Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/29/2002 Regular . . . .. ,;'" ~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY, APRIL 29,2002 The Springfield City Council met in Regular Session on Monday, April 29, 2002 at Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Council Meeting Room at 7:02 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Lundberg, Ralston and Simmons. Councilor Hatfield was absent (excused). Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Assistant City Attorney Meg Kieran, City Recorder Kim Krebs, and members of staff. CONSENT CALENDAR IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims a. Accept the March 2002 Quarterly Financial Reports. 2. Minutes a. April 8, 2002 - Regular Session 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Approve Endorsement ofOLCC Liquor License Application for Sheldon's Fine Wines, located at 822 Beltline Road,. Springfield, Oregon. b. Approve Endorsement ofOLCC Liquor License Application for Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar, located at 3024 Gateway Street, Springfield, Oregon. PUBLIC HEARINGS I. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield, Journal Number 2002-02-0052, Arlie & Company, Assessors Map 17-03-15-40 Tax Lot 300. RESOLUTION NO. 02-21- A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD KNOWN AS ARLIE & COMPANY LOCATED IN THE GATEWAY AREA OF NORTHWEST SPRINGFIELD AT THE . . . r Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - April 29, 2002 Page - 2 NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF CORPORATE WAY AND INTERNATIONAL WAY AND REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE THE ANNEXATION. Mayor Leiken said before the public hearings begin he would like to clarify that the purpose of the three public hearings are for consideration of the annexation of the property only. We are not setting any site or master plans and he is hoping that the testimony is criteria specific. He realizes that the public does have interest in these as well. Planner Kitti Gale was present for the staff report. She said the annexation is consistent with article six. Staff has determined that further study and analysis shall be required as a condition of development because of flood plain issues. Assistant City Attorney Meg Kieran said for the record she would like to read what the criteria are for the decision regarding the resolution. Council needs to determine if 1) The territory in the annexation proposal can be provided the minimum level of key urban facilities and services, as. defined in the metro plan; and 2) A minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to the area in an orderly and efficient manner. These services consist of sanitary sewers, solid waste management, water service, fire and emergency medical services, policy protection, parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis. Paved streets with adequate provision for storm-water runoff and pedestrian travel, meeting applicable local policies, are important, particularly in new developments and along existing streets heavily used by pedestrians. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing 1. Ann Heinsoo, 35 Lorie Court, Springfield, member of the Game Farm Neighbors. Spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation. She said she is here to ask one very simple and basic question. Because the city doesn't have from FEMA the corrected figures for the floodplain in this whole area, what is the hurry in proceeding forward with the annexation? As she understands it, that information may not be here until May 10, and any decision should be postponed until after that date. Mayor Leiken asked for clarification regarding the flood plain issue and the annexation agreement versus a development application. City Attorney Joe Leahy said that onany development applications, council would be provided the best information available at that time. It may be new information from FEMA, a flood analysis by tbe landowner, or a peer review possibly by an independent auditor. Ms. Kieran said in addition even if it is determined the annexed property is within the flood plain, ,our development code allows development to occur within the floodplain with certain review under article 27 ofthe code. That determination is not one ofthe criteria for annexation; it does not have any bearing. The issue is whether we can provide key urban services to the area. 2. Jan Wilson, 1260 President, Eugene. Spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation. She is here to talk about the process and that again the public is being asked to provide public comment without adequate information. She said in reviewing the staff report, it states that staff has not had discussions concerning provisions of all urban services with Arlie and Co. The criteria is whether adequate services can be provided, but nothing in the application . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - April 29, 2002 Page - 3 _ indicates whether key urban services can be provided. She feels this is not a meaningful opportunity for public comment. 3. Lauri Segal. 120 West Broadway, Eugene. Spoke in opposition to the proposed annexation. Said she had not intended to speak regarding the Arlie annexation, but after reviewing the information in the agenda packet felt compelled to speak. She feels the information on the application is inadequate and thinks that the city should expect more from their applicants. 4. Larry Reed, 722 Country Club Rd., Eugene. Spoke in favor ofthe proposed annexation. Said Arlie and Company owns the 12-acre site on International Way. He said he agrees with staff that they meet all the criteria and it is well documented in the staff report. They concur with staff that you cannot add new criteria, and understand that they must comply with all tbe building codes. This is actually the second time they have tried to annex this property, but a miscommunication with city staff delayed the initial annexation. As a result of that delay, they had a loss of sale on the property. Prior to purchasing this parcel, the city assured Arlie that the property was ready for development. This point was reiterated during discussions regarding Sony's property, which is near Arlie's property. They would expect the city would allow annexation under the current rules and allow them to proceed with the annexation. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. Councilor Simmons asked a question related to the exact location of the parcel. . Councilor Lundberg said she supports this request for annexation. It was brought to council before and the criteria have been met. She said the criteria are just fine, the mechanisms are in place, and staff does a great job. Ms. Kieran said as written, the resolution refers to an annexation agreement. The instructions are to delete the last whereas statement that states ''Whereas, an agreement executed by Property Owners and the City demonstrating the provision of a full range of urban services will be subinitted to the City prior to the Boundary Commission hearing or City will withdraw support of Annexation". She said that could be removed. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 02-21, WITH THE EXCLUSION OF: "WHEREAS AN AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE CITY DEMONSTRATING THE PROVISIONS OF A FULL RANGE OF URBAN SERVICES WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION HEARING OR CITY WILL WITHDRAW SUPPORT OF ANNEXATION". THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. . City Manager Mike Kelly said the applicant did request annexation a number of months ago, but it was pulled last minute by staff, because they were concerned with future direction from council regarding flood plain. Since then Peace Health announced a new campus, which meant traffic improvements were at a premium. This was not a consideration wben Arlie made their first request. Discussions have not been done with the applicant regarding what type of use they intend for the property, but we do know that the full range of urban services is available to the site. Staff thought at that time they may want to have discussions with them regarding off-site responsibilities, and put in the condition that we may wish to have those discussions. Since that time, staff has met and believes we will not need a separate annexation agreement. . Springfield City Council Regu.lar Session Minutes - April 29, 2002 Page ~ 4 2. Annexation of Property (Peace Health) to the City of Springfield, Journal Number 2002-02- 028. RESOLUTION NO.2 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORIES TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE THE ANNEXATION AND REQUESTING THAT THE ANNEXATION REVIEW BY THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION OCCURS DURING A PUBLIC HEARING. Planner Colin Stephens was present for the staff report. He highlighted the information as contained in attachment 3 in the staff report. Regarding annexation agreements, staff determines that key level of urban services can be provided to the property. This is not the case for this property, so the property owner and city have entered into a formal agreement that details how these urban facilities/services are going to be provided. The agreement is being finalized and will be available to the council for review and approval on May 6th. Based upon what is included in that agreement, staff is comfortable in recommending approval tonight. He said there are a couple of clauses mentioned in the annexation agreement that speak to the flood plain issue. The applicant has agreed to supply a detailed flood analysis when they submit their master plan that will identify and delineate where the 100 year flood plain is, assess any impacts from proposed development within that flood plain, and propose mitigation techniques in the event there are detrimental effects ofthe development. !:Ie introduced into the record a new exhibit #3 for the resolution. The current legal description is accurate, but it doesn't meet the submittal standards of the Lane Boundary Commission, therefore the new exhibit #3 was prepared to meet their standards. . Mr. Stephens responded to a question of council related to exact location. Councilor Ballew asked when Peace Health is planning to bring their master plan forward. Mr. Stephens said his understanding is that it will be in November. >;.' Councilor Ralston asked how much property is in the flood way. Mr. Stephens said he doesn't have the exact portion ofthis property in the flood way. Mayor Leiken confirmed that the property for the actual hospital site was already annexed. Councilor Simmons said the description of the ultimate utilization would be premature without the master plan. There is obviously a need for flexibility if flood plain issues were discovered in the data. He would not make a presumption of where a particular structure will be located until that data is available. Mr. Leahy said referring to tbe overhead map, and said the blue area is subject to the annexation agreement that was initially signed by Arlie and Co. and then passed to Peace Health. That is the agreement that requires the dedication of Pioneer Parkway. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. . 1. Terri Harding, 132 E Broadway, Suite 536, Eugene, Spoke in favor of the proposed annexation. (Copy of written testimony provided) Said she represents Satre & Associates, She said this annexation request is for approximately 59 acres located in the Gateway area, . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - April 29, 2002 Page - 5 within the boundary of the Gateway Refinement Plan. The property is able to be served by the key urban facilities such as: 1) Solid waste management. The city and Sanipac have an exclusive franchise agreement. Once the property is annexed, it would be served by Sanipac. 2) Fire and emergency medical services. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the annexation and has determined that fire and emergency services are available for this site. 3) Police protection. Police protection will be provided by the Springfield Police Department. The Police Chief has reviewed the annexation and has no issues. 4) Parks & recreational services. Willamalane will serve those areas. 5) Electrical service will be provided through SUB. There is an electric substation within the annexation area on Game Farm Road. The SUB staff has reviewed the annexation and bas no objection to this proposal. 6) Land Use Controls. Because this site is in the Urban Growth Boundary, the City of Springfield currently administers land use and building permits in this area. 7) Communication Facilities. Ground line telephone communications are already provided by QWest in this location, as well as numerous wireless communication providers that serve the area. 8) Public schools. This annexation is within the Eugene 4J District. The school district has extended support for the annexation. . 2. Andrew Halliburton, KPFF Engineering, 111 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Spoke in favor of the proposed annexation. He addressed issues related to water, sewer, and storm drainage. He pointed out the Pioneer Parkway Extension is shown on the map and the proposed sewer alignment as agreed to in the annexation agreement is also marked on the map. There is adequate facility to the north and south ofthe proposed track. Water services are also available to the site with ample capacity. Storm water management discussions have occurred with the city. The mapping shows existing systems, which have ample capacity for both previously annexed property and the proposed annexation property. Storm water . management for the site would be designed so runoff levels would not exceed pre- development levels. 3. Phillip Farrington, Peace Health, 677 East 12th Avenue, Suite N225, Eugene. Spoke in favor of the proposed annexation. He said he would like to make four basic points. 1) The City Council approved an earlier annexation request for approximately 41 acres. The current application before council differs from the earlier one in that it includes 3 parcels along Baldy View Road, two with frontage along the McKenzie River and the one additional parcel that fronts Deadmond Ferry Road. The northern most ofthe long rectangular parcels is also included in the aI11?exation request. The application includes all remaining property in Peace Health's ownership that hasn't previously been annexed. This annexation would place all of Peace Health's Gateway area property within the city's jurisdiction. 2) The request has been recommended for approval by staff, and Peace Health concurs with staff. He said because an earlier annexation agreement obligates Peace Health to extend Pioneer Parkway and extend urban services to the annexation area, this simply provides another means to extend the necessary urban services into the annexation area. Peace Health believes they have indeed met the criteria of approva1. 3) Flood plain issues are not criteria for annexation approval. Peace Health is currently doing an extensive flood plain analysis, but flood plain issues are not relevant criteria for annexation. He said the boundary commission has also reiterated this, that flood plain issues are to be addressed at the time of development plans, not during annexation. 4) Peace Health has addressed many of the concerns that were presented by the opponents of the earlier submittal by Arlie & Co. last year. These include united frontage of the properties and the flood plain analysis. . 4. Lauri SegaL 120 West Broadway, Eugene. Spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation. She said she is present on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon to request consideration of . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - April 29, 2002 Page - 6 several significant factors. She feels there are extenuating circumstances that deserve more review regarding the provision of key urban services. For the following reasons it appears there is not currently a strong basis for approval of the request. The extent of the floodplain from Gateway area to the Thurston area is currently under review by FEMA. With respect to orderly and efficient extension of services, city staff has acknowledged that the extension of services east of Baldy View would be contingent on services being available on the previous 102 acre annexation to the west. In lieu of a master plan that speaks to these issues, it is premature for the city to commit more flood plain acres to develop. From a public comment aspect, little information is available to make informed comments. For exampl~, without knowing what off site improvements are planned, iUs impossible to analyze the right of way dedication promises referred to in the staff memo. The Beltline 1-5 project planning will be significantly impacted by any large regional development in the Gateway area, yet no direct reference to this is in the staff report, or other related documents. She requests that council consider postponing this request until more information it available. . 5. Tom Bowerman, 33707 McKenzie View, Eugene. Spoke in opposition ofthe proposed annexation. He said he was concerned about the impact this development would have on his property. He is interested in the work session discussion, especially comments made after the session. It almost seemed futile for him to come before this hearing; he feels decisions have already been made. Flooding does affect key urban services as required by annexation law, and this is relevant and must be taken into consideration. He agreed with the city attorney who advised council that the city would err on the side of safety if new information was discovered that would affect development. Annexation is a discretionary action, and council's decision should be based on law. If council's objective is to properly balance the interests of the city and accommodate development while protecting life and property, this comes under the purview of regulatory metropolitan guidance in terms of this annexation. He would urge council to follow the city attorney's advice, err on the side of caution, and defer their decision on this annexation application. 6. Ian Wilson, 1260 President, Eugene, Oregon. Spoke in opposition ofthe proposed annexation. She said she testified last year as she is today that we need to see the annexation agreement. She cannot respond to those promises until the agreement is ready for review. She highlighted flood plain information as discussed by council previously. Until flood plain information is known, it is risky to assume we can handle some of the services required. She is concerned with Peace Health saying that they are going to manage storm water on site. She feels that the point about the annexation ofthis parcel not being dependent on the prior parcel could mean they could later decide to move the site of the hospital. She would like the council to consider everything before making their decision today. . 7. Bonnie Ullmann, 3350 Oriole Street, Springfield. Spoke in opposition ofthe proposed annexation. She spoke as a representative of the Game Farm Neighbors. She spoke about the absence of the annexation agreement, and wonders how the infrastructure needs could be assessed. She has worries about uncertainty about the flooding issue. She said that consequences of error in modeling flooding are very dangerous, and serious if it endangers life and limb. She is worried about the revetment issue, and wonders if this area can be protected in the future. If this is in the flood way, buildings would have to be raised or built on fill. The sewer lines would not be raised above the flood plains, so where is the sewage going to go in the flood? It is unknown where proposed connecting roads are going to be placed. There has been talk of a connector, but something needs to be nailed down in a way that will tell us if annexation is feasible or not. Mitigation of traffic cannot be determined . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - April 29, 2002 P~e-7 . until all of this has been seen. She asked what the rush was, and requested council delay tbeir decision until there is sufficient data available. 8. Larry Reed, Arlie & Co., 722 Country Club Road, Eugene. Spoke in favor ofthe proposed annexation. He said Arlie & Co. coordinated the original land package and tbey support this annexation. Their analysis was the same as staff and Peace Health in terms of meeting all the levels of serVices. Poage engineering also provided an analysis for Arlie regarding the flood plain issues. He said a lot of the opposition spoken this evening is from people that want slow growth or no growth. He would support and encourage the City council to proceed with approval of the proposed annexation. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. Councilor Simmons said the storm drain process has been directed to the staff engineer. He asked if the storm drain system in existence today is sized adequately to meet the ,storm water needs ofthe proposed annexation area. City Engineer AlPeroutka said it was not designed with this area in mind. There would need to be an additional storm water outlet developed for this site. Mr. Peroutka said there are agreements in place for their development, but they aren't developed yet. Mr. Leahy said the initial annexation agreement provides for a $600,000.00 contribution, which is half the cost for the development. . Mr. Peroutka said the developer would be responsible for developing any additional capacity needed to serve that site. Mr. Leahy said the agreement would be available for council review. Councilor Simmons asked if the annexation agreement should be in the councilors' possession for review prior to a vote on this resolution and annexation. Mr. Leahy responded to procedural questions of the council. Ms. Kieran said there is a section in the resolution, which states that approval is based on the assumption that the city staff will reach an agreement with the property owner for the provision for key urban services prior to the boundary commission public hearing. Mayor Leiken said public comment could be made under business from the audience next week when council would be reviewing the annexation agreement. Mr. Kelly said the choice is up to the council either to continue the public hearing and take no action or close the hearing and make tonight's actions subject to review and approval oftbe annexation agreement next week. It would then be brought back to council as business from the City Manager and available for public review before next week's meeting. Councilor Simmons asked Mr. Leahy if the public hearing could be re-opened once it had been closed. If so, would it have any negative affect on the applicant at this point? . . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - April 29, 2002 Page - 8 Mr. Leahy said if council approves the annexation tonight subject to key urban services being provided, and next week they are not satisfied that these services can be provided by the content of the agreement, this application is not going anywhere. Councilor Simmons said it would be bestto allow citizen's opportunity to react to the agreement in a public hearing so their responses can be documented. Mr. Leahy said a recommendation is being made to the boundary commission, and there is opportumty for public input at the boundary commission meetings. He said Council could choose whichever option they feel would be best. Councilor Simmons felt that reopening the public hearing would allow public response to that document and give everybody equal opportunity to comment. Mr. Leahy said in the interest of council time, if the public hearing were to reopened, he would recommend that the Mayor instruct those people testifying again next week, to speak to new business, not review the business already presented in tbe public hearing tonight. Councilor Ballew asked iftime-wise there was any difficulty in notifying the public if council were to choose either to re-open the public hearing or open it to business from the audience. Mr. Leahy said this is a recommendation to the boundary commission. Council will have a completed annexation agreement in front of them next week to make their decision as to whether to make the recommendation to the boundary commission based on the criteria. . Councilor Lundberg reiterated that annexation simply puts the property within the city limits. It doesn't say how or what would be developed. It opens the door for the possibility for development Mr. Leahy said that is correct. This is interesting because of the size of the parcel. Before any development can begin, a master plan must be presented and approved, ultimately by council. The benefit ofthe large size ofthe property is that we can make significant requests in terms ofthe provision of public services. Those requests are being conditioned at the annexation agreement, instead of during the development request. Councilor Lundberg said she agrees as stewards of public trust, it would be best to keep the public hearing open, with the idea of providing opportunity to tbe public to testify to new information. If written form is submitted, she would like to have it available early enough to be provided in their agenda packets prior to the meeting. This gives council time to read the material before making their decision. Councilor Fitch said she is going to suggest that council vote on this tonight because of the mention of the paragraph that it is subject to annexation agreement. A lot of staff time and citizen involvement has been put into this. There will still be time for the public testimony and it can be addressed specifically to the annexation agreement. Councilor Lundberg asked if it was possible to move the Business from the Audience on next week's agenda so it can be heard right before the annexation agreement discussion. . Councilor Fitch said that council could adjust the agenda in that way and she would accept that. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - April 29, 2002 Page - 9 . Councilor Simmons said he thinks the public hearing should be continued for the purposes of the record. He feels the data is not complete enough to make the decision, and he would vote no on closure tonight. All of the facts need to be presented to council and the public needs that opportunity to be heard and documented. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR SIMMONS WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO RECONSIDER THE CLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 IN FAVOR AND 1 AGAINST (FITCH). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR SIMMONS WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL MAY 6TH FOR REVIEW OF THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. ANY RESPONSE IS TO BE ON NEW ISSUES. WRITTEN COMMENTS NEED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE BY APRIL 30, 3:00PM OR SENT DIRECTLY TO THE COUNCILORS. THE RECORD WILL CLOSE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3 IN FAVOR AND 2 AGAINST (BALLEWIFITCH). 3. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (Arlie & Company) Springfield Journal Number 2002-04-116. . RESOLUTION NO.3 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE THE ANNEXATION AND REQUESTING THAT THE ANNEXATION REVIEW BY THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION OCCURS DURING A PUBLIC HEARING. Colin Stephens was present for the staff report. This annexation was submitted just last week under the expedited annexation provision of tbe new fee schedule. It was the understanding of staff at the time that Peace Health would be the owner of the property and it would be part of their master plan and part of the annexation agreement for the extension of key urban services. Staff received notification today that Peace Health will not be purchasing this property. Currently, key urban services cannot be supplied to the site and there are no assurances through an annexation agreement that key urban facilities can be supplied to the site. He referred to the second paragraph of the AIS which states that council may witbdraw its recommendation to the boundary commission regarding this property. Staff does not have confidence that this will be under the annexation agreement by the June boundary commission public hearing. Therefore, staff recommends denial of annexation request at this time. After staff has a chance to meet witb the property owners and formulate an annexation agreement, they can reapply. . 1. Larry Reed, Arlie & Co., 722 Country Club Road, Eugene. Spoke in support of the proposed annexation. He said would like his comments to be helpful to council and explained a little history .of the site. They had offers out to the property owners for more than a year, and were recently approached by one of those citizens who was interested in their proposal. Mr. Arlie explained some of the options they looked at with this property. He is in no hurry to expedite this to the June meeting and would request either a refund of the $5,000.00 expedition fee or approval to continue to negotiate the pre-annexation agreement for an August hearing. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - April 29, 2002 Page - 10 . 2. Jan Wilson, 1260 President, Eugene. Ms. Wilson said she just wanted to note that they don't have an annexation agreement. 3. Lauri Segal was called, and chose not to come forward. 4. Tom Bowerman, 33007 McKenzie View, Eugene. Spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation. It seems that even though this is not a land use decision, there are certain components of land use law, which should be considered, such as citizens being involved in all stages of planning. As he stands before council without necessary information, he is frustrated. He referred to the storm drains and the inability to drain when they are under two feet of water. He said Larry Reed spoke about personal issues. He takes opposition to Mr. Reed's comments. He said he participated in the discussions for the previous annexation and did not oppose that agreement. He noted that annexation is discretionary, and encouraged council to take these proceedings very carefully. 5. Bonnie Ullmann was called and chose not to come forward. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. Councilor Simmons asked Mr. Reed if this annexation were to be denied at this time, would Arlie continue to move forward with the annexation request to the Boundary Commission? . Mr. Reed said he would prefer not to have a denial from the City Council, but would like to continue working with the city on an agreement to bring forward to the August Boundary Commission meeting. Mr. Kelly said it is council's choice. Staffs recommendation is to deny the annexation, refund the money and start over. Mr. Reed said at this time, he would withdraw the annexation request rather than having the council deny his request. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE There was none. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence from Dianna Larsen and Family, 377 Deadmond Ferry Rd, for Deadmond Ferry Neighbors. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL . Councilor Ralston requested information related to the camping ordinance, and whether or not camping was allowed at churches in Springfield. . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - April 29, 2002 Page - 11 Police Chief Jerry Smith said there is all ordinance that prohibits camping on the street. Merely sleeping in an automobile is not considered camping. Mr. Leahy said several years ago an overlay was developed for churches. Planning Manager Greg Mott said this matter was brought to council approximately four years ago. Council looked at several options for allowing indigent housing, homeless shelters, etc. in churches and on their grounds. The conclusion was that it could occur indoors not outdoors, and the church would have to receive the approval from fire and life safety. Mr. Kelly said this was optional on the part of the churches, but campers are not allowed in the parking lot. Councilor Ralston said there was discussion at the Human Services Commission meeting regarding the budget, and how much funding comes from various jurisdictions. It was suggested that the City of Eugene is reducing their general budget in an effort to make other jurisdictions contribute more funding. He said he and Commissioner Bobby Green had a lengthy discussion regarding this issue, and whether or not this is fair and equitable. Mr. Kelly said generally with the new property tax process, local governments throughout Lane County should be receiving a similar amount of funding. . Councilor Lundberg said this has been an issue for quite some time, and there has been no closure as to what is equitable. She said Kevin Ko came up with a very good scenario in terms of what might be equitable. He would be a person to talk to as he was on the right track. Councilor Ralston said he objects to the message they are trying to send. They shouldn't shame other agencies into paying more. . Mr. Kelly said this has been an argument that has gone on for a very long time. The argument that Springfield has made is that we feel we give a fair amount as we contribute to economic development in a variety of ways including funding the chamber, the metro-partnership, and other areas at a greater level than Eugene. These all help to stimulate the economy and provide jobs so people aren't unemployed, which affects their social services. We feel we give an equal amount as a whole. Mayor Leiken thanked Mr. Kelly for clarification on that issue. Councilor Ballew said the MWMC budget is complete and council would have the opportunity to review that in the near future. Councilor Ballew said she attended a Latino Families' event on Saturday and it was a very worthy event with a lot of delicious food. . Mayor Leiken said he had attended many functions as Mayor over the past few weeks and highlighted the many events he attended. They included welcoming emergency personnel to the city, attending the ATT Comcast meeting in Portland, attending the police awards banquet, attending the Thurston Showcase at Thurston Middle School, and signing the PERS Agreement officially. He thanked Councilor Ballew for attending the SMART Reading Program at Sony in his absence. , , ~ . . . . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - April 29, 2002 Page - 12 BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER There was no business. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY 1. Termination of Restrictive Covenant - Limited Term Good Neighbor Care Centers, Inc. Planning Manager Greg Mott and City Attorney Joe Leahy were present for the staff report. Councilor Ballew asked if the execution of this termination would affect the zoning of this property. Mr. Leahy said no, it does not affect the zoning. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A TERMINATION OF THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - LIMITED TERM FOR THE GOOD NEIGHBOR CARE CENTERS, INC. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Termination of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Springwood, Inc. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR BALLEW TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A TERMINATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR SPRINGWOOD, INC. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Kim Krebs ATTEST: ~~ CQ)~ ,