Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/2011 Regular ` ~ City of Springfield .Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 20.11 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the.Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 7 at 7:00 ~p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE ` Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Ralston, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Woodrow, and Pishioneri. Also present were~City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Assistant City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff. ' ' .Present from Lane County Board of Commissioners were Board Chair Stewart, and Board. Members Leiken, Sorenson, Handy, and Bozievich. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. PUBLIC HEARING -JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,.~.; 1. Glenwood Update of the Springfield Natural Resources Study and Related Inventory Documents, Which are Components of the Metro Plan. Planning File No. LRP2010-0002. ORDINANCE NO. 1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITANPLANTO UPDATE THE SPRINGFIELD LOCAL WETLAND INVENTORY, THE SPRINGFIELD INVENTORY OF NATURAL .RESOURCE SITES AND THE SPRINGFIELD NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY TO INCLUDE NEWLY _ IDENTIFIED WETLAND AND RIPARIAN SITES IN THE GLENWOOD AREA• TO ADOPT PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE NEW GLENWOOD SITES AND TO UPDATE_THE BOUNDARIES OF KNOWN SITES; AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE (FIRST READTNG~ City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. Lane County Planner Stephanie Schulz also sat at the table with Mr. Metzger. A new inventory of wetlands and riparian corridors in Glenwood had identif ed four new wetlands and three new. riparian sites that were not currently included in Springfield's resource inventory and protection program. The proposed amendments were insert pages and replacement pages that would update Springfield's Local Wetland Inventory, the Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites (Riparian Inventory) and. the Springfield Natural Resources Study to include the' Glenwood sites. These documents were previously adopted as components of the Metro Plan (as part of the last periodic review process). To become effective throughout Glenwood, the amendments'must be approved by the. City Council. and the Board of County Commissioners.. - ,_ City of Springfield .Council Regular Meeting Minutes - February 7, 2011 Page 2 Three mailed notices and two public open houses were used to explain these amendments to ~, affected Glenwood owners and residents over the last 11 months. Only about 3.3 acres of developable land were affected by the inventory additions and recommended new protections. The Springfield Planning Commission conducted 'a public hearing on the matter on January 19, 2011. The actual amendments were minor in scope and impact and accordingly, no public testimony had been received. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that . the Council and the Commissioners approve the proposed Glenwood natural resource ~' amendments. .. Mr. Metzger said Glenwood sites were mentioned in the current document, but with the Glenwood Refinement Plan Update, they determined that the natural resource inventories were deficient. When the Springfield Natural Resource Study was originally drafted., Eugene had jurisdiction of Glenwood until the late 1990's when there was a jurisdictional transfer to ,Springfield. At that time, they took the natural resource inventory information Eugene had and incorporated it into Springfield's documents. They were aware it was not complete, and this amendment would update those inventories. Staff was taking the opportunity, .with the update of the Glenwood Plan, to go back and do more thorough analysis of the wetland riparian areas in Glenwood. That work was completed almost a year ago 'and the results were taken to Glenwood residents. They identif ed four new wetland areas and three new riparian areas and discussed- those with the Glenwood residents. Necessary papers were filed to update our Local Wetland Inventory with the Oregon Department of State Lands last summer. Legal notices were also mailed out to Glenwood residents. Another open house was held a few weeks ago with Glenwood residents. Mr. Metzger said staff was bringing forward insert sheets that would go into the notebook, replacing some Glenwood information and providing additional information. In addition to the Inventory book, there was a Local Wetland Inventory and Inventory of Natural Resource Sites. The volume of material provided with the packet was not an indication of the number of changes, but was required. The City was required to do in depth analysis, and out of that analysis came the recommendation for action at the proposed sites. Staff was recommending that they keep the 50 foot setbacks 'as noted in the existing stormwater management program, and a 2~ foot ~. development setback fore-the new sites. Mr. Metzger referred to page 3 of the Executive Summary, Attachment 2 of the agenda packet. He discussed Table 1 which showed acreage affected by Glenwood wetland and riparian . . -amendments, and explained each of the figures. He also discussed Table 2 which showed the .affected acreage outside ofright-of--ways. The total number of acreage affected was about 58 acres, but subtracting out those within right-of--way where building couldn't occur anyway, the . figure was about 34 acres. People wanted to know how it affected their land if they chose to . develop. For lands that were vacant or redevelopable and not in aright-of--way, the acreage was . . about 10.8 acres. Most sites proposed were already protected. He further described the impact. Protection measures were not retroactive, but would affect future development or redevelopment of existing properties. Since 2005, Franz Bakery and FedEx had moved into the area and although their sites were affected by the wetlands, were able to work with those and build. Councilor Pishioneri asked how many residential properties would be affected in the figure of 3.3 acres of residential. He asked the same. question regarding industrial property. - ~ City of Springfield ; Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2011 Page 3 Mr. Metzger said he didn't know exactly how many, but it could be about two or three in . residential. He knew of one residence that was an established home and the back yard backed up to one of the proposed sites. Councilor Pishioneri wanted to determine the type of affect this would have on those living there. • Mr. Metzger said he couldn't say how many lots without looking at ,the spreadsheet. Commissioner Leiken said Glenwood residents had usually been forthcoming when something affected them. He asked if staff had received any response from the citizens that would be affected, or if they had a, sense of the overall attitude of the residents. " Mr. Metzger said this process had been going on for some time. About 30 people attended the first open house and staff answered their questions in a way that made sense to those citizens: The Pape family, one of the industrial use.. property owners, was concerned about a wetland identified by the inventory that didn't, by State criteria, rise to the level of being called a locally significant wetland. That term was defined by the State. There was a wetland on their property that was not significant, so they were.: given the option of working with the State. Often in cases where a wetland was not locally significant, the State would work with the property owner to allow mitigation and make use of the property. With each mail notice that went out, they had people calling asking questions. With the most recent mailing, they received only 3 phone calls. Notices went to people with properties within a 300 foot buffer of affected properties, but were not actually affected. There was only one person at the last open house, and there was no one at the Planning Commission who spoke in opposition. Notices were mailed to residents and' were placed in the newspaper. Commissioner Leiken said he appreciated that. Glenwood residents were close knit and talked with each other about issues. This was a lot of work to satisfy the goals. Commissioner Handy referred to Table 1 page 3 of Attachment 2 and asked about the figures and . how the additional acres were calculated to address the 50 foot setback. Mr. Metzger said these features were long and linear so the 50 foot stretch over a "long distance accumulated more acres., Staff used GIS and the buffering function to establish that acreage. '" Commissioner Handy asked about draft finding number 58 listed on page 22, which stated, "Based on our review ofpotential riparian~widths within Glenwood's more urbanized center, the majority of the riparian areas are already developed: houses, industrial development, and impervious surfaces encompass much of the riparian corridors. It is likely that designating up to .120-foot wide riparian corridors :...within already developed areas will not result in additional riparian protection." He asked Mr. Metzger to explain that finding. Mr. Metzger said Pacific Habitat Services was hired by the State to train people how to do wetland delineation and riparian studies. They did the work in Glenwood. One common approach to defining riparian width was to look at the site potential tree height of 120 feet. The City could go that way using the 120 foot riparian width; but in the context of these particular wetlands and riparian areas inland in development areas, the additional distance would not result in additional protection. He wanted to emphasize that in their opinion, setting 120 foot wide riparian widths inland would, in this context, not achieve more protection. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2011 Page 4 Commissioner Handy asked about finding 60, on page 22 of Attachment 2, which stated, "The City of Springfield has already taken action to revise its Development Code to respond to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II, the Clean Water Act, the . Drinking Water Protection Act, and is in the process of devising a response to the Endangered Species Act for listed species in our area. The proposed amendments do not change this response to these federal regulations." Mr. Metzger said the. protections proposed tonight were not related to a response to the NPDES. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No. one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. Mayor Lundberg noted that this was a first reading for Springfield and no action was required. Councilor Moore said she appreciated having the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting in the agenda packet. Board Chair Stewart asked if Lane County needed to take action tonight.. Mr. Metzger said the City Council would hold a second reading. He understood from Lane . County staff that the Board preferred to~take action after the City of Springfield. He would notify Ms. Schulz once that action was taken. Discussion was held regarding when this would come back to the County for their second and third readings. Mr. Metzger said the second reading-for Springfield could be scheduled for February 22. He would notify Lane County staff once the decision was made so they could report to the Board during their first meeting after February 22. BOARD CHAIR STEWART READ INTO THE RECORD ORDINANCE NO. PA-1277 IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD LOCAL WETLAND INVENTORY, THE SPRIl`TGFIELD INVENTORY OF NATURAL RESOURCE SITES, AND THE SPRINGFIELD NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY, TO INCLUDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED WETLAND AND RIPARIAN SITES AND TO UPDATE THE . BOUNDARIES OF KNOWN SITES WITHIN THE GLENWOOD AREA, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. APPLICANT: SPRINGFIELD, FILE NO. PA - 10-6053) FOR THE SECOND READING, SET THE TIHRD READING AND LEAVE THE RECORD OPEIVT UNTIL FEBRUARY 23, 2011. THE ACTION WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEIKEN WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOZIEVICH. THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 7:35 p.m.: The County Commissioners adjourned and left the meeting. 7:39 p.m.: The Springfield City Council resumed their meeting. ' - ,' ~ i City of Springfield - Council Regular Meeting Minutes . February 7, 2011 Page 5 SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT CONSENT CALENDAR - 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. January 11, 2011 -Work Session b. January 18, 2011- Work Session 3. Resolutions ' - a.. RESOLUTION NO. 11-03 - A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROJECT P30546, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR MCKENZIE-TAYLOR CENTER 4. Ordinances ~ - 5. Other Routine Matters a. Acceptance of Financial Reports for December 31, 2010. b. Authorize City Manager to Amend Contract with Rick. Williams Consulting to Complete Work Identified;in Original Project Scope. c. Approve Renewal of the Contract with Willamette Community Health Solutions DBA Cascade Health Solutions to Provide Inmate Medical and Dental Services to the Springfield 1Vlunicipal Jail. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH A CORRECTION OF THE MAYOR'S NAME ON THE JANUARY 11, 2011 WORK SESSIOIv MINUTES. THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ITEMS REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS -Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. ` 1. Establishing Liens for Public Improvements to Serve S. 38~' Street and Cherokee Drive. ` ORDINANCE NO. 6263 - AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING LIENS FOR INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR S. 38~' STREET AND CHEROKEE DRIVE,. PROJECT #P21032, IN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, LANE COUNTY, OREGON AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY: Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. The City completed alocal - improvement project for S. 38~' Street and Cherokee Drive, Project P21032. The project installed. sewer mains and laterals for 45 homes in an existing annexed residential area that did not previously have public sewer installed. The Council was requested to adopt the ordinance . assessing the properties for this project in the amount of $277,153.50. City of Springfield ~ ' Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2011 Page 6 Mr. Duey said the formation of the local improvement district (LID) was governed by State law, which gave consistency on how the law. was administered. He explained. The properties were. generally held. responsible for the improvements. Interest started on this project in 2009 after a failed septic system on one of the, properties. City and property owners discussed the feasibility of putting in a sewer Line for 45 properties with an LID. He explained further the process regarding costs and the engineer's estimate at that time. The cost per property was estimated at about $7500. apiece. State law required that the assessments were levied against the property, and residents had the option of paying up front or getting a 10 year loan through Bancroft financing. Those costs were for the installation of mainline laterals that ran between the 45 properties. The residents would still be responsible for permit fees, systems development charges (SDC), hooking up to the sewer lines when, the time came; and decommissioning-of their septic tanks. No one was required. to hookup to the system at this time, but would need to if their septic system failed. Fifteen of the forty-five property owners had chosen to hook up to the sewer at this time. Mr. Duey said when this came to the Council, the Council asked staff to reduce costs to the .property owners as much as possible. Staff brought back options for Council to consider lowering the cost to residents that .included lowering fees and reducing the interest rate on the financing. Council took testimony from the property owners ands Council chose to reduce a lower interest rate of 1 % for the 10-year Bancroft financing, and the option to finance. the SDCs. The actual cost for the project was about $27,000 under budget. Individual charges were about $6400 per property rather than $7500. With the higher assessment and interest rate the Bancroft payments would have been about $543 every 6 months. With the lower assessment and 1% interest rate, the payment would be about $338 every 6 months. Council action tonight was to hold a public hearing and adopt an ordinance to assess the liens. Staff could then send out Bancroft applications to the property owners. If the ordinance was approved, staff from the Finance Department would send out the information packet later this week. Property owners would then have 14 days to either pay in full or turn in the application for financing. If they returned the application for financing, staff would work with them. Councilor Pishioneri asked Mr. Duey if he had a rough estimate of what the costs would.have been for the residents without the concessions by Council. Mr. Duey said the first payment under the amount of $7500 and the higher interest, would have _ been about $543. With-the lower assessment and lower interest rate, the payment would be about $338. Payments would decrease over time.. . Councilor Moore asked if those that waited to hook up later would still be eligible for Bancroft financing. Mr. Duey said the Bancroft financing was just for the main line, and everyone was eligible for that financing. When they chose to hook up, they would have to pay for permit fees and SDCs. The City could finance the SDCs; but the permit fees, and costs to hookup would be borne by the ~~, .property owners. Councilor Ralston asked if it was accurate that the SDCs had doubled. City Engineer Ken Vogeney said with the incremental increase in SDCs that Council approved, the SDCs had gone from $2400 to about $6000. City of Springfield . Council Regular h~eeting Minutes February 7, 2011 - Page 7 Councilor Ralston said 5 or 10 years down the road those rates could be even higher. . Mr. Vogeney said the SDCs Council had adopted would see increases each year based on . inflation. Any other increases would be brought back to Council for approval based on projects identified or other factors:. Councilor Pishioneri said the current SDCs had gone up because of the increases over the last two ' years. He asked if the City could encourage the property owners to hook ~sp now before the SDCs went up even higher. Mr. Vogeney said the best time was now. Councilor VanGordon asked how much the SDCs grew based on inflation last year. Mr. Duey said the inflation rate was about 1 % last year. Mr. Vogeney said the Engineering News Record Construction Index was what staff used. Some years it had increased as much as 6-8%, and others as low as 1 %. It was an index that was posted every month.' Councilor Ralston asked ho~~~ the SDCs doubled if the index only went up 1%. -~ Mr. Vogeney said that affected the rate. base only, but Council had also approved a rate increase. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. l . R.F. Peterson, 3624 Cherokee Drive, Springfield, OR. Mr. Peterson said he had submitted a letter that he hoped the Council had received as it gave a good feel of the neighborhood. He said he was unable to hear the figures presented by Mr. Duey. He spoke regarding the fees and how the cost had gone up throughout this project. The SDC figures were not mentioned to the residents. Most who had already hooked up were basing it on about $5400-$5500 for the sewer in front of their place and had already paid the SDCs and hooked up based on that figure: Now they were up to $6140. Those were the questions he and his neighbors could not comprehend.-They did not have a full explanation from the City of the $17,45 S fee and what that was for. He noted the number of foreclosures in the neighborhood. He asked the Council to read his letter and see what the people were thinking. He reminded the Mayor and Council to reanalyze this for the future and find a different~vehicle for this process. He would like a full explanation to the neighbors of the $17,000. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. A gentleman in the audience asked if the residents would receive a breakdown of the costs. Mayor Lundberg said Council would ask questions to get clarification.. Councilor Ralston said the figures of $49,000 and $17,000 weren't individual assessments, but overall project assessments. Mayor Lundberg asked staff for clarification. . City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes . February 7, 2011 Page 8 ~; Mr. Vogeney referred to page 2 of Attachment 3 of the agenda packet. Table 2 was in the center of that page and showed the actual project cost. The costs initially established were estimated for an improvement district and included construction costs and the costs for the City to design and administer the project. Column 2.10 of that table showed the total cost, of the project, which included $49,000 for design and administration. The assessment fee was $17,000, and the construction costs were $236,000, for a total,project cost to City of $340,000. The assessment fee was set by City ordinance whenever the City administered an LID to help the City recoup costs for administering the assessments over time. That was a 6.2% charge. The total cost of the project . was divided between the City and the residents. The total property owner cost was used. to base the assessment per property. Mayor Lundberg asked if staff could go over the different costs, such as the assessments and SDCs and provide clarification of what fees they paid and when. . Mr. Duey said tonight they were only doing the assessment of $6140. The rest was information and background. Councilor Wylie said the fee of $6140 didn't get them a connection. Mr. Duey said the assessment was for the laying of the main lines and laterals, so the system was ready. The installation of the connection to their property was up to the residents. c Civil Engineer Clayton McEachern said the permit fees were about $156. The SDCs were based on each house and currently averaged was about $3400. The contractors work varied from $600- $1500. Mayor Lundberg said she was trying to help those in the room understand what was being done tonight and in the future. Councilor Moore said everyone was being assessed the same amount and everyone was eligible to Bancroft over 10 years at payments of about $330. The additional costs were when they chose to hookup. She asked if the residents would be paying sewer fees if they were not hooked up. No. City Attorney Joe Leahy said the residents could also make payments on their SDCs. Councilor Moore said tonight, the action was just to approve the assessment of the liens. Councilor Wylie said the total would be about $10,500. to get it all done. Council was struggling to keep the costs down. She didn't recall hearing that when Council increased the ,SDCs that'they would be doubling the cost in Cherokee Drive.. ~ Mr. Grimaldi said the dilemma was that if they reduced the SDCs, they should. do it citywide to remain equitable. If they reduced the SDCs, they would need to increase user rates across the City. Mayor Lundberg said the SDC issue had been discussed at previous meetings. Mr. Duey said some property owners prepaid their SDCs to keep the cost down. _ City of Springfield. Council Regular Meeting Minutes . February 7, 2011 Page 9 _~ Councilor Wylie said she appreciated Mr. Peterson for continuing to come to Council with the concerns of the neighborhood. Councilor VanGordon said staff needed to continue to communicate to the neighbors that the SDCs were inflationary and doing something sooner would save them money. The biggest concern was the rising SDC costs and he would not like someone to wait for five years and be surprised at the higher cost. -, , Mr. Duey said staff would be sending out a packet regarding the financing and would include something about the SDCs along with that information. Councilor Ralston said he felt good about the decision tonight. Council did lower the cost as . much as possible. He foresaw that when raising the SDCs this would be an impact, and he wanted to freeze those SDCs. He was disappointed in the increase of SDCs. He still thought some type of freezing of the SDCs should be considered for this area. . Mayor Lundberg asked if some people froze an SDC rate by prepaying. ' Mr. Duey said they applied for financing. Mr. Vogeney said some prepaid the amount and some applied for fmancing at the lower rate. Mayor Lundberg asked if those that applied for financing when the SDCs were lower had started making payments on those yet: Mr. Vogeney said there were three that had locked in the rate by prepaying. Mr. McEacherri said the others that hooked up had paid or were doing financing. As soon as the project was built in July, they allowed people to come in and lock in their SDC rates before they began to increase. ~ - Councilor Ralston said he still felt the City should avail the same opportunity to the rest of the people in the neighborhood to finance at a level less than the current rate. At some future date, he would like to consider a freeze on the SDCs. ~ ~ ~ - Mr. Grimaldi said that could be a conversation during a work session at a later date. It would .involve going back to the SDC ordinance and making changes, to that ordinance. Any changes could have other impacts. .Councilor Pishioneri said he didn't feel it would be fair to apply a City ordinance increasing fees, and the select a group that would have a special rate. It was a matter of being equitable to all . citizens in Springfield. He asked the City Attorney if an ordinance could apply to only specific neighborhoods. ~ Mr. Leahy said Council discussed this earlier and there were concerns about same treatment of all . .citizens in the City. If Council wanted to look at that, they could do some type of resolution with a grace period for a refund. His advice would be to not pass something tonight that would leave the residents with the idea the Council would do a roll back, but simply take action on the liens tonight and indicate that they would look into the SDC issue further in a fair way. . ,. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2011 Page 10 Councilor Pishioneri said people were faced with the same issue regarding interest rates locking in at lower rate. Council had been very transparent, Mr. Peterson had been very good communicating with the Council, and staff-had talked with property owners throughout the project. - Mayor Lundberg said this was a very difficult decision. It should be clear that when voting tonight, they were voting for the assessment only. Council would take a look at the SDCs in the context of the community as a whole. There were no guarantees. Mr. Duey noted that Lisa Fjordbeck had turned in a letter during Mr. Peterson's testimony. The letter would be put in the record, and copies would be distributed to the Mayor and Council. Mr. Towery provided a second reading of the. ordinance title: AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING LIENS FOR INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR S: 38~` STREET AND CHEROKEE DRIVE, PROJECT #P21032, IN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, LANE COUNTY, OREGON AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY IT WAS MOVED BY COImTCH.OR RALSTON WITH A SECOND B~' COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO ADOPT ORDINANCE N0.6263. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A ~ VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Springfield Animal Control Ordinance Revision. ORDINANCE N0.3 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING SECTION 5.416 "PIGS" AND SECTION 5.426 "LICENSES, FEES AND EXCEPTIONS" OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT POT BELLIED PIGS. (FIRST READING Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield Municipal Code provided that no pigs be permitted inside city limits. At the September 20, 2010 City Council meeting, Ms. Sarah Snapp and several other citizens asked the Council to consider amending Section 5.416 ofthe Springfield Municipal Code in order to allow miniature pot bellied pigs in Springfield. The proposed ordinance was reviewed at the January 18, 2011 Work Session. Springfield citizen Sarah Snapp submitted information in support of permitting pot bellied pigs as pets inside Springfield city limits. The packet included a petition of support signed by her neighbors, examples of ordinances from other Oregon cities that allowed pot bellied pigs, as well as information about the breed.. Meetings with Ms. Snapp and with other staff members were held in November and the attached ordinance was drafted by City Attorney Joe Leahy. The ordinance would permit the keeping of such animals recognizing that they were "clean, intelligent and affectionate animals, and when properly cared for were desirable to some persons as household pets." The proposed ordinance required the owner of a pot bellied pig to obtain a City license for the pet; the license would require a veterinarian's certification that the animal had been spayed or neutered. The proposed ordinance specified weight and height limitations and required pot bellied pigs to be kept on a leash if taken off the owners' property: The proposed ordinance would allow no. more than three pot bellied pigs to be kept at any one address. \ ~ ~: City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2011 Page 11 The City's Animal Control Officer would be responsible for enforcement of the ordinance and issuing of licenses. -Chief Smith said he spoke with local veterinarians about taking in pot-bellied pigs that were at- large and needed spayed and neutered and had learned that they would not spay and neuter them. One veterinarian said they would spay or neuter them in an emergency, but he was not clear what that meant. None of them accepted pigs at large for housing. -The advocates for the ordinance may have a solution. Over the last 40 years, he had never been sent out on a pig at-large call, yet they received one today. Councilor Woodrow asked if they checked with small animal vets or large animal vets: _.. Chief Smith named the veterinarians staff had checked with which included: McKenzie Animal Hospital, Cascade Animal Clinic, the Emergency Veterinary Hospital and one other veterinary hospital. The City's contract with Lane County dealt only with dogs. Councilor Woodrow said those noted were small animal veterinarians. She thought big animal veterinarians would more likely handle the pot-bellied pigs. Councilor Pishioneri said they needed to have a solution on how to deal with at-large animals. He was reluctant to vote for this without a solution to these issues. If solutions could be found, he would be fine with this ordinance.. Councilor Wylie confirmed they were looking at finding vets that would spay and neuter pigs or who would take. in pigs at-large. ~ . Councilor Ralston said he was not concerned because he felt there was someone that knew of vets that would spay or neuter pigs. He would like to have a plan on what. to do with at-large animals, but it wasn't a deal breaker for him. He felt they could work on it,.and he was willing to go forward. He didn't feel there would be a large number of people buying pigs. Councilor Pishioneri said they needed provisions. If the large animal vet was in Veneta or Blue. River, the staff time needed to get the animal to that location needed to be considered. Those things needed to be addressed before moving forward. He didn't have a problem with this as long as those things were addressed. Councilor Woodrow said she didn't have a major aversion in bringing pigs into the pet population, but she agreed they needed to consider these issues in looking ahead to other pet owners that might not be as responsible as Ms. Snapp. They needed to have considerations and ideas of what to do with at-large pigs. f Chief Smith said the group in the audience may have solutions which involved modifications to the ordinance. One solution was that in order to get spot-bellied pig licensed, they needed to have a vet willing to take the animal in the event of it getting out. That didn't solve the problem of pet owners that were less responsible and didn't have licenses. It wouldn't happen that often, but did need to be addressed. Councilor Ralston asked if it was appropriate to have the first reading of this tonight since there would likely be modifications. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2011 Page 12 Chief Smith said Council could decide after the public hearing. Mr. Grimaldi said this could still be the first reading, with slight changes made before the second reading. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Sarah Wood-Snapp, 2328 Don Street, Springfield, OR. Ms. Snapp .said spot-bellied pig ideally did need to go to a special vet for spaying and neutering. She suggested that owners of pigs have a co-signer when getting their license who would be responsible in r ' the event the pig got out. She did note that there was no back-up plan for pygmy goats or goat if they got out: Hopefully, those that registered their pig would have neighbors that knew the pig. A pig was highly intelligent, clean, and could make a wonderful pet. She hoped this wasn't the end of this .proposal. 2. Lizzy Utterback, 772 J Street, Springfield, OR. Ms. Utterback said she was supportive - ofpot-bellied pigs. She noted that acquiring a pet pig was not easy, ~ so if this ordinance was passed, there would not likely be an influx of pigs. People who would be pig owners would be the kind of people that were responsible, and engaged in the community. They would be responsible pet owners.and would have a backup plan in ' the event the pig got out. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY. Councilor Wylie would like to know if either of the speakers knew of a vet that was available. Ms. Snapp said there was a vet in the area; she would get that name to staff. Councilor Wylie said the City would need to know who would do the spaying/neutering and that it was available. The City would also need to know about housing if the pig.got out. Ms. Snapp said they could provide that information. . Ms.~ Utterback said a number of pig adoption agencies only~adopted~ their pigs pre-spayed and neutered. Councilor Woodrow said she was glad they had that policy. Dog rescue' had the same policy, but they needed something for the exception. Mr. Leahy said at the subsequent reading, Council may want. to provide an opportunity for the ` public to speak. Mayor Lundberg said staff needed to look at two issues: spay .and neuter; and housing. Ms. Murdoch and Chief Smith would get that. information. i Chief Smith said the ordinance required spayed and neutered. Staff would work on the housing issue with the citizens to try to find a solution.. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2011 Page 13 Councilor Pishioneri asked staff to determine if housing for pigs would alleviate how the City . ,handled dogs. Councilor Wylie asked what we did. with goats. ~ . Chief Smith said goats and sheep required a certain amount of square footage. If they got out, staff would contact livestock control. For the pigs, the license would .include .contact. information _ in case the pig got out, but if the owner wasn't home, they didn't have a place to take the pig. A gentleman in the audience began to ask a question of Chief Smith. Mayor Lundberg asked the gentleman to speak with Chief Smith about his question outside of the room. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. -Jeff Phipps, 2365 Dubois Lane, Springfield, OR. Mr. Phipps.wanted to call attention to and request action regarding drug activity near Maple Elementary. One house in particular, 23 89 Dubois Lane, had drug activity for over a year. Every day there were other nuisances such as noise and mess; and also theft and assaults, including metal theft. There was a double stabbing across from 1VIr. Phipps' house last September. In addition to the criminal concerns, there were sanitation and health concerns. The house had not had electricity, water, sewer or garbage service for about a year. There had been between two and six people living at the house during that time'. He had also heard it was rat infested. Mr. Phipps said he didn't have a surveillance system set up, but had seen trailers full of metal drive by at odd hours of the night. They burned insulation in the fire place and other items that put toxic substances into the .air. The neighbors were looking for some help ;from the City. Mayor Lundberg said there were staff in the audience from the Police Department and Code Enforcement that could assist Mr. Phipps. Chief Smith said action was being taken on the house. There was a hearing last Thursday, but the person didn't show. There was condemnation of the property. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence from Sean VanGordon Regarding His Resignation from the Springfield J . Planning Commission. 2. Correspondence from Sean VanGordon Regarding His Resignation from the Springfield TSP Stakeholder Advisory Committee. ' IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI,TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPOl~TDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BIDS 'City of Springfield _ Council Regular Meeting Minutes _ February 7, 2011 . Page 14 ,.. ORDINANCES - 1. Systems Development Charge (SDC) Calculations. ORDINANCE NO.6264 - AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT~OF CREDITS AGAINST SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, MODIFYING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH CREDITS CAN BE USED ADDING DEFINITIONS, AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 3.400, 3.416, AND ADDING SECTION 3.417, SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. Following up on a work session held September. 27, 2010, staff prepared a draft of an amendment to the Springfield Municipal Code which would, if adopted, make two changes with respect to SDCs: 1) allow excess improvement credits resulting from the construction of a qualified public improvement to be used on other developments of the same developer or transferred to other developers for future use (all within the statutory 10 year period); and 2) base SDCs on the net change in intensity of use between the proposed use and the most intense use on the site since the. adoption of the last infrastructure -system plan. Staff believed that neither of these changes would substantially reduce SDC revenues. Council conducted a first reading and public hearing on the ordinance on January 18, 2011. During the course of that meeting, it came to the attention of the Council that a pending development application would be affected by the ordinance and that such application would not move forward until the ordinance was adopted. With that knowledge, staff recommended that the ' ordinance be modified by including an emergency clause with an immediate effective date. Staff had made those changes and they were reflected in the ordinance presented at this meeting. Mr. Goodwin discussed the possible changes. Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery read the Ordinance title into the record for a second time: AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF CREDITS AGAINST SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, MODIFYING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH CREDITS CAN BE USED, ADDING DEFINITIONS, AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 3.400, 3.416, AND ADDING SECTION 3.417, SETTING AN EFFECTIVE. DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITII A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO ADOPT ORDINANCE N0.6264. TI3E MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1.~ Committee Appointments , City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2011 Page 15 a. Mayor/Council Committee Assignments. Mayor Lundberg noted the addition of the Lane Economic Committee to the list of . committees, which Councilor VanGordon would serve. She formally assigned the councilors to their respective boards, commissions and committees for 2011.. She said she would like to .look at this again at the end of the year to determine if changes needed to be made. b: City Council. President Appointment. - City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented this item. The Springfield Charter and the City Council. Operating Policies and Procedures provided that at the f rst regular meeting in January after each general. election, the Council shall elect by ballot one of its members as President of the Common Council. Council chose to wait to make this appointment until they had filled the Ward 1 Council position and had a full Council. The Council President would function as Mayor when the Mayor was absent from a Council meeting, or the. Mayor was unable to function as Mayor. Mayor Lundberg opened up nominations. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW'TO NOMINATE COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO THE POSITION OF . COUNCIL PRESIDENT. NO OTHER NOMINATIONS WERE RECENED. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPOINT COiTNCII.OR PISHIONERI AS THE NEW CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 -FOR AND 0 AGAINST: ~ . 1. Business from Council a. Committee Reports 1. .Councilor Moore said she and Development Services Director Bill Grile had met with Riley Smith regarding issues he had brought up during his interview for the Planning Commission. It was a good meeting in which they addressed Mr. Riley's concerns about some planning issues. 2. Councilor Pshioneri said the Travel Lane County (TLC) Board had been very busy. They had tried to bring a lot of groups to~ the area.. There was a lot of excitement about the opening of Cabella's. The TLC had a stable `budget. Councilor Pishioneri also reported on the Historic Comrriission. The commission was looking to assist NEDCO with downtown development and coordinating .street lamp fixtures to coincide with the building era and light standards so there would be some consistency. The business people in downtown had a lot of energy. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2011 _ Page 16 3: Councilor Ralston reported on the Housing Policy Board and noted that Sid Leiken was the Lane, County representative. They had not clad a Lane. County representative for several years, .which made it difficult when trying to get a quorum for votes. Councilor Ralston also reported on LRAPA. He said they spent two eight hour days at a retreat at''the Justice Center. It was a good thing because the group was very contentious, but they were able to work through some issues and agreed on several issues. They also met with staff, which was much needed: The good news was that ..staff was going to do an op-ed piece, and he and Dave Monk were going to do an op- _ ed piece to get the communities to see the Board would be looking at all of the communities' .needs. As an elected official, he needed to consider not only the citizens, but also the industries and businesses, and how their decisions affected them. . 4. Councilor_ Woodrow had an orientation tour of the wastewater management treatment plant in Eugene. BUSINESS FROM THE'CITY MANAGER ' 1. Council Operating Policies and Procedures Amendment. ~ `~" City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield Charter. .-stated "Section 12. Operating Procedures and Policies. The Council shall "approve and maintain operating procedures and policies ,annually. '' ,Amendments to the Council's operating policies and procedures document required approval by atwo-thirds vote of the members of Council present. The following amendments were being proposed to the Council's operating policies and procedures and' were mainly housekeeping to reflect actual practices. SECTION III - REGUL BAR MEETINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL (Pg. 4) (9) Agenda and Supportive Material -to the Public 9.3) In the event al!request is made for the electronic records of any Council member and the Council member is unavailable to provide that access in a timely~manner, staff from the City Manager's Office shall notify the Council member that the City will provide the requested electronic records subjects to review by the City Attorney's office for an~~ applicable exemptions under Oregon Public Records Law: The Mayor and remainin Councilors shall also be notified of the request.. SECTION IV - CONDUCT AT COUNCIL MEETINGS (Pg. 6) (5) Motions on bids and claims shall-ordinarily appear on the consent calendar: However, the Chair of the Finance and Judiciary Committee of the Council may review bids and claims prior to the adoption of these matters. .SECTION VIII -MISCELLANEOUS CITY COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (Pg. 10) City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2011 . Page 17 Staff was asking for formal approval by Council. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR . RALSTON TO APPROVE THE AMENDED COUNCIL OPERATING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. . ~ BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY . ADJOLiRNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa / . L~ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: . _ ~~1Z(rG~ ' . C ity R rder .