Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2011 RegularCity of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 18, 2011 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 18, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon (by conference phone), Wylie, Moore, Ralston, and Woodrow. Also present were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT Mayor Lundberg asked Taylor Murdoch to introduce his special guest in the audience. Taylor Murdoch from the City Attorney's Office introduced his four week old son, Robert Murdoch. 1. Employee Recognition: Jackie Murdoch, 35 Years of Service. Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery introduced Jackie Murdoch. Ms. Murdoch' introduced her friends and family who were in the audience. Mr. Towery acknowledged Ms. Murdoch's career over the last 3 5 years. Ms. Murdoch was currently serving as the Acting Community Services Manager. Co-workers of Ms. Murdoch had called her positive, honest and the best boss. Mr. Towery presented a plaque to Ms. Murdoch in recognition of her 35 years of service to the City of Springfield. Ms. Murdoch said the City had been a wonderful place to work where a family atmosphere was promoted with employees and citizens. She thanked the Mayor and Council and noted that she had worked with some great Mayors and Councilors. She thanked them for giving their time in service to Springfield. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. July 5, 2011 - Work Session b. July 5, 2011 - Regular Meeting c. July 11, 2011- Work Session City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2011 Page 2 3. Resolutions a. RESOLUTION NO. 11-25 -A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING UMPQUA BANK AS A DEPOSITORY FOR THE DEPOSITOR. b. RESOLUTION NO. 11-26 -A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING SIUSLAW BANK AS A DEPOSITORY FOR THE DEPOSITOR. c. RESOLUTION NO. 11-27 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD COMPETITIVE BIDS EXCEEDING $35,000, REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS EXEMPT FROM BIDDING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PURCHASING REGULATIONS, AND APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC CONTRACTS DURING THE PERIOD OF JULY 26, 2011 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 11, 2011 WHII,E THE COMMON. COUNCIL IS IN RECESS. 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 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. Springfield Animal Control Ordinance Revision. ORDINANCE NO. 6271 - 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. Acting Community Services Manager Jackie Murdoch presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield Municipal Code provided that no pigs shall be permitted inside city limits. At the request of several citizens the attached ordinance would allow the keeping of pot bellied pigs in Springfield. The proposed ordinance was reviewed at the January 18, 2011 Work Session. The first reading and public hearing was held on February 7, 2011 and a second reading was held on March 7, 2011. Last September Springfield citizen Sarah Snapp submitted information in support of permitting pot bellied pigs as pets inside Springfield city limits. The attached ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney's Office in collaboration with Ms. Snapp, the Police Department and the Community Services Division. The ordinance would permit the keeping of such animals City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2011 Page 3 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 and met weight and height limitations. In response to questions and concerns voiced during the previous public hearings, additional information has been gathered. Santa Clara Animal Hospital had agreed to be available to treat and provide short term housing for at-large animals. Other veterinarians who treated pot belly pigs had been identified. Information to the public regarding pot bellied pigs would be made available on the City's.web site and through the public library. Other jurisdictions had been surveyed regarding their experience in allowing pot bellied pigs and problems and concerns had not been identified. A provision had been added to require that tusks be trimmed and maintained. The City's Animal Control Officer would respond to complaints and would be responsible for enforcement and issuance of the required license. Councilor Woodrow praised staff and the City Attorneys for being thorough and answering the questions that Council had brought forward. She felt she had the information she needed. Councilor Pishioneri asked if allowing one pot-bellied pig per household would be in conjunction with other animals, such as dogs and chickens, allowed per household. Mr. Leahy said it would be in conjunction. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6271. THE MOTION PASSED WTH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE Mike Tayloe, 1462 I Street, Springfield, OR. Mr. Tayloe spoke regarding pedestrian crossing and safety. With the Gateway EmX, two pedestrian crossings had been added. Two of the three times he used those crossings, cars sped through the crossing. Part of the problem was that the' lights were in the wrong place. The other problem was that there were several different types of crossings used at several places around town, which gave citizens a mixed message. He felt if a camera was put up at the crossings, the City could study them to count the error rate and determine what changes were needed. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2011 Page 4 ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports 1. Councilor Woodrow said she and Mayor Lundberg attended the McKenzie River Farm Produce Stand in front of Dari Mart at Rainbow and Centennial last week. The food was delicious. She hoped they continued to have success and would set them up at other Dari Marts. Councilor Woodrow reminded the Council that National Night Out was scheduled for the coming weekend at Island Park. She would be there manning a booth for the Dog Club for responsible dog ownership. There would be a lot of activities for kids during this event. 2. Councilor Pishioneri reported on the SummerFair. There was great music, great attendance and a fun time by everyone. He felt it promoted the Council Goal of a Hometown Feel. Willamalane had done a super job and it was great to be partners with them. 3. Councilor Moore said she had helped with the Broiler Festival. People mentioned how much they had missed this event. Councilor Moore said the Springfield Library sponsored a public discussion on migration the evening of July 12. It was a very interesting discussion which included a Professor from Lewis and Clark who spoke. She thanked the Library for sponsoring this amazing activity. 4. Mayor Lundberg noted that this year there would be a Springfield Ems. night on July 24. Starting at 2:00pm, Springfield Police were playing softball against the Eugene Police. Directly following that game, the Ems would be playing. All those that still had their Springfield Ems jersey from last year could wear those to the game. In honor of that, she read a Resolution: THE EUGENE EMERALDS GAME ON JULY 24 HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS A SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY DAY. LAST YEAR'S EVENT WAS AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL TO REPRESENT OUR COMMUNITY. THIS YEAR OFFERED US ANOTHER CHANCE TO PROMOTE OUR CITY AND ALSO INCLUDES AN EXHIBITION SOFTBALL GAME BETWEEN SPRINGFIELD PD AND EUGENE PD. I WOULD LIKE ANY COUNCILORS THAT A-RE AVAILABLE TO ATTEND AND REPRESENT THE CITY. IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO MAKE TICKETS AVAILABLE FOR City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2011 Page 5 THOSE COUNCILORS WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND. THE MOTION PASSED WTH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. Mayor Lundberg said she was sure the Ems would win, as would the Springfield Police. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Council Goals and Strategic Plan. Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery presented the staff report on this item. Staff was presenting Council with recommended Strategic Plan and Goal updates that attempted to reflect the organization's work towards more efficient and effective processes. In a number of cases reflections over the last year lead staff to recommend that some targets be removed, others added and some amended: The attachments included in the agenda packet detailed all of those suggestions for the Council's consideration. The goals and targets adopted and the supporting department level goals and targets would continue to be used to measure and report efficiency, effectiveness and innovation as well as to prioritize services, projects and policy initiatives. It would provide Council and staff with a tool to ensure both progress and accountability and would also serve as a useful tool when allocating resources. Mr. Towery reviewed the goals as presented: ? Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services ? Encourage Economic Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships ? Strengthen Public Safety by Leveraging Partnerships and Resources ? Foster an Environment that Values Diversity and Inclusion ? Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities ? Promote and Enhance Our Hometown Feel While Focusing on Livability and Environmental Quality He noted that staff had prepared measures to reach the goals. Councilor Pishioneri referred to the second bullet on page 3 of Attachment 2 of the agenda packet, "Revenue Forecasts are within 2% of Actual Revenues." He asked if that had anything to do with the 1.5% figure discussed during the Budget Committee meetings. Mr. Towery said they were two different issues. The issue Councilor Pishioneri was referring to was the budgeted increase for property tax revenue. The Budget Committee approved a budget which the Council adopted which included a forecast of V2 of 1 percent increased in property tax revenues. The target in Attachment 2 was the overall forecast for all of our budget and having the actual amount of our forecasted revenue within 2 percent of the total amount. The estimates would be adjusted based on the adopted budget. Councilor VanGordon asked how many items were added to the targets to address the new goals. Mr. Tamulonis said they added about a dozen. Several measures in Public Works last year had been aggregated measures, but when reviewing them the aggregated numbers didn't make sense, so they were disaggregated. A small handful of targets were deleted. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2011 Page 6 Councilor VanGordon confirmed that the changes were to focus in on the new Goals. Mr. Towery said they were, in addition to including more detail. Councilor VanGordon referred to the Dashboard and the section under public safety. It seemed like last time he looked at the response times, the City was more on target than they were now. He asked for more information on those response times. Mr. Towery said he could provide that. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN TARGETS AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Lane Livability Consortium Memorandum of Understanding. Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. As one of ten co-applicants for this HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant, the City of Springfield must co- sign a MOU to receive grant funds to reimburse city staff involvement in the project. The Council reviewed a draft MOU during their May 23, 2011 work session. The Council asked for clarification or revision to the following elements of the MOU: the obligation of the City to consider unsolicited proposals generated by the LLC; the evolving status and duration of the Consortium; and budget details. The following changes were made to the MOU and Work Plan in response to the above concerns: On page 4, the MOU stated: "The Consortium is a resource collaborative and is intended to provide assistance to partner agencies as and when requested and as an adjunct and available resource for on-going mandated projects. Actions will be in the form of reports and/or proposals responsive to agency staff." (Emphasis added) This language precluded obligatory city consideration of unsolicited proposals. The status of the Consortium after expiration of the grant period was described on page 5, and stated: "The Consortium will remain in effect until the completion of the grant in February 2014 at which time it will be dissolved." Budget detail, including in-kind and cash reimbursement projections were provided in Attachment 5 of the agenda packet. The MOU made reference to this arrangement on page 2: "To ensure accountability and successful completion of the project activities, subgrantee contracts will be .developed to clarify specific deliverables, time frames and reporting requirements." Page 6 under Resources and Financing the MOU stated: "The following Parties are programmed to receive grant funding in support of work activities associated with the completion of project tasks: City of Springfield." The current iteration of the MOU and attachments addressed the concerns raised during Council review on May 23rd. Staff believed this grant would result in a number of opportunities to supplement long-term policy objectives as well as effectively collaborate with our regional partners on matters of mutual interest. Mr. Mott noted that staff's position was that the work program, the subsequent intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with LCOG, and the provisions of termination of the LLC reconciled staff's City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2011 " Page 7 issues and those expressed by the Council. He noted that during the presentation on the Strategic Plan, many of the Council goals had a close relationship to some of the projects in the work program. He noted some of those projects and how they related to the Council Goals. He compared the LLC with a reservoir rich with resources, such as the members of the LLC and the ability to access funds that were useful and convenient. This was a unique opportunity. He introduced Andrea Riner, Transportation Manager from LCOG, who was in the audience to answer. questions. Councilor Moore asked about the triple bottom line analysis. It sounded like they wanted the jurisdictions to consider environmental, economic and human outcomes in the planning process. Mr. Mott said it did involve those three issues; however, Council could instruct staff on any activity they wanted to undertake to use that as one of the criteria or recommendations. Under normal circumstances, staff completed what they were assigned to do by Council and tried to provide several options for their consideration. Usually, staff used the Council Goals, targets or other things as the criteria to base the recommendations. This would be an example of other criteria that could be used when bringing an option forward. Triple bottom line was not a new term, but had gained popularity in the last eight to ten years. Councilor Wylie said she understood the Councilors had concerns, but felt those concerns had been addressed.- She was excited about this opportunity and felt the City should participate and take advantage of this opportunity. Doing this would contribute to the Council goals and give the City an `in' where we would not have had one regarding Federal funding opportunities. Councilor Moore referred to the three things listed under Emerging Issues: climate change; social health; and social equity. She asked if the current grant received by Lane County Public Health for community health would overlap this grant. Ms. Riner said it was not an overlap, but an opportunity to bridge a gap between things such as transportation planning and the work being done in public health. This had been something they had wanted to look at, but didn't have a way to coordinate efforts. They were very excited about other grant opportunities that could be joined with this grant to support or work together. They didn't want to overlap, but make the right connections to support both efforts. Councilor Moore said she saw that as part of a collaborative process, which she felt was positive. Originally, when they talked about this, it was more of a study and planning process, but now she saw actual projects. She asked how that worked and how the projects would be funded. Ms. Riner said in putting this together, their hope was to get more grant funding. This was something done in response to trends in State and Federal funding, by looking at partnerships and trying to be more competitive in that area. The thought was that public funding was more efficiently utilized in that way. This was intended to go after project outcomes. Councilor Moore asked if the City would be compensated adequately for staff time though this grant. Mr. Mott said we did the best we could to estimate the time needed by staff. for any work plan. The IGA that would go with this grant would specify what they would be working on and how that would be reimbursed. He expected the bulk of this would be his time, but there would be opportunities for a number of Public Works staff to be involved. All of the work was eligible for reimbursement from this grant. City staff could charge their work to a specific account number. Councilor VanGordon said Attachment 2 of the agenda packet showed that the City would receive $45,000 revenue from the grant, at a cost of $25,000. He noted that the City had cut City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2011 Page 8 staffing throughout the City. He asked if staff involvement in the grant would impact other City projects. Mr. Mott said 250 hours spread out over 3 years was not a significant impact on our staff and work program. He was confident we would still get our work done. Councilor VanGordon asked how the City would have to consider work plans from the consortium and whether or not we would only get something if we asked. Mr. Mott said the City would not get any requests to enact law through ordinances or other action unless they requested that. Work created would be presented to Council in a work session format, with some connection to Council Goals or other task currently in the City's work program. Council could then determine whether or not to pursue that. There wouldn't be a circumstance where the Council was presented with something they had to enact. Councilor VanGordon said this could be another. option presented to the Council. Mr. Mott said that was correct. Staff could also come to Council with an opportunity to use grant resources to pursue a particular objective of Council's, which would produce an outcome the City could use. It could be something Council asked staff to incorporate into something they were currently doing. Councilor VanGordon asked if actions and work products from the Consortium would be driven by Council requests. Mr. Mott said that would be one way. Another way would be through staff presentations to Council about what the Consortium was involved with, such as an analysis on a particular subject. Council could then weigh in on whether or not they had interest in that project. Councilor VanGordon asked if there was anything that currently prevented that type of collaboration. Mr. Mott said no, but something like this was not currently in place with the parties set forth in this grant. There was nothing that would prevent a voluntary association of those people. Councilor VanGordon asked if this type of consortium or collaboration could happen under LCOG's current framework. Ms. Riner said it was a matter of resources. This grant provided resources to bring people to the table and move this forward. It was a significant amount of work to collaborate, cooperate and share research. The resource of this grant allowed it to happen. If used well, this process could help them all learn ways to work together more efficiently. It was the kind of work LCOG could do, but not without a cost. They were taking advantage of this resource to facilitate this work. Councilor VanGordon said he was concerned we were creating another organization to do work that could be done with organizations already in place. He would not like to see another layer of bureaucracy, but would rather support what we were trying to accomplish with current resources through LCOG. He asked what Council would be required to do when proposals were presented to them. If they declined to participate in them, would that be going against the spirit of the agreement? Ms. Riner said the Consortium would work on things that were of interest to those participating. It was something they would all be working on together. Councilor VanGordon said this would be a large group working in collaboration with other agencies to work on group problems. Ms. Riner said they would be bringing in quite a few additional resources to the table which they were not able to do now because of resources. The resources and information gained from the group would be much more than the sum of the members. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2011 Page 9 Councilor VanGordon said he agreed, but he was still uncomfortable with the direction this was going. He felt like it was adding another organization instead of using existing resources. He hadn't seen the need to add another organization. Ms. Riner said the agencies participating were the same agencies that were in LCOG. It was being called a consortium for grant purposes. It was not governance, but more of a project team. It was still a fairly straightforward interagency planning process, but the grant allowed them to get Federal funding to add some of the unique partners. Councilor VanGordon asked if there was a tangible benefit, or if we thought by participating it might help us later. Ms. Riner said there were no guarantees, but she had seen over the past year since they had applied for the grant, a high-level of interest from local, state, and federal agencies that held significant dollars that were used in our area. Some of those agencies included the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This was the way they were telling us they. wanted us to move in this post earmark era. Those.trying to prepare the region for that change were looking at this as a strong option. Councilor Wylie said she had heard FTA officials say this would be an opportunity to put our region higher in the standings for receiving additional grants. The idea of coming together and planning together to create some structures that would serve us in the future might be a way to meet some of our community needs. Councilor Ralston asked if all three jurisdictions had to agree to this and who would be voting. Ms. Riner said they were required to get signatures from all- eleven partner agencies. Not having signatures from all agencies would show a lack of follow-through. Having participation of the governing agencies was key to the purpose of the grant. Councilor Ralston said we did a good job in partnerships with United Front. This year, there simply were no funds and he didn't see any additional funding in the next couple of years. This would take staff time and Council time and add another layer which he could not support. The goals were that we would get sustainable cities, a term he didn't support along with the term climate change. He felt that at some point in time we would be more obligated to do certain things that may not fit Springfield's goals. Councilor Pishioneri said on its face this seemed like another government entity and Springfield just committed to the Sustainable Cities Program through the University of Oregon. He served on the LCOG Board and noted that their recent Communication Plan had only received a 60% vote, yet was moving forward. He felt that LCOG should play the subordinate agency, not the lead. He saw this as the emergence of LCOG taking a leadership role. He liked the independence of Springfield and didn't want to be guided. He saw this as relinquishing the leadership role to others. He was not convinced he could support this grant. Councilor Woodrow said she had read this over many times, but still felt uncomfortable. The City had taken away City resources and staff and were looking at spending more on a collaboration that might lead to something we could be interested in. She liked the independence of Springfield, as well as the partnerships we have had in the past, but she was not sure of the timing of this City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2011 Page 10 project. She was concerned that the City would be locked into something if we received Federal Funding. She didn't feel she had everything she needed to feel positive about this grant. Mayor Lundberg said it would probably take about a year to put together the Consortium. There was staff time involved. She asked if the membership would include elected officials. Ms. Riner said the membership would include staff only who would be representing their individual jurisdictions. The Consortium was a group of agencies who chose to work together on this project and sign the MOU. Staff had been meeting for six months putting together the MOU and IGA, so it wouldn't take a full year to set it up. This was ready to go once the agreements were signed. Mayor Lundberg said in looking at the projects, it looked like the cities would be the primary recipients of the work programs. She was concerned about trying to find consensus points for these projects among the City of Eugene, City of Springfield and Lane County. She loved the idea of working together, but there were other ways. The regional teams from the State were a great opportunity for Springfield to collaborate on land-use and transportation. We also had United Front. She struggled with this concept and felt they were introduced to this at the back end of the process, instead of the front end. There was a lot of work to do, but it needed to be defined first. Councilor Moore referred to the signature page of the MOU which stated that the agreement "may be terminated upon written notice to the Lane Council of Governments." She asked if that was accurate. Mr. Mott said that section, as well as the Consortium duration, was put into the MOU to address concerns by Council at the last meeting. Councilor Moore said she appreciated that they answered Council's questions and that they could terminate easily. Springfield was tied into the region and together Eugene and Springfield made a much larger population and could compete on a more even playing field with the larger areas in the State. Anything that would help our cities come together to improve Lane's livability she would support, especially since they could easily terminate if they found this wasn't useful. Councilor Pishioneri asked how the other ten cities of Lane County fit into this plan. Ms. Riner said the Consortium was limited to the urban metropolitan area. The grant was written on the fact that the cities and county were part of a regional transportation plan, regional housing plan and Metro Plan. The other cities were not linked to Eugene and Springfield in those areas. The other cities would be interested parties and hopefully the products from this grant would be of value to any Oregon community that wanted to look at reducing infrastructure costs or improving public health. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the LCOG staff assigned to this were being paid for 100% of their time through the grant funds. Ms. Riner said they were only partially funded by the grant. This would allow Ms. Riner to expand the collaborative work she did in transportation, economic development, housing and infrastructure. The grant funds could leverage that work. Two other staff at LCOG were about one quarter funded to help with project coordination and information gathering. Councilor Pishioneri asked about the other cities that paid LCOG dues and whether or not they would be deriving a benefit from the efforts of LCOG staff on this project. Ms. Riner said she hoped so. Staff working on projects in the region, getting additional training or learning about grants could apply that to any of the work they did for the other cities they served. This was a City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 18, 2011 Page 11 capacity building program that would benefit all of the agencies. The LCOG dues didn't fund the LCOG staff positions, especially transportation positions. Councilor Wylie said she was sorry to hear that several of the Councilors were not supportive and willing to get funding to help our community. She was also sorry to hear they would lose this opportunity. She could not understand why they would not work together with other agencies to look at ways to improve. It was not a level of government, but was a work group and would help Springfield stand out among other cities to be a model and receive additional grants. She would be very disappointed if this did not pass. Councilor Ralston said there was no guarantee we were passing up money. He, felt Eugene's definition of livability would be different than his definition. He didn't want a region to decide for Springfield what was important. He felt like we were giving up control. We had a Housing Policy Board and both cities were working towards those goals. There was nothing in this plan that was different or unique to what Springfield was already doing. Councilor VanGordon said he saw positive benefits from the Consortium, but didn't agree with this plan. Between all of the work products they could find things they agreed upon, but he didn't feel this was a good plan to do that. With resources constrained, he didn't see a reason to take something with a few good ideas, but too many questions. He was willing to continue to have discussions and work on ideas like this, but he was not comfortable with this plan. He still had too many questions needing clarification before considering support of this initiative. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO NOT APPROVE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN LANE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (LCOG) AND CITY OF SPRINGFIELD REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LANE LIVABILITY CONSORTIUM. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (WYLIE AND MOORE). BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:20 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: City Rec{otder