre-development or pre-preparation.
Mr. Metzger said it was an average slope formula and was calculated pre-development. There
were already rules that governed grading and steepness of grade.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if it mattered what the grade was, if the property owner or developer
cut into the hillside to create a manmade slope.
Mr. Metzger said the rules did not allow a slope to be taken down completely to a flat. The
purpose of the hillside development was to preserve slopes and wooded areas and insure the right
type of engineering went into those projects.
Development Services Director Bill Grile said there were also rules regarding tree felling to
prevent someone from going in to bulldoze a lot and changing ,the grade.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how this would affect single lots.
Mr. Metzger said a pad could be cut for one lot, but there would still be slopes adjacent to the lot.
He gave an example of building a home on a twenty-five percent or greater slope.
Councilor Woodrow asked what determined the south face of the slope.
Mr. Metzger said it would be a ridgeline calculation. He referred to the map and explained how
the properties were identified as south sloping. He discussed properties where the density ,
transfer could occur in the Thurston Hills south-facing properties. This change would also allow
density transfers on east or west facing properties.
Councilor Woodrow asked how the developer would propose safe access to those types of lots.
Mr. Metzger said the proposal would not affect current street design standards.
Councilor Woodrow asked how much this change would affect our residential land inventory.
Mr. Metzger said it would not affect much, but would rather allow the best use of the properties.
He explained further.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 25, 2007
Page 3
Councilor Ralston said the percent of slope was confusing. He received clarification from Mr.
Metzger. He suggested simplifying it so citizens could understand. He asked how much density
was allowed on north facing property.
Mr. Metzger said land with less than fifteen percent slope, could develop ten units per acre.
Land with fifteen to twenty-five percent slope, would have less density because larger lots would
be required. The maximum density allowed in the density transfer (cluster development) would
be eight units per acre.
Councilor Ralston asked if there was a slope that didn't allow construction.
Mr. Metzger said anything above thirty-five percent required special conditions and larger lot
SIze.
Councilor Ralston said he didn't want to deny someone building on a slope if they could afford it
and wanted to. He wanted to keep that option open.
Mr. Metzger said this didn't change any privilege the developers already had, but was an
advantage to developers in certain situations with extreme slopes. He said he would include a
table that converted percentage of slope into degrees in next week's agenda packet.
Councilor Lundberg said this wouldn't change how people could currently develop.
Mr. Metzger said that was correct. The design standards and engineering would remain the
same. It was made clearer that the City could require peer review of those studies at developer
expense.
Councilor Lundberg asked if Council had to approve the company used for peer review.
Mr. Metzger said the City would choose the consultant for the peer review.
Councilor Lundberg asked if this change would increase our number of units.
Mr. Metzger said they would not be increasing the number of total units, just transferring them.
Mr. Grile described how they calculated the level of slope to remain consistent.
Councilor Pishioneri gave an example of a lot with flat areas and sloped. At what point did the'
footprint of a proposed house play into the calculation.
Mr. Metzger said the standards were applied to the subdivision first, then individual lots. He
explained. Single lot projects would be handled case by case.
Councilor Ballew asked ifthe higher sloped areas were made up more of bedrock with thin
layers of soil than other areas.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 25, 2007
Page 4
Mr. Metzger said he was not sure of all of those areas. He explained an area to South 79tll that
did have a lot of bedrock and the difficulty and expense of trying to put infrastructure into that
type ofterrain. Healso discussed an area near Willamette Heights. .
Councilor Ballew asked if we were concerned about sliding as we build upon less buildable land.
Mr. Metzger said that was a concern and that was why the City had strict building standards.
Mayor Leiken thanked staff for their work on this because he felt it added more tools to the
City's toolbox. Sometimes the developers were not the same as contractors. Often the
developers put into place stringent CCR' s so that people going in to purchase lots in sloped areas
knew what they were getting into. The slides at Mountaingate showed us some things, such as
what type of engineers needed to be involved. This change showed where Springfield was going
in the future and getting us prepared for some outstanding projects.
Councilor Lundberg asked how much hillside development was left in Springfield.
Mr. Metzger said this tool would be used on a site by site basis. He explained.
2. Financial Planning for Capital Projects.
Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin and Finance Director Bob Duey presented the
staff report on this item. The City faces increasing challenges in keeping up with demand for
new capital infrastructure. Current revenue sources do not generate sufficient funding. While the
City has used debt financing and loans to supplement existing reserves and current revenues,
those vehicles have been used as the need arises, without any clear policy. The City has also
developed practices relating to annexation requirements to fund capital projects, again without
any clear policy guidance. This flexibility made sense when the City was not yet growing rapidly
and facing large scale infrastructure demands. In Fiscal Year 1991 the City's Capital budget was
$13.8 million. Now, the Fiscal Year 2008 Capital Budget adopted last week is $123.3 million. In
the face of such growth, which shows no sign of stopping, there will be an increasing need to
rely on something other than pay as you go. The time has now come to develop some policy
guidelines to guide future decision making.
Staff will review the current vehicles used by the City to fund capital spending and give
examples of some current problem areas that have arisen. Staff will also present some policy
options for the Council's consideration and direction.
Mr. Goodwin referred to three graphs included in the agenda packet as Attachment C. He
explained how the funds had been brought in for projects to date. He noted there were a number
of demands for infrastructure as the City continued to grow and develop. There was no specific
plan to come up with the right kind of money at the right time to make future projects happen.
Mr. Goodwin noted an error in the chart in Attachment D, page 2 of3. He distributed a corrected
chart. Policies needed to be made regarding this issue. He discussed SDC's and credits issued to
developers in certain cases. Trunk sewers didn't fit into that equation and should be funded by
the whole community that would be served. Staff would like general direction from Council on
when to rely on user fees to fund capital construction and when to rely on growth funds, such as
SDC's. It would also be helpful ifthere was an overall policy on what our revenue strategy
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 25, 2007
Page 5
should be. Staff would like to have some direction to look for funds for future construction
needs. He discussed the Justice Center and projects that may be coming forward in the future that
would need a strategy. This would be a process that would take some time. Staff would be
coming back after the first of the calendar year with a new methodology for SDC's and SDC
rates. It would make sense to develop those in the context of an overall approach for developing
those resources for our long term capital needs.
Mr. Duey added that normally buildings weren't included in our capital improvement planning
as was infrastructure. Buildings didn't have the same coordinated effort as infrastructure. Public
Works had done a nice job of enhancing their maintenance faCility by using dedicated resources
to fund that project. The development of the Gateway area brought in specific funds to build the
Fire and Life Safety (F&LS) department in that area to address the need of that growth. A bond
measure was passed in 2005 for the Justice Center Project. There had been no action plan to
maintain, move or rebuild current buildings. He discuss~d the replacement of Fire Station 1 and
the potential to need to move Fire Station 4.
Councilor Ralston referred to attachment C, page 2 of 3, in the agenda packet and asked for
clarification on the revenues. Mr. Goodwin explained. Councilor Ralston said on page 3 of 3 of
that attachment, the sewer capital spending was hugely supported by user fees, while
transportation was mostly funded by SDC's. He felt that was the way it should be, because
development should pay the majority of their own way. There were other things that the City as
a whole was responsible for.
Councilor Ballew said this was a good idea. It was difficult because there were so many
elements. The Capital Budget memo was a good thought provoker. Who benefits came into
play when making these decisions. There was a fairness that needed to be done. The City was
running out of cash, so this was important to look at. She would disagree that there were certain
things that growth shouldn't have to pay for. Those that created expense should have to pay for
it.
Mr. Goodwin said they had the benefit of the regional plan implemented by MWMC.
Councilor Wylie said the article included in the agenda packet as Attachment E seemed to
support the "pay as you go" principles. She asked if there was a cost break when dealing with
millions of dollars, not only how to pay for it, but how to pay it off. There needed to be a cost
break on what would be acceptable to debt fmance rather than pay as you go. The City has a
harder time using assets for back-up than private businesses.
Mr. Goodwin agreed and said the balance was important.
Councilor Ballew said we were becoming a bigger city and more complex. The City hadn't used
a lot of sophisticated fmancing tools in the past. It was time to look at some of those options.
Mayor Leiken said the City had benefited by going out and forming committees. He felt it was
important to continue the idea of watching what development paid for and look at long term
strategies. The city needed to tap into citizens for ideas and input. He discussed HB3337 and
the affect it has had on our community and the input he has received. He recommended staff tap
into the different ideas and think outside the pox. Go out and talk to those with a stake in this.
The Street Fund issue would also be coming up again. He suggested tapping into commercial
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 25, 2007
Page 6
industrial developers. The Council had the confidence of the citizens of the community. He
would like to see a committee formed that included a Councilor, Planning Commissioner, and a
Budget Committee person. We have had good success with that approach. Council could rely
on staff to get it started and bring in those people.
Councilor Wylie asked if any Federal loan programs were available.
Mr. Goodwin said most Federal programs were no longer available. Occasionally transportation
funds were available, but those were also shrinking and based on politics. The City needed to
develop their own reserves and look for opportunities for grants and funding.
Mayor Leiken said that was why we needed to rely on the entire community.
Councilor Ballew asked staffto bring forward an inventory of capital projects for the future that
included public buildings, sewers, fixed assets, etc., and financing tools and options for each
item. She would like to see a brief explanation of each of the financing tools.
Mr. Goodwin suggested trying mixed approaches. Staff was in the process of developing a
number of master plans. Those would be ready for discussion towards the end of the year. In
the meantime, they may talk about some of the alternatives and vehicles that may be available
and more general background from the City's fmancial advisor and Finance Director. Staff
could bring the project list to Council and then try to match those funding tools to each.
Councilor Wylie suggested contacting other finance directors in other jurisdictions for ideas.
Councilor Lundberg said the issues to consider were user debt, how much developers would pay,
user fees vs. SDC's, and keeping with inflation. She suggested having 2 on 2's for clarification
as they got more information on a project list. She suggested meeting one on one with bigger
developers in the community to get their feedback regarding SDC's and fees. Maybe after
getting a project list, the committee could be formed. She suggested also including people from
the fmancial community to be on the committee.
Councilor Ballew suggested also fmding examples of public fmancing.
Mr. Goodwin said a work plan would be brought to Council shortly after the summer recess.
Councilor Wylie asked about $50,000 study for condition of assets. She asked about the status
of that study.
Maintenance Manager Ed Black said we currently had a system for infrastructure management
called the Hanson System. They had modules for asset management and staff was looking at the
possibility of using the Hanson System for other assets. Staff would be coming back to Council
in September regarding asset management.
3. Intergovernmental Agreement with Lane Transit District.
Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. As L TD
enters the detail design process for the Phase II EmX route, it is desirable to determine the long-
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 25, 2007
, Page 7
range relationship between L TD and the City with respect to operations and maintenance, so that
the design can reflect those understandings.
Phase II of EmX, approved by the Council in concept in late 2006 is now beginning design.
Since some aspects of that design may hinge on how the system is to be operated and
maintained. Staff seeks general guidance and policy direction from Council before entering into
negotiations with LTD.
Mr. Goodwin noted that there were representatives from LTD in the audience. He asked that
Council provide staff direction on this agreement. He didn't see any real issues with this. One
issue that could be contention could be the possibility of charging a fee for use of right-of-way.
Doing sowould be a novel approach, and staff was not recommending it.
Councilor Ballew said the City would have additional costs and should be reimbursed. Perhaps
rather than charging for right-of-way, there could be another reimbursement for expenses.
Councilor Ralston referred to Attachment A, page 2 of 4, in the agenda packet regarding Funding
of Maintenance of Em X Facilities. He asked ifLTD was eligible to use the City's fuel tax funds.
Mr. Goodwin said in theory that was correct, but neither L TD nor City staff were recommending
use of the fuel tax. It was recommended that L TD pay for the full cost of maintenance.
Councilor Woodrow said he appreciated representatives from L TD being here. There were a lot
of questions and he suggested Council meeting with staff in 2 on 2 meetings.
Mr. Grimaldi said this could also be brought back tO,Council in an Executive Session so the
entire Council would be there together.
Councilor Woodrow said 2 on 2's would allow more time for each councilor.
Councilor Ralston said he was fine with the answers in the packet.
Mr. Goodwin said staff would be prepared to answer Council's questions in any form they chose.
Councilor Wylie asked about the timeline on this agreement.
Mr. Goodwin said it would be helpful to get this finished as quickly as possible. L TD was
preparing to submit 30 percent plans on their design sometime in the fall. In part, L TD would
want to know, as part of their design, if the City was looking at anything unusual in terms of how
the system was operated and maintained. They would want to incorporate that into their design.
From both the City and LTD's perspective it would be better to know as soon as possible the
different responsibilities of each agency before looking at the fmal plan. This didn't need to be
resolved tonight, but it would be beneficial to have the discussions during Council's summer
break.
Councilor Ballew asked how soon information would be available on the amount of funds for
maintenance costs and operations.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 25, 2007
Page 8
Mr. Goodwin said the actual costs would be later than October. That was not significant if L TD
paid for or reimbursed the City for the costs. If there were areas the City would need to pick up
the costs, that would need to be determined earlier, but that was not the preferred approach by
staff.
Councilor Pishioneri said he understood each response in the agenda packet, but there were no
options given regarding impacts of each response. He gave examples. He would like to hear
how both agencies would benefit.
Councilor Lundberg said she would be in favor of putting this off for awhile. She just attended a
stakeholder meeting for the Gateway/Beltline intersection. The maps showing the intersection
and the bus route had never been overlaid. She was concerned that the maps didn't line up.
Once the maps were lined up, discussions needed to be held regarding ingress and egress issues.
The Stakeholders were meeting again in August. Some of her questions would come out of some
of those further discussions. Council should take a look at where everything was to be located.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if Council wanted to see the design issues brought forward with the IGA.
Mr. Goodwin said staffhad considered having multiple IGA's, each relating to separate issues.
He asked if that was appropriate.
Councilor Lundberg said there would be questions regarding the maintenance once the design
was determined. There were a variety of stops, people and other issues that needed to be dealt
with. Council should be able to look at what came out of those meetings once they returned
from break.
)
Councilor Ralston felt Council was getting bogged down looking at the design issues rather than
the operating costs. This IGA was about policy implications on who would pay for each item.
He said he wanted to be involved in the design issues as well.
Councilor Pishioneri said he approved of most of the items in the IGA, but had some questions
on a few of them.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if it would help if there was more detail.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would understand it better if options were shown for each choice.
Mr. Grimaldi said it sounded like he wanted information on what costs the City was incurring
and what costs we were recovering.
Councilor Ballew asked if Council wanted an Executive Session or 2 on 2' s.
Discussion was held regarding the best format for further discussion on this item.
Mayor Leiken asked if an Executive Session could be scheduled before Council went on break.
The City Recorder gave some options for an upcoming date.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 25, 2007
Page 9
Mr. Goodwin offered to have staff sit down with any councilors that had 'questions so those
could be addressed during the Executive Session.
Mr. Leahy said the vehicle for the Executive Session would be the IGA. Broad policy issues
with L TD would not be appropriate for discussion during the Executive Session unless they
reflected in the ab'Teement design of the system.
Mayor Leiken said that wouldn't be the case, but rather focused conversation about the IGA.
Councilor Ballew asked if staff would have a draft IGA available for the Executive Session.
Mr. Goodwin said they could.
Mr. Grimaldi said they would provide language that covered the topics at a minimum.
4. Enhanced Automatic Aid (Three Battalion System).
Fire Chief Dennis Murphy presented the staff report on this item. For more than 20 years
Springfield and Eugene fire departments have cooperated in response to emergencies along the
boundaries of both cities by sending the closest fire apparatus, regardless of jurisdiction. Fire
chiefs and city managers of both cities agree that enhancing the areas served by automatic aid
through integrating response capacities will result in significant improvement of service levels to
citizens of Springfield and Eugene. The enhancements will not result in increases to budgets of
either jurisdiction. Proposed implementation is July 2,2007.
Enhancements to the automatic aid program are based upon years of experience and data that
confirms that both cities infrequently experience major emergencies such as large fires or multi-
casualty motor vehicle crashes at the same time. As a result, either jurisdiction can increase
resources available for immediate dispatch by temporarily "borrowing" resources from the other.
Vehicles and emergency crews are moved as needed to make the fastest response while
maintaining readiness across both cities to respond to increasing demand. The enhanced program
is considered a "working agreement." No payments are made by either party and it does not
require a formal intergovernmental agreement. Changes may be made at any time as needed.
Since there is a notable improvement in service to the citizens of both communities without a
corresponding increase in budget, it fits well with Council goals in both cities and is generally
viewed as "smart government."
The purpose of the Enhanced Automatic Aid (Three Battalion System) is to provide the
Springfield and Eugene communities with the following benefits:
· Expand the "demand surge capacity" of both jurisdictions without subsidy
· Improve service to citizens in both communities by improving speed of response and depth
of coverage
· Improve safety of emergency crews by providing more personnel available sooner for high
. risk/high hazard incidents
· Enhance the efficiency of operations through standardized procedures and joint training
In the event that major emergencies occur in both communities at the same time, Springfield and
Eugene will request additional help from off-duty personnel and outside agencies.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 25, 2007
Page 10
Chief Murphy described how this would enhance service for Springfield and Eugene. He
discussed the importance of having this in place by the time the Olympic Trials were held in
Eugene in June 2008. He noted that if Council directed staff to go forward with this plan, it
would go live on July 2, 2007.
Chief Murphy pointed out that this was sometl!ing that Eugene and Springfield did well together.
He said both City Managers, Fire Chiefs, unions and all of the employees agreed this was a win
for everyone.
Mayor Leiken said it was great to see the two departments working so well together.
Chief Murphy applauded leadership in both Eugene and Springfield.
Councilor Pishioneri said this was a good thing and he had nothing against it. It was a good use
of resources and would lend itself to more integrated training. He just cautioned that down the
road, things could change and Eugene could redeploy or move their resources. He didn't want to
see that create an added burden on Springfield's system. It was a fantastic idea.
Chief Murphy said there were no IGA's, and if problems came along, adjustments could be made
or Springfield could pull out.
Councilor Ralston said he enjoyed listening to Chief Murphy present. He noted that it wouldn't
cost more, was likely to reduce duplication of services, provided better services, and maintained
our own identity.
Councilor Wylie agreed it was wonderful. It multiplied the response times, helped citizens and
was good for morale. Disaster preparedness was important and in working together, everyone
was so much more prepared.
Council commended staff on this and approved of them moving forward.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Sidney W. Leiken
Mayor
Attest:
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JULY 2, 2007
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and 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 Attorney Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and
members of the staff.
1. Choices for Establishing a Downtown Urban Renewal District.
Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. Attachment 1
illustrates two different approaches and election dates for establishing urban renewal downtown.
Inherent in choosing a fall 2007 election date would be the need to give staff specific direction at
or before the July 23rd meeting with Team Springfield to avoid returning during the August
recess. The spring 2008 alternative would provide more time for planning and decision making,
but would delay the capture of tax increment revenues for a year.
Attachment 2 provides an analysis of the pros and cons related to the questions identified in the
issue statement above.
Fall 2007 versus a Spring 2008 election. A successful fall election would allow tax increment
revenues to begin accruing July 1, 2008. A successful spring 2008 election would start the ,
revenue accrual on July 1,2009. Meeting the deadlines for a November election requires a tight
schedule that is achievable but leaves less time than a spring election for coordination and
communication with the public, and affected taxing bodies.
Form a new downtown renewal district or expand the Glenwood district? State laws allow
for the expansion of an existing urban renewal district by up to 20% of the established district's
area. Forming a new district allows a new boundary to be designated, without being limited to an
acreage that is 20% ofthe Glenwood district (about 120 acres). Expanding the Glenwood district
would allow increment revenues from Glenwood to be used in the downtown and vice versa.
Forming a new district would keep the revenues separate.
Attachment 3 shows three potential renewal district boundaries. If the Glenwood district is
expanded into the downtown, then Boundary I or a similar boundary must be chosen to meet the
20% statutory limitation.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 2
Mr. Metzger said there was a number of staff that had worked on this. He acknowledged.
Community Services Manager John Tamulonis, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery,
Development Services Director Bill Grile and other staff that had contributed to this item.
Mr. Metzger said the first question was regarding timing of an election. He discussed some of
the advantages and disadvantages of going with either election date. The taxing partners at the
CEO level were supportive of ail urban renewal district in downtown.
Councilor Pishioneri said he liked the idea of setting up the downtown urban renewal district
(URD) independent of the Glenwood URD. The citizens voted for the Glenwood URD and this
was a different area. He asked if there was any cost associated with either election.
Discussion was held regarding whether or not there would be a cost at either election.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would encourage staff to go for the General election unless there
was an urgent need to go sooner. It was important to do the job right.
. Mr. Metzger asked for clarification on which election Councilor Pishioneri was referring to.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was referring to the election in the spring of 2008 (actually the
Primary Election). He said either election would be fme as long as staff felt they could do a good
and complete job.
Mayor Leiken said the November 2007 election was not a General Election, but rather a Special
Election. He said Mr. Grimaldi had mentioned the investment already made in downtown by
private developers. Waiting until the Primary would delay collection of the tax increment until
January of2009. Capturing investment was important, but making sure the public was on board
and supportive was also very important.
Councilor Ballew said she didn't recall that Council had made a decision to form an URD in
downtown.
Mr. Metzger said it was in response to a Council goal set in January 2007 to form an URD in
downtown. In April, staff came back and talked about a plan for revitalization and the URD was
one way to move that along. Council would take formal action whether or not to form an URD at
a later date.
Councilor Ballew said she liked waiting for the Primary Election better or even the General
Election in 2008. There weren't any milestones yet in the Glenwood URD, so she was concerned
about staff time spent on both areas. She felt the two areas should be separate, and downtown
shouldn't be an extension of Glenwood. There would be more money coming from a downtown
URD than the Glenwood URD. She also noted that regarding the boundary choices, she preferred
Boundary One, and would be relu9tant to extend it to Boundary Two.
. Councilor Woodrow said he agreed the downtown URD should be a new one and not combined
with Glenwood. He felt they should go for the November 2007 election to allow SEDA to
capture tax increment from the new development of Lithia, Wynant's Food Store and others. It
would be beneficial to start collecting those funds in 2008 rather than waiting until 2009. He had
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 3
confidence that if staff said they could do it properly and be ready in November 2007, that they
could. He would support Boundary Two because it included all of Booth-Kelly.
Mr. Metzger said he would like to give Council some additional information regarding the
boundaries following the discussion regarding timing of the election and new or expanded
district.
Councilor Ralston asked if an election was required if the Glenwood boundary was expanded.
Yes. He said there had not been a lot of success in Glenwood. He didn't want to go much farther
than Boundary One for downtown and felt that joining with Glenwood might help to get things
going in Glenwood. Both areas would need to develop together at some point. He thought the
November election might be too aggressive of a schedule.
Mr. Tamulonis said one of the advantages in the downtown area was the number of studies that
had been done over many years. Glenwood was a new area with new projects. .
Councilor Ralston asked if the property values were locked in once an area was identified.
Mr. Tamulonis said the County Assessor's office would set the property values as a base value
starting January I of the year following Council adoption. If the URD was passed at the
November 2007 election, it would go into affect January 1,2008. Ifthey waited for the May
2008 election, it would go into affect January 1,2009.
Councilor Ralston said if they chose Boundary One, success would move out along the whole
corridor. He felt choosing Boundary Three cut too much into taxes for the General Fund. Trying
to convince the public that a Downtown URD was the right thing would be difficult.
Councilor Lundberg said she was most in favor of Boundary Two. Getting past a certain point
might be harder to make it a single vision. She felt that there was time to prepare for a November
2007 election regarding educating the public. Ifit didn't pass in November, they could work to
bring it back for a vote in May. The partnership issue was stronger in Downtown than in
Glenwood, so she felt it would be easy to get the stakeholders on board. She was a proponent of
going out to voters in November 2007 and felt staff could get everything ready by then.
Councilor Wylie said she thought that if it was feasible, the earlier timing for the election was
best. She felt the downtown URD should be separate from Glenwood. She thought going out to
Boundary Two would be best at this time. Twenty percent could be added at a later date without
an election, taking it out to Boundary Three. She asked how an URD affected a residential area
(Willamette Heights).
Mr. Metzger explained the principals used to determine the different boundaries. The first
principal was where investment needed to be made to revitalize downtown and nearby
neighborhoods. In Willamette Heights, there were infrastructure issues that were affected. The
east side had the potential for redevelopment and an URD could assist with some of the
infrastructure. He discussed apartment complexes on the north end and how strategic
investments could help clean up that area. The boundaries were drawn with the idea of capturing
revenue and in areas where investment could be made to help the overall area grow. That was
one of the rationales for Boundary Three. There were advantages and disadvantages with all
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 4
boundaries. He explained why staff originally thought Boundary Three might be best He agreed,
however, that people's vision of downtown was a smaller, more compact area.
Councilor Woodrow said if the rest of the Council was supportive, he would approve of
Boundary Three. He referred to Councilor Ralston's suggestion to combine the downtown URD
with Glenwood's URD. He felt that would be unfair to Glenwood because it was a unique area
and combining them might cause undue concern by Glenwood residents. It was correct that
development that could occur in the downtown URD should help generate more in the Glenwood
URD. Progress in Glenwood had been slow, but that was the nature of an URD. He discussed the
. difference between downtown and Glenwood. He agreed that the November 2007 election was
the right timeframe for the downtown URD to go to the voters. That would still give ample time
to get the word out and explain to the citizens why an URD was a positive thing and could
further the efforts started by the Wildish Theater, schools and other businesses to make'
downtown a better place.
Councilor Pishioneri said he had no problem going to the voters at the earlier date as long as
staff had adequate time to do the job right and get it passed, rather than having to do it twice.
Councilor Wylie asked how the URD worked with historic preservation.
Mr. Tamulonis said there were several options. One option was to use URD money to reinforce
historic buildings to meet current codes and seismic requirements.
Mr. Metzger said the URD was a financial tool and the SEDA Board could determine how to use
that money for different projects.
Mr. Tamulonis said it was a way to separate an income stream that would allow targeted projects
or programs to be done. He discussed how the funds could or couldn't be used.
Councilor Wylie asked for more details on what could or couldn't be done with URD funds.
Mr. Tamulonis discussed a couple of options and noted that often the funds were used for
infrastructure, to purchase buildings and build parking areas. He said ideas from the Council
would be explored to see if they could be done. The first phase of the URD would include getting
input from the stakeholders of downtown regarding potential projects.
Councilor Wylie asked about the Housing and Urban Development (RUD) programs that
assisted homeowners with roof replacement, paint and other maintenance needs.
Mr. Tamulonis said a similar program had been set up by SEDA in Glenwood called the
Glenwood Residential Improvement Program (GRIP) that was patterned on the federal program.
Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Tamulonis to send an email to the Councilors regarding specifics on
what types of projects could or couldn't be done with URD funds.
Mr. Tamulonis said he could do that. He would include projects that were currently happening
downtown.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 5
Councilor Ballew suggested getting consensus, or close to consensus from Council on when the
election should be held and whether or not to make the downtown URD separate from
Glenwood.
Mr. Metzger said that wouid be helpful to staff.
Councilor Lundberg asked first for input on whether to create the URD's separately or together
L
with Glenwood.
Councilor Ralston said he wasn't opposed to URD and was more than willing to support the
November election and through Boundary Two. The reason he was considering combining the
two URD's was because the SEDA Board was already in place for Glenwood.
Mayor Leikensaid the SEDA Board would remain the same for both URD's.
Council consensus was to create the downtown URD separate from Glenwood.
Five Councilors supported going to the November 2007 election with the downtown URD. One
Councilor (Ballew) preferred waiting until May 2008.
Mr. Metzger said staff would work towards the November 2007 election and if there was
concern they would not be well prepared, they would notify Council and determine if they
should wait for the May 2008 election. .
Council agreed.
Mr. Grimaldi said Mr. Tamulonis would distribute some figures regarding the differences
between the different boundaries. Those figures would be sent to Council before their July 23
Council meeting.
Mayor Leiken said that although they were not all visible, there had been a lot of successes in
Glenwood thanks to Mr. Tamulonis and staff. He noted the relationships formed with residents in
Glenwood by Mr. Tamulonis and ownership by those residents in Glenwood. He noted the
number of people interested in that area. Downtown was a different situation, with projects ready
to go immediately. Mayor Leiken said he spoke with the Senior Forum this morning and they
were very supportive of a downtown URD.
2. Concurrent Metro Plan/Refinement Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment
Regarding Property Near 44th and Main Street.
City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The applicant requests
approval of a Metro Plan / Refinement Plan Map Amendment to the East Main Refinement Plan
and a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment. The request involves two parcels, and is located on
approximately 5.24 acres identified as Tax Lots 400 and 402 on Assessor's Map No. 17-02-32-
00. Specifically, the applicant proposes to change the Metro Plan designation from Light
Medium Industrial (LMI) to Commercial and a concurrent Refinement Plan Amendment and
Zoning Map Amendment from LMI to CC. The applicant seeks approval of these applications in
order to facilitate development of a future Medical Office building on the site.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 6
On June 5th, 2007, the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on the
subject applications (LRP2007-00013 & ZON2007-00012). One citizen, Nancy Falk, testified in
opposition to the proposal at the first public hearing and requested that the record be left open for
seven days. The Planning Commission granted the request and instructed Staff to leave the
record open until Tuesday, June 12th, 2007. Staff received one written testimony from Lauri
Segel, Goal One Coalition Planner, on June 12t\ 2007. A written rebuttal to Ms. Segel's letter
was then submitted by the applicant the following day, June 13th, 2007. Both letters were
received within the specified, deadlines as noted in the Planning Commission public hearing on
June 5th, 2007. The original Staff Report and exhibits are attached for Council's review.
After reviewing all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated on the
applications on June 19th, 2007, and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that both
applications be sent to the City Council for consideration and approval.
Mr. Reesor presented a power point presentation on the subject property, based on maps and
photos included in the agenda packet.
Councilor Ballew said it was difficult to distinguish on the maps which areas were Medium
Density Residential (MDR) and which were Low Density Residential (LDR). .
Mr. Reesor said often when comparing zoning maps with metro maps, there were differences.
Some of those were plan zone conflicts. Those conflicts would eventually be corrected through a
rezone process. Mr. Reesor discussed the commercial uses already on Tax Lot 402. Those had
been in place for decades. This application would bring the nonconforming uses into conformity
with the zone.
Mr. Reesor said the applicant cited the 1992 Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and the 2000
Commercial Lands Inventory as part ofthe burden of proof. The City had worked with the
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) transportation analysis because Main Street was
under ODOr s jurisdiction. He noted a recommended condition of approval regarding trip caps.
He described the basis for that condition.
Mr. Reesor said one person testified in opposition to this amendment on June 5 before the
Planning Commission. The speaker had requested that the record remain open for seven days. At
the end of the seven days, staff had received one written comment from Lauri Segal of Goal One
Coalition. The applicant then had one day to provide a rebuttal. All ofthose written statements
were included in the agenda packet. The Planning Commission deliberated after hearing all .
comments and voted unanimously for approval.
Mayor Leiken confirmed with Development Services Director Bill Grile that Springfield had a
surplus of Light Medium Industrial (LMI) property, but a deficit of Community Commercial
(Ce). This would rezone from LMI to CC.
Councilor Woodrow asked if ODOT would be able to come in and take away their curb-cut if
this was rezoned and the site plan was approved.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 7
Mr. Reesor said access would be considered during site plan review. Often, ODOT would
consolidate accesses if needed.
Councilor Pishionednoted that the commercial building adjacent to this property that was
already occupied had limited access for all the employees. He said he wasn't opposed to this
project, but wanted to make sure there was adequate access.
Mr. Reesor said the City worked with ODOT to try to make it a safe environment for traffic.
PeaceHealth was going in on the application with the owner of the property and would need to be
aware of the concerns.
Mayor Leiken agreed with Councilor Pishioneri and the need for adequate access for people
coming and going to a medical facility. He encouraged working through this issue with ODOT
with a common sense approach.
Councilor Ballew asked if there was a north/south connection bounding the property.
Mr. Reesor said there was not. There was no 45th Street on the north side.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 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, JULY 2,2007
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 18,2007 at 7:02 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and 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 Attorney Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members ofthe
staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The rledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
Mayor Leiken reminded everyone to vote for Springfield, Oregon for the Simpson's Movie
Premiere Contest.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM 3.B
REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. June 18,2007 - Work Session
b. June 18, 2007 - Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO. 07-30 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
AMENDING AND RESTATING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. OREGON
RETIREMENT PLAN.
b. Removed
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2,2007
Page 2
a. Award the Subject Contract to Brown Construction in the Amount of$196,328.80 for
Project P20524, Olympic Street Restriping.
b. Award the Subject Contract to Brown Contracting, Inc. in the Amount of $416,490.00 for
Project P20526, Martin Luther King Parkway Barrier Rail.
c. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the Contract with URS
Corporation for the Storm water Facility Master Plan Contract P50281.
d. Accept the Bid from Clyde West Equipment for Purchase of One (1) Vibratory Roller in
the Amount of$32,475.
ITEMS REMOVED
Mayor Leiken recused himself from item 3.b. as he had a personal involvement in the
development.
3. b. RESOLUTION NO. 07-31 - A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROJECT
P30408; CLEAR VUE ESTATES
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE ITEM 3.B FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
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. Vacation of One Block Segment ofB Street Public Right-of-Way Between 4th Street and
Pioneer Parkway East, Case No. LRP2007-000l9.
ORDINANCE NO. 1- AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 66 FOOT WIDE BY 264 FOOT
LONG PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWN IN BOOK 1. PAGE 1 OF PLAT
RECORDS OF LANE COUNTY. OREGON . DATED APRIL 5. 1872.
City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. On May 7, 2007, City Council
initiated an action to vacate public right-of-way for the segment ofB Street between 4th Street and
Pioneer Parkway East to facilitate development of a secure police parking lot and ancillary
building serving the Springfield Justice Center.
On February 28, 2006, the Springfield City Council considered four site options for the Justice
Center project. The site option selected by the City Council utilizes City-owned property which
is located between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East, and which extends from A Street to the
mid-block alley north ofB Street. The selected site option incorporates a one-block segment ofB
Street right-of-way into the development area for use as a secure police parking lot, and a
building pad for an ancillary building serving the Justice Center.
The subject right-of-way is a 66-foot wide by 264-foot long segment of public street running east-
west along the northern edge ofthe existing police and courts parking lot. The City owns all
abutting tax lots that have frontage on the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. The
Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 5 and 19,2007, and adopted a
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 3
recommendation in support of the proposed vacation at the Public Hearing meeting on June 19,
2007. Nine people presented testimony at the public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Seven of those nine provided verbal testimony in support of the vacation, two provided written
testimony in opposition to the vacation and one individual provided verbal testimony in addition
to his written testimony in opposition of the vacation.
Mr. Limbird noted that the approved Justice Center site plan could be constructed without the
vacation of this portion of B Street.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
Mayor Leiken asked if any of the Councilors had a conflict of interest or exparte contact.
Councilor Woodrow said he was on the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Justice
Center.
Councilors and Lundberg did not have any conflict or exparte contact to declare.
Councilor Ballew observed that the current temporary closure of that section ofB Street for
construction was inconvenient, interrupted a collector street, and interfered with access to the
nver.
Mr. Leahy spoke regarding the Quasi-judicial hearing. He said criteria were set forth in the staff
report. Speakers should address their comments to that criteria and if they had specific comments
for or against this land use request, they should address their comments with sufficient
particularity or specificity so Council could consider them in relationship to the criteria. If
speakers wished to raise concerns about the substance or legality of this, they should do so with
sufficient specificity so it was in the record. If speakers had concerns about this action that they
planned to file an appeal about, they needed to state their concerns sufficiently so that they could
be identified and addressed. If a speaker failed to raise a particular matter through the public
record with the Planning Commission or through public testimony, and it wasn't raised tonight,
the speaker may be precluded from filing an appeal on the basis of a particular concern, alleged
irregularity or illegality. Those concerns needed to be put into the record so the Council could
address those and think about them. If anyone wished the record to remain open, they had an
opportunity to do so by request.
Councilor Pishioneri said he also attended the CAC meetings and public information gatherings
during the process for the design phase. That would not sway his judgment in either direction.
Councilor Ballew said the case made for a greater public use to vacate B Street was not
demonstrated to her.
Mr. Leahy said the purpose of Council declaring their observations was to let those testifying
know before they testified.
1. Scott Olson. 1127 B Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. Olson said he had two requests tonight. He
hoped Council would drop this effort, but if not he would expect to be appealing this decision
to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). He asked that the record remain open for the
submittal of additional materials supporting his objections. He said he would demonstrate that
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 4
the City had constrained the ability of the public to affect the initial decision to build in the
street and was requesting that the minutes and public process records for the following City
decisions related to the Justice Center be added to the record for this decision: 1) the basis for
the bond measure funding level (was it an acceptable taxing level or was it based on a
functional space requirement); 2) the functional space planning process; 3) the,alternatives,
development and selection process; 4) code change that allowed the Justice Center as an
allowed use in the zone; 5) the zone change; 6) the discretionary use approval; and 7) the site
plan review. Mr. Olson said he was not opposed to this project, although that is the manner in
which staff had characterized his complaints. He remained steadfastly committed to
preventing the vacation ofB Street. He said his objections were primarily founded in his
beliefthat the integrity of the street grid and the functional continuity of the collector and
arterial street system was the foundation upon which great communities were created. He said
he had worked over the last fifty years to make the Oregon land use system meaningful. The
City could have both the Justice Center and the downtown planned and envisioned. The
Justice Center would be a desirable addition to the neighborhood; however, it must be built
within the greater planning context. In his opinion, the manner in which the City had stifled
consideration of viable alternatives and manipulated the land use approval process had
significantly weakened the City's position upon appeal. The problem was that well-
intentioned people saw the closure of the street as a relatively minor thing and the lowest cost
way to build the most Justice Center. They were not correctly informed or did not accept the
fact that Springfield's rules, aka the land use impediment, would not accommodate the street
closure. A thinly veiled effort to insert alternative criteria in the Code to allow the street
vacation in spite of the Comprehensive Plan policies, the Transportation System Plan, the
Downtown Refinement Plan and other specific Code criteria related to block links and street
connectivity. The City had failed to provide any balance and consideration of the issue of
street closure. The applications had been incomplete and inadequate for all of the land use
decisions. This put the burden on the review staff to develop all of the supporting arguments.
It was disappointing that all of the Development Services review comments throughout this
process were supportive of the street closure and tend to be argumentative against any issues
that were raised questioning the wisdom of doing so..In the end, he believed that would work
against the City. He recommended Council drop the misguided effort now and get on with
spending the rest of the funds on building a great facility and leave the street to all citizens. A
LUBA appeal would be expensive and he found no personal satisfaction in carrying this
matter out. He was doing this because he felt it was the best thing for Springfield. He
suggested putting the secure parking across the street where it belonged, designating the on
. street parking adjacent to the building for Police and Court use and get on with it.
2. Steve Singleton. 252 North 65th Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. Singleton served as the
Chairman of the Police Planning Task Force (PPTF) and as Vice Chair of the CAC that was
formed to consider all of the options for the Justice Center. He reiterated four points that
Police Chief Smith had already said. As a PPTF member and in his position on the CAC,
these points stood for him and for his decision to stand in support of this closure: 1) Security,
functionality and control were the three main issues involved. Regardless to what those
opposed say, any Justice Center facility that was split was going to greatly hinder security,
traffic, safety and functionality. Ifthe building needed to be evacuated, where would the
Police go to control prisoners? Part of the enclosure of having it all on one site allowed that to
be done and also provided security for the employees; 2) Secure fleet and employee parking
was a problem; 3) Safety for Police officers and other citizens was also a problem. The
property would remain in the public trust no matter what happened in the future. Down the
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 5
road it would not be sold for private use. It was being closed for the purpose of creating a
Justice Center. The people of Springfield had spoken. There were many, many options and
plans for the building, This was not adopted haphazardly or by a misinformed group. The
CAC was well informed throughout the process. People of Springfield spoke loud and clear
twice - one to fund the construction of the building and one to fund the function of the center.
It would not be in good faith or the public interest to incur the added expense of major
changes to the project at this late date or send everything back to the drawing board, which
would occur. The result in security and effective usefulness of this entire project, in his mind,
far outweighed the inconvenience of an added few seconds of drive time. He noted that
downtown Eugene had opened and closed their through streets in that area several times over .
the years and people adjusted. He said the roundabouts put in throughout Springfield,
including the first one in his Thurston neighborhood, were met with skepticism, but had
turned out to be the greatest thing that happened to Thurston. At best, the traffic closure and
reroute would be a minor inconvenience. Please compare that to the major changes that
would have to be undertaken if Council were to deny this closure; changes to a plan that was
discussed at great length, and agreed to and voted on by a majority of the CAC and the people
of Springfield. He said he believed everyone dreamed of a new revitalized downtown
Springfield and the Justice Center was a giant step in that direction. Unfortunately, nothing
new or nothing changed came without some. cost. If a few seconds of drive time-is the cost,
he was willing to pay that.
Mayor Leiken noted that Mr. Olson had requested that the record be left op~.
Mr. Leahy said per that request, the record needed to remain open for at least seven days. During
that time, information would likely be added to the record so there should be an opportunity for
the staff to review it after the seven days and submit information in response. Mr. Leahy asked
about the upcoming Council agenda schedule. He asked staff how much time they would need for
their response. The Planning Director indicated that staff could provide a response in one day.
The record would remain open until 5 :OOpm July 9, with staff response by July 11.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO HOLD THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL 5:00PM ON JULY 9 WITH A
TWO DAY REBUTTAL PERIOD FOR STAFF IF NEEDED. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
NO ACTION REQUESTED ON THE ORDINANCE. FIRST READING ONLY.
2. Proposed Amendments to Article 26 - Hillside Development Overlay District Extending the
Potential Use of Density Transfer (Cluster Development).
ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 26.030. 26.050
(INCLUDING TABLE 26-1) AND 26.070 OF ARTICLE 26 "HD HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT" OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO EXPAND THE APPLICATION OF "DENSITY TRANSFER" TO MAKE
MORE EFFICIENT USE OF REMAINING BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL LANDS:
REQUIRING DEVELOPERS TO PAY FOR PEER REVIEW OF TECHNICAL STUDIES
REQUIRED FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT: AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 6
Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger presented the staffreport on this item. Development
standards currently allow a "density transfer" from steep slopes to areas of lesser slope on south-
facing hillsides in exchange for the preservation of the steep slopes. At issue is whether to extend
the density transfer provision to north, west and east facing slopes.
The proposed changes to Article 26 include: 1) various changes needed to implement an
extension of density transfer to all-facing hillsides with a slope of IS to 2S%; 2) allowing
"average slope" to be used when calculating the number of units eligible for density transfer; and
3) the addition of a requirement in the Development Code that the developer pay for "peer
review" of the sophisticated geotechnical and engineering analysis by a consultant of the City's
choice for hillside development in order to ensure safe development and stable slopes.
Density transfer is proposed for use in the Heritage Park development (Gray-Jaqua property in
South Thurston Hills) on a north-facing hillside to allow an exchange of higher density
development on lower slopes and the preservation of the upper slopes for park land. The pre-
development agreement signed by the City with the developer of the Gray-Jaqua property
includes a provision allowing consideration of a density transfer on the north facing slope of the
property, provided that such density transfer is consistent with the City's development code and
land use regulations. Other developments are being considered in the Thurston Hills that would
benefit from an expanded application of density transfer to north, east and west facing slopes.
In work session on June 25th, Council requested a table showing the relationship -between percent
of slope and degree of slope. Attachment 4 includes a conversion table showing percent slope
and degrees of slope. Additional information and illustrations are contained in the attachment
describing grading and siting practices for hillside development.
The Planning Commission met three times between February and April 2007, to evaluate the
safety and prudence of allowing the proposed expansion of density transfers and voted
unanimously to approve the proposed changes. Minutes of those meetings and submitted
testimony are found in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3.
Councilor Ralston asked about a conversion table regarding percent to slope.
Mr. Metzger said it was included as Attachment 4 in the agenda packet.
Councilor Ballew asked if staff could look back to see why the density transfer was originally
only allowed on south facing slopes.
Mr. Metzger said considerable research was done on that condition. Initially, there was no
answer, so staff considered if there was anything unsafe about building on south facing slopes,
but there was not. The Development Services Department (DSD) staff joined the Public Works
(PW) staff and it was reported that there was speculation that the south facing slope issues related
to solar access issues. The authorization that Council would be approving would not waive any
solar access standards, engineering design standards, or other building standards.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 7
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
3. Concurrent Metro PlanlRefmement Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment
Regarding Property Near 44th and Main Street.
ORDINANCE NO.3 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE METRO PLAN
DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 5.24 ACRES OF LAND. IDENTIFIED AS LANE
COUNTY ASSESOR'S MAP 17-02-32-00. TAX LOTS 400 & 402 FROM LIGHT
MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL (LM!). TO COMMERCIAL WITH AN AUTOMATIC
REDESIGNATION TO THE EAST MAIN REFINEMENT PLAN FROM LMI TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC).
ORDINANCE NO.4 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING
MAP BY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 5.24 ACRES OF LAND IDENTIFIED AS
LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP 17-02-32-00. TAX LOTS 400 & 402. FROM LIGHT
MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL (LM!) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC).
City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The applicant requests
approval of a Metro Plan / Refinement Plan Map Amendment to the East Main Refmement Plan
and a.concurrent Zoning Map Amendment. The request involves two parcels, and is located on
approximately 5.24 acres identified as Tax Lots 400 and 402 on Assessor's Map No. 17-02-32-
00. Specifically, the applicant proposes to change the Metro Plan designation from Light
Medium Industrial (LMI) to Commercial and a concurrent Refinement Plan Amendment and
Zoning Map Amendment from LMI to CC. The applicant seeks approval ofthese applications in
order to facilitate development of a future Medical Office building on the site.
On June 5th, 2007, the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on the
subject applications (LRP2007-00013 & ZON2007-00012). One citizen, Nancy Falk, testified in
opposition to the proposal at the first public hearing and requested that the record be left open for
seven days. The Planning Commission granted the request and instructed Staff to leave the record
open until Tuesday, June 12th, 2007. Staff received one written testimony from Lauri Segel, Goal
One Coalition Planner, on June 12th, 2007. A written rebuttal to Ms. Segel's letter was then
submitted by the applicant the following day, June 13th, 2007. Both letters were received within
the specified deadlines as noted in the Planning Commission public hearing on June 5th, 2007.
The original Staff Report and exhibits are attached for Council's review.
After reviewing all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated on the
applications on June 19t\ 2007, and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that both
applications be sent to the City Council for consideration and approval.
Mr. Reesor noted that the applications had been duly noticed in the newspaper to the general
public, neighboring residents and Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).
The applicant referenced the 1992 Buildable Lands Study and the 2000 Commercial Lands Study
to support their proposal. Staff and ODOT had reviewed the traffic concerns since ODOT had
jurisdiction of Main Street. One condition of approval was recommended for a trip cap. Written
comments received during the extended period oftime the record was open, as well as the
rebuttal from the applicant, were included in the agenda packet.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 8
Mr. Leahy asked Mayor Leiken to ask Council for any bias or ex parte contact.
Mayor Leiken asked Council to disclose any bias or exparte contact.
Mayor Leiken and Councilors Wylie, Pishioneri, Woodroow, Lundberg and Ralston had none.
Councilor Ballew said she spoke with Philip Farrington to ask about the nature of the building.
Mr. Leahy reviewed the quasi-judicial process for this public hearing. Speakers were advised to
direct their comments to the criteria, because those would have an affect on the Council's
decision making. Speakers needed to speak with enough specificity or particularity so the Council
could understand the speaker's concerns and consider them. If the speaker failed to bring matters
to the Council's attention with enough specificity and particularity, they may waive those on any
subsequent appeal to LUBA. If anyone requested the record remain open, Council would be
required to leave the record open for at least seven days.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
1. Philip Farrington. PeaceHealth. 123 International Way. Springfield. OR. Mr. Farrington said
this application was presented on their behalf for the larger parcel so they could have the
entitlement to construct a future medical building. He said their model would include more
consolidated offerings in one location that militated fmding a bigger site. It had been a
challenge to do that to serve the growing needs of the Springfield area. This site seemed to be
suitable to develop a clinic similar to their Barger Clinic. The application would give
PeaceHealth the entitlement to build this clinic, which was not currently allowed in the
Industrial Zone. It would also allow the neighboring property to get out of nonconforming
status. The application demonstrated that there was a surplus of LMI property, there was a
deficit of needed commercial land as expressed in the Springfield Commercial Lands
Inventory, and the clinical use must be located in a commercially zoned parcel. Other sites in
east Springfield would have required rezoning much needed residential property Approval of
this application would allow for long-standing commercial uses on the smaller parcel to no
longer be nonconforming and allow for employment generating uses on the bigger parcel that
were needed to serve this east Springfield area. Those employment opportunities would pay
higher incomes than the traditional industrial uses that had been on this site and would result
in a higher employment density than the industrial uses. The application demonstrated that
Goal 12 had been met by imposition of a trip cap to limit traffic from future commercial uses
to that which would be no higher than the worse case scenario for the existing industrial
zoning. The application met Goal 9 standards by complying with the Springfield Commercial
Lands Study's policies and the Metro Plan's policies without debiting the inventory of needed
industrial land. This proposal fulfilled four of Council's goals: by utilizing resources
efficiently to meet the needs of citizens by providing these needed services; maintaining the
transportation infrastructure through the trip cap; facilitating redevelopment of Springfield;
and enhancing the economy through the commercial development of this proposal.
2. John Hyland. 89006 White Water Road. Springfield. OR. Mr. Hyland said he was the current
owner of the subject property and owned the Hyland Business Park to the east of the
property. Rezoning this property to commercial for the clinic would enhance the area, and
that was needed. He strongly recommended approval of this application. He said this area
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
. Page 9
was already saturated with business parks and felt the medical clinic would be a better use for
this property.
3. Geoffrey Aguirre. 4475 Daisy Street #57. Springfield. OR. Mr. Aguirre said he was a
resident living in Springfield and a 3rd year law student at the University of Oregon School of
Law. He was speaking on behalf of Goal.Dne Coalition. He noted that Goal One had several
procedural concerns about this development.
. First, the proposed plan amendment didn't comply with provisions ofthe Metro Plan and
Springfield's Development Code for the initiation of Metro Plan amendments. Staff
failed to require the applicant to address the plan review policies of the Metro Plan and
had erred in finding that the applicant's choice of applicable Metro Plan policies and
elements was sufficient. PeaceHealth Oregon should not have been allowed to propose
the subject plan amendment or zone change. Because they were not the owner of the
subject properties, such a proposal was inconsistent with the proper initiation of proposed
Metro Plan amendments explained in Section 7.010 and 7.030 6fthe Springfield
Development Code. Metro Plan Amendment Policy 4, Initiation of Metropolitan Plan
Amendments, established that a Type II amendment may be initiated at the discretion of
anyone of the three governing bodies or by any citizen who owned property that was
subject of the proposed amendments. PeaceHealth Oregon was the applicant, but not the
owner of the property, thus the initiation of these amendments did not comply with the
requirements of the Metro Plan.
· Second, the applicant incorrectly referred to the subject properties as being subject to
Mixed Use Area 2 policies. The subject properties were zoned Light Medium Industrial
(LMI). Since the proposed development lot was not within the Mixed Use area, no
Mixed Use area arguments were applicable and the property was not subject to East Main
Refinement Plan (EMRP) Mixed Use Elements Policy 2, which was specific to Area 2.
The policy did not say anything about criteria for rezoning or redesignations, but merely
established what uses were allowed under CC zoning in Area 2 only. The EMRP
defmition of CC neither allowed nor encapsulated medical facilities, offices, clinics or
hospitals.
· Third, the EMRP's commercial element under criteria for a commercial Refinement Plan
designation at l.d, specified that the CC Refinement Plan designation shall be applied
under the following circumstances - where legally created commercial uses exist. The tax
records for tax lot 402 did not reflect the three existing businesses actually conducting
business on tax lot 402. The City staff had not been able to locate any recent permits for
the three existing businesses; therefore, the three existing businesses did not appear to be
legal and were not legally created commercial uses.
Mr. Aguirre thanked the Council for their time and the opportunity to speak
4. Andy Head. 25519 Fleck Road. Veneta. OR. Mr. Head said he was the owner of the property
on the southwest corner of 4434, 4436, and 4440 Main Street. He had owned the property for
about three years, but the business had been in existence since about 1951. When he
purchased the property, there were three businesses located at this site. They were a
barbershop, tanning salon, and a hair barber. He understood these were nonconforming since
1951. The barbershop had been established since 1953, and originally started out as a donut
shop. He felt the medical clinic would be a great deal for Main Street on the east side of
Springfield. It was Qeneficial for the surrounding businesses to have a business nearby that
was comparable or nicer. He noted the assisted living facility that was just a block and a half
away and this would decrease miles traveled for those tenants. He brought some maps
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 10
showing an aerial view of the structure as it was in 1960. The maps were entered into the
record. Mr. Head said his building had about eleven employees and he felt this change could
help business improve.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Councilor Pishioneri asked Mr. Farrington about the building and the functions of the proposed
building. He asked if there were plans for any type of emergency mitigation in that area, servicing
the east side of Springfield. He referred to emergency preparedness.
Mr. Farrington said probably not. The proposed clinic would house general practitioners, and
other services such as imaging, pharmacy and other ancillary services.
Mr. Leahy reminded Council that in making their decision, they stay with the criteria.
Mayor Leiken noted that during the Work Session it was identified that the City had a surplus of
LMI and a need for CC.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READINGS ONLY.
4. Conduct a Public Hearing and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Fees in Springfield's
Department of Development Services Community Services Division "Building Safety
Codes".
ORDINANCE NO. 6199 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING ARTICLE 1. TABLE 3-A, STRUCTURAL
PERMIT FEES~ TABLE 3-B ELECTRlCIAL PERMIT FEES. TABLE 3-C PLUMBING
PERMIT FEES~ TABLE 3-D MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES: TABLE 3-F OTHER
INSPECTIONS AND FEES OF THE "SPRINGFIELD BUILDING SAFETY CODE
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE" OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION "BUILDING SAFETY CODES"
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Community Services Manager Dave Puent presented the staff report on this item. The State of
Oregon has delegated to the City of Springfield the authority to issue permits and perform
inspection services required by the State Building Code. The City has the ability by statutory
authority to adjust permit fees to recover all reasonable operational costs associated with
performing permit and inspection services.
Springfield has not increased Specialty Code permit fees since calendar year 2001. During this
period the Community Services Division has been able to recover aU costs associated with
providing permit and inspection services. As a result of the significant increase in development
activity and the continuing demands for inspection services, two additional inspector positions
were added to FY 08 Base Budget. The cost of the two inspector positions to Fund 224 (a permit
and inspection service dedicated fund) is approximately $264,000 including City indirects.
Although past permit fee revenue has exceeded 100 percent cost recovery for the last several
years, the proposed fee increase is necessary to offset a significant portion of the additional cost
in order to sustain a reasonable reserve account and to maintain effective service levels to the
development community .
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 11
The proposed fee increase allows the Community Services Division to continue to recover all
costs associated with providing permit and inspection services.
The proposed fee increase is approximately a 10% increase of existing fees and should generate
an estimated $160,000 to $170,000 of additional revenue at existing construction activity levels.
Mr. Puent explained that notice was sent around the state to interested parties and no appeal was
filed. No negative comments were received from Mr. Puent. This was the fIrst significant fee
increase for building fees since the fall of 200 1.
Councilor Ballew asked how much revenue this increase would raise.
Mr. Puent said it would bring in between $160,000 to $170,000.
Councilor Ballew noted that the estimated costs were over $200,000.
Mr. Puent said that was at current activity levels. They expected to provide some other services
that would bring in additional revenue. This would be self-supporting.
Councilor Pishioneri asked what would happen if our current activity dropped.
Mr. Puent said if activity went down, some services couldn't be provided.
Mayor Leiken confirmed that the HomeBuilder's Association had been contacted regarding these
increases. Yes. He appreciated that.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
Noone appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6199. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. H.P. Oldfield. 5196 Forsythia Drive. Springfield. OR. Mr. Oldfield spoke regarding the
lack of control of cats in Springfield. He would like to see something done about.it. He
said it was a daily ritual trying to keep the cats out of his yard. Some people don't take
care of their cats and he would like to see something done about it.
Councilor Ralston agreed. He noted the problems of dealing with cats. He said he would also
like to have an answer, but didn't know what it would be.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there were ordinances that limited any types of animals at
residences for health reasons.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 12
Mr. Grimaldi said in the past there had been situations where there were nuisances because of
health issues. Those were rare. It had to be on the site the cats were residing.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if a resident could call in if they saw fifteen or twenty cats running
around another residence and if the City had a mechanism to deal with that type of call.
Chief Smith said when they had encountered large number of cats, there were health issues and
potential for cruelty to animals. The City had the ability to use the State law when that was the
situation,. but it did not limit the number of cats. The City did not have ordinances that restricted
cats in any way.
Councilor Wylie asked about a policy for wild and feral cats.
. Chief Smith said the animal control officer didn't deal with cats unless there was a health or
cruelty issue.
Councilor Lundberg said there was a traveling van that dealt with feral cats twice a year. She had
been asked to include this information in the TEAM Springfield newsletter. A low-cost spay and
neuter clinic was put in and that was a starting place to control the numbers. She explained where
the clinic was located. She would like to have that publicized as much as possible. Some progress
had been made, but it was an enormous problem.
Councilor Woodrow said Dr. Kelly Rozen was the Veterinarian that had opened up the low-cost
spay and neuter clinic. There was also a Feral Cat Coalition that could be called. They would
come out, trap feral cats, have them spayed or neutered, but would return them because they
couldn't displace them somewhere. Another group called SARA worked out of Eugene and
helped relocate cats. He agreed with Councilor Lundberg that strides had been made, but with the
set up at Lane County Animal Regulation Authority (LCARA) and the limited resources of the
City, help was needed from the citizens that had cats.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about looking at limits per household on cats, not just for health
issues. He would like to look at the pros and cons.
Mayor Leiken said that would be challenging to enforce.
Councilor Ralston said the issue was not whether or not they were taken care of, but that they ran
outside. Limiting the number may not solve the problem. Cats were hard to control and the public
needed to be educated. There needed to be a consequence for uncontrolled cats.
Councilor Woodrow said part of problem with an ordinance limiting cats, would only limit those
that took care of their cats. Those with ten or fifteen cats, would not be likely to obey a limitlaw,
but may turn them loose. As much as he would like to see something done with feral cats, it
wouldn't be consistent with the Goals of this Council to punish those citizens that did take care of
their animals.
Councilor Ballew said this issue had been debated often. The effort to do more neutering and
spaying and providing public education was a good thing. This might be something sponsored by
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 13
TEAM Springfield because it was a livability issue. She suggested putting together a package of
livability issues that could be provided to citizens.
Councilor Pishioneri said the difference was that both graffiti and littering were illegal and there
were consequences for those. There weren't any consequences for cats. If a pet owner was
responsible, they wouldn't draw the attention of enforcement. They couldn't solve this tonight,
but he wanted it to be brought up so everyone was aware. Council needed to do something.
Councilor Ballew said the City didn't have the fmances for a lot ofthings and didn't have the
resources to enforce anything at this time.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Craig Enberg, 725 D Street, Springfield, Oregon Regarding the
Simpson's Contest..
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY
COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FORAND 0 AGAINST.
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
I. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Woodrow said he attended the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG)
meeting for Councilor Pishioneri. At the end of the meeting, Jane Lee from ODOT
asked how she could help Council's communicate better with ODOT, so that ODOT
could help negotiate for the cities. There was a discussion of lack of trust between
cities and ODOT, and cities with each other. There was a suggestion that there should
be better communication. Councilor Woodrow suggested Mayors getting together
once a month along with a Council member, and reporting back to the full Council.
Two of the Mayors thought it was a good idea and the other two didn't say.
2. Councilor Ballew reported on Lane Workforce Partnership. Annual awards were
given for businesses and she thought perhaps Council could think about honoring
some Springfield businesses next year.
3. Mayor Leiken said the Governor signed HB3337. The Official Eugene '08 One- Year
Kick-off for the Olympic Trials was held last Saturday. There was an official clock
counting down the days located at the 5th Street Market in Eugene. The Trials start on
June 27, 2008 and it would be a special occasion for our area. Some of the greatest
athletes in the world would be in our aref:l for about two weeks. Springfield was
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 14
playing an impo~ant part in this and Council contributed funds for the efforts. The
international sCQpe of the media would be housed in Springfield.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Lane County Adult Work Crew.
Assistant Public Works Manager Len Goodwin presented the staff rep<?rt on this item. Because
c of budget reductions at Lane County, the Lane County Sheriff now is able to deploy adults
serving their sentence outside of a secure facility by providing manual labor to other agencies.
The Public Works Department can take advantage of these services to perform work that is
needed but generally not within the priorities of assignments to regular personnel.
For a number of years the Lane County Sherriff has operated a road crew. Participants in the
Road Crew have been convicted of criminal activity but are not incarcerated. These individuals'
are sentenced to serve a specified number of days performing general labor, as an alternative to
incarceration. As part of the restructuring in anticipation of the loss offederal timber revenues,
Lane County Public Works has terminated its road crew program. The Sheriff is now exploring
opportunities to be able to continue to provide non-custodial supervision of these offenders. The
Sherriff will charge $75.00 per hour for services performed by the work crew.
City staff have identified a number of projects, including graffiti removal, alley cleanup and
vegetation removal, which could be performed by the crew at a cost far below what would result
if regular City staff were used. Public Works Environmental Services Division staffhave also
identified a number of projects, general involving vegetation management, that exist at various
parts of the regional sanitary system. Money is available in the current budget to fund a modest
program which would provide the City and the Regional Sewer System with the equivalent of
two days of work each week.
Staff recommends that the Council approve the City's participation in the Adult Work Crew
Program by authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute an intergovernmental
agreement with Lane County substantially in the form of Attachment B.
Mr. Goodwin said the City was now keeping annual costs for this contract to $40,000, but would
evaluate to see if that amount could be increased at a later time. The road crew would not present
any security issue and could provide a great service to the City. There were no issues with the
City's collective bargaining group, but AFSCME would like to bargain on the practical impact of
this change with the City. City staff would sit down with AFSCME representatives to discuss this
issue, but didn't feel it would interfere with the contractual relations with AFSCME.
Mayor Leiken said he was personally touched by the fact that Sheriff Burger was present and
made positive remarks during the groundbreaking of the Justice Center. Mayor Leiken felt this
contract was a positive thing for our community and a good program.
Councilor Ballew asked if the $75/hour, included sheriff staff. Yes, it was ~he entire cost. She
asked if we had insurance liability for this.
Mr. Goodwin said the County assumed all liability. They were self insured.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 2, 2007
Page 15
. Mr. Leahy said the agreement was in front of Council. He referred to the section that addressed
the County's self-insurance program which was available to meet the indemnity requirements.
Councilor Pishioneri said he started overseeing the road crew when it first began. They had done
a lot of work in our community. The workers worked v::ry hard and showed a lot of pride in what
they had done. He had high regard for this program and felt the City would benefit. He said he
would recuse himself from voting since he was vested in the program, although it wouldn't affect
his vote. .
Councilor Ballew said it sounded like a great deal for the City and a great use ofpeople's time.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LANE COUNTY AUTHORIZING
THE LANE COUNTY SHERIFF TO DEPLOY MEMBERS OF THE ADULT WORK
CREW TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE MAINTENANCE DIVISION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 recused-
Pishiolleri)
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8: 17 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Sidney W. Leiken
Mayor
Attest:
City Recorder