Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 05 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/16/2012 Meeting Type:Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa/CMO Staff Phone No: 726-3700 Estimated Time: Consent Calendar S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate ITEM TITLE: COUNCIL MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, approval of the attached minutes. ISSUE STATEMENT: The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes: a) March 12, 2012 – Work Session b) March 19, 2012 – Work Session c) March 19, 2012 – Regular Meeting d) March 26, 2012 – Work Session e) April 2, 2012 – Work Session f) April 2, 2012 – Joint Public Hearing DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 12, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, and Moore. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilors Ralston and Woodrow were absent (excused). 1. Annual Joint Work Session with Springfield Museum Board and Director. Mayor Lundberg welcomed the Museum Board to the meeting and introduced Debra Gruell, Director of the Springfield Museum. Ms. Gruell distributed information about upcoming events, including the Wine Fest Event. Ms. Gruell thanked the Mayor and Council for being so supportive of the Springfield Museum. She said the current Museum Board members were very active. She asked the Museum Board members present to introduce themselves. Carol Vedder joined the Museum Board last fall. She said she was originally from California, but had lived in Lane County since 1988. In the past, she had worked in advertising and was now a property manager in Eugene. Judith Bushnell, Museum Board Treasurer, had been on the Board for about a year and a half. She was born in Portland, raised in McMinnville and had lived in several other states. She thought the Springfield Museum was a great museum and Ms. Gruell was a wonderful director. Kim Gonzales was a graduate student at the University of Oregon. She had joined the Board in the fall and was serving as part of a class requirement on board governance. She was excited about the possibilities for the museum to grow and move forward. David Floyd managed two Goodyear stores, one in Springfield and one in Eugene. He had served on the Board for about one year. He appreciated what the Museum did. He was a native Oregonian and loved small towns. He was also Chair of the Board for the Salvation Army of Lane County, and was involved with the Springfield Kiwanis. He appreciated the City Council and their support of the museum. They had big plans to expand membership. The Board was very up and coming and a wonderful group of people. Patty Edwards worked with Staffing Partners, a business that was formerly located in Springfield, but had recently moved to Eugene. She had served on the Board for about a year and found it to be a lot of fun. She enjoyed the monthly events, including being part of the Second Friday Art Walk. She had City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 12, 2012 Page 2 gotten a lot of her family to come to Springfield for that event. She was very happy with the Museum and felt it was a great place to bring family and friends. Chris Stole, Museum Board Vice President, was new to the Board as of September 2011. She enjoyed Museums and Libraries. The Board was planning to do a lot of fun things. Ms. Gruell referred to a subcommittee of the Museum Board that was putting together new bylaws. The bylaws were very old so needed updated to fit how the Board operated today. A lot of work had gone into this process. She distributed copies of the proposed bylaws. The final version would be submitted to the Council for formal approval at a later date. Ms. Gruell thanked the City and the Council for their support of the Museum. They had been very generous with their funds. The Museum was actively working to bring in additional funds and had been fundraising for the past four to five years. The year before last the Garden Tour brought in over $6000 and they were planning another Garden Tour this year. The Museum had also received a couple of small grants to assist with programming. She noted that during the current economy, the Museum faced the same challenges as everyone else. She felt the Museum deserved as much attention as everyone else, and they were out there fighting for funds. It was difficult to fundraise because of the many other organizations also trying to find funds. Ms. Gruell distributed a newspaper article that highlighted many of the events and exhibits from 2011. Under their contract with the City, the Museum was committed to holding seven or eight exhibits each year; they had been hosting eleven to twelve. She noted that during the 2nd Friday Art Walk last week it was so crowded in the gallery that there was standing room only. The current display was their 8th Annual Student Art Exhibit with art from students from A3 Academy, Gateway High School, Springfield High School and Thurston High School. Twenty-five awards were presented. This exhibit and the involvement of the schools showed that kids and the community were still involved in the arts. Ms. Gruell noted that part of the funding problem was that they had a large number of people attend events, but little revenue coming in. The fee had been set at $2 per person for a number of years, and students were free. While held in the Museum parking lot, the Farmers Market had helped with memberships and bringing in people. That venue had now moved so was no longer a draw for the Museum. The Museum was working very hard, but could use ideas on how to get new members and funding. Membership was down, as it was for other organizations. One of their goals was to get families and younger people interested in becoming members of the Museum. One way they tried to encourage that was to bring in Sluggo and the Ems baseball team to meet people and sign autographs. They had also brought in the Eugene Ballet with costumes and they would be returning in July with both ballet and opera costumes. Ms. Gruell noted some of the other events at the Museum held in 2011 including the VIP Reception, artists and the Wine Fest fundraiser. This year’s Wine Fest was scheduled for April 14 from 6:00- 9:00pm in the City Hall lobby. The event included wonderful music, a silent auction, a wine expert and wonderful food. This year Devour would be at the event serving the food. Last year, the Museum cleared over $6500.00 with 100 tickets sold. This year they were trying to sell 125 tickets and also trying to increase the net profits through donations and other cost cutting measures. Tickets were $50 each. Last year CNN Newsmakers came to film at the Museum and suggested the Museum may be haunted, which generated many phone calls. Ms. Gruell said membership forms would be provided and put in the Council boxes. Tickets were also available for the Wine Fest. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 12, 2012 Page 3 Councilor Moore asked for the overall total donations received in 2011. She said knowing that would be helpful. She asked if 2010 was the first year for the Garden Tour. Ms. Gruell said she had information on total donations at the Museum and could provide it to Councilor Moore. She said they tried to hold the Garden Tour every two years. Councilor Wylie said the Rotary chose a project each year that they raised funds for then gave the money to that project. She suggested that the Museum Board come up with a project that they could present to Rotary for consideration. She also noted that the Antiques Roadshow was a popular event when they came to the Lane County Fairgrounds. She had heard of other groups getting experts that could offer appraisals, charging people to attend, then providing an evaluation. She suggested the Museum do something similar. Ms. Gruell said they had held two Trash and Treasure Shows in the past. The last time it was held in the City Hall Lobby because of the large amount of interest. They did not charge, but asked for a $3 donation. During the last show, they were able to get about 15 experts to help and provide a “Certificate of Best Guess”. Councilor Wylie said her husband had some things he would like an expert to look at and felt that $5 was a reasonable charge. They could then schedule an exhibit with some of the more interesting items. Mayor Lundberg agreed and said she had a lot of antiques that she would like to get appraised. She felt another show like that would help publicize the Museum. She noted that the recent youth exhibit brought in a lot of families and the art was spectacular. Other events involving the youth would bring in many Springfield families to the Museum. Councilor VanGordon encouraged the Museum to look at what other museums were doing with technology such as YouTube videos and broadcasting that generated interest and could increase memberships. There were some graduate students doing work like that in other places. One example was using a digital medium to tell a story, with information on how to become a member. He also suggested the Museum partner with the Historic Commission to hold a scavenger hunt or other event downtown. He had seen people using ‘dense codes’ with items imbedded in them. Those ‘dense codes’ were then hidden around downtown where people would find them and hear a story about the item. There were ways to generate interest. The Museum was an exciting place. Ms. Gruell said getting help at the Museum was still a challenge. She had been fortunate to have been involved with a program called “Experience Works” for the past three and a half years. This program provided and paid for people 55 and older who were looking for work to help at the Museum. Other than the people from this program and volunteers, Ms. Gruell was the only paid position at the Museum. The Museum relied heavily on docents and volunteers. This year she had been fortunate to get two interns from Northwest Christian College (NCU) and last year she had an intern from the University of Oregon (UO). The idea about a scavenger hunt was fantastic and she would look for someone to partner with the Museum for this type of event. 2. Fire Merger. Fire Chief Randall Groves presented the staff report on this item. Springfield Fire & Life Safety (SFLS) continued to operate as a functionally consolidated department with Eugene Fire & EMS City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 12, 2012 Page 4 under direction of joint city managers. This Work Session item was to discuss a proposed governance model for a merged fire organization and to seek City Council guidance regarding next steps. Mr. Groves referred to Attachment 1 in the agenda packet which outlined the proposed governance model for the fire merger. In 2007, the Third Battalion system was put into place. Since July 1, 2010, Springfield and Eugene Fire Departments had been operating under an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the two cities to share the services of certain key administrative positions in both departments. They were now working to become more streamlined and operating as one unit. The primary benefit of a functional consolidation was that it permitted both cities to share savings resulting from eliminating redundant resources, taking advantage of existing vacancies of key personnel. Meanwhile, service levels were being maintained or improved as a result of joint efficiencies. In FY11, savings of $606,999 were realized due to the functional consolidation, with Springfield’s share estimated at $286,952. Projected personnel savings for the City of Springfield for FY12 is $413,608, with a combined savings of $876,239 for the two cities. Looking forward for proposed savings for FY13 was approximately $1.1M. Some of those savings tied directly to a merger and some were tied to budget reductions. It was difficult to delineate in some areas. They had been able to mitigate some of the budget reductions by sharing of resources. He referred to Table 4 located on page 3 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. This table showed the combined savings by each City over the last three years, taking into account FY13. Springfield’s share of the savings was $1,274,258. Chief Groves noted that a lot of time was spent on cost savings, which was sometimes overshadowed with the focus on cost reductions and efficiencies. The service effectiveness improvements the departments had made, and operating with a larger resource base had proven to be a good operating model. Staff had continued to improve operating procedures, and had been working on standardizing equipment and apparatus specifications. He noted the recent success with the $400,000 grant for extrication equipment. Chief Groves said Table 5 on page 4 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet showed costs it would take to restore both departments back to two separate departments. This was not a complete restoration of what had been eliminated over the three-year period, but showed the minimal needed to restore both departments. This table showed costs adjusted for inflation. The total cost to Springfield would be about $475,773. Chief Groves spoke regarding the cost differential between the two departments’ IAFF contracts. During the analysis, staff found that the overall costs were not much different, but had some different aspects to the contracts. There was a concern that if the two departments merged it could dramatically change the labor market and drive up costs. In their analysis, staff identified the larger cities that would be considered and found that Eugene was already in that market. With that, Eugene and Springfield numbers remained very close. Eugene was the second largest city in the state, and Portland was excluded from the market by State Statute. There was also concern that merging would put the combined department in the same market as Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (TVFR). TVFR was currently in the same market as Eugene. He also noted past arbitration decisions that put smaller cities in the same market as TVFR because TVFR served smaller municipalities. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 12, 2012 Page 5 Chief Groves said the next steps would be to bring forth the new form of governance which would still have Chief Groves reporting directly to the two City Managers and two City Councils. The goal was to get the organization from high level down to operate as one with a common set of integrated policies. For now, the employee groups would remain separate, but would work forward to try to make the system one organization as much as possible. If they went forward with this next step, they would then work with the two IAFF bargaining units to negotiate an integrated contract, or one that was identical and tied together. In order for this to be most effective and work in the long-term, the department needed to be able to move firefighters back and forth between the two cities, cutting down on overtime. Discussions would also be implemented with AFSCME and SEIU, the two unions that represented the services workers. Chief Groves referred to Attachment A and B of the agenda packet. These tables provided detailed costings for aligning the two contracts. Attachment A applied Eugene’s firefighter contract to Springfield’s IAFF #1395 employees, but left the Springfield firefighters under the current Springfield health plan. The difference in the contracts was 3.25%, not taking into account that the Springfield firefighters were currently negotiating the FY12 contract. That would bring the costs closer. Attachment B applied Eugene’s firefighter contract to Springfield’s IAFF #1395 employees and included moving them to Eugene’s health plan. Springfield was insured and Eugene was self-insured. The cost difference could mean a savings between $270,000 and $511,746. There were still some unknowns and things needed to be done. Eugene started bargaining today, and Springfield was ready to negotiate for their next contract starting July 1, 2012. Mr. Grimaldi said staff was looking for direction to move forward with negotiations with the City of Eugene under an intergovernmental agreement, and to begin labor negotiations with the assumption we would be one organization. Mayor Lundberg said there were two councilors missing from tonight’s meeting. She would like to meet again before providing direction. It was important for everyone to be at the table to make that decision. Tonight she was looking for feedback and questions. Councilor Wylie said she had worked on the Ambulance Task Force so had been involved in discussions regarding the merger since they began. The cities had proceeded slowly so they could get more information as they went along, to see how things were working, what the cost savings were, and how the unions felt about a merger. She felt if they moved forward in this direction, Council would continue to be kept informed closely through negotiations. Given hard economic times and our budget, she felt the City needed to be creative and challenging and work hard to find ways and solutions to be efficient. Thanks to former Chief Murphy and current Chief Groves, this had been laid out with class and done in a thorough manner. We were doing a good job of meeting the challenge to do more with less. She was interested in proceeding cautiously as they had been. So far, it looked better than expected and the savings continued. It would be important to see how the culture of the two departments meshed. Chief Groves said they currently had training that was more integrated which helped. Some of the exempt employees had been swapped between the cities and they were currently on their third or fourth rotation. Having staff from each department go to the other department had caused them to challenge their assumptions and had been a benefit. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 12, 2012 Page 6 Councilor Moore asked where they would house the administrative staff if they placed them in a single location. Chief Groves said that hadn’t been fully worked out, but his preference would be the 2nd and Chambers facility. Eugene’s Fire administrative shared that facility with Eugene Policy and the 911 Center. Wherever they located, they would like to have as much of the administrative staff under one roof as possible. It would help make things more efficient. Councilor Moore asked if Springfield Fire had their administration in Springfield City Hall. Yes. If they moved them to the 2nd and Chambers location, that could free up some space in City Hall. Chief Groves said that could be possible, although they would still need a satellite office for the Fire Marshal and also for the Chief to have an office in each City. He would still be working with both cities’ Executive Teams and Councils. Councilor Moore said so much of what was done was by technology, location didn’t play as much importance. This was another step along the way. She asked if there were many more steps to a merger. Mr. Grimaldi said there would be an important decision point out in the future. The most important decision now would be authorizing the intergovernmental agreement for governance. These were not steps to take if there was not an interest in the merger as it involved a lot of work. Chief Groves said this next juncture involved other departments, such as procurement, payroll, and rostering. He would like to see this move as swiftly as possible due to the amount of energy managers were exerting as they were trying to manage two departments. Councilor VanGordon asked about allocation of leadership and the budget under the governance model. Chief Groves said the allocation would be similar to what it was today. They would continue to monitor that and maintain a balance between the two cities. Councilor VanGordon said it seemed like the system being used offered some flexibility. Chief Groves said his ideal would be for funds to go into one pot to deliver the service. If that could not occur, getting things as close to one department as possible would be helpful. Mr. Grimaldi said the goal would be to keep it as clean as possible. Both organizations would like to avoid paying indirects and overhead to each other. Councilor VanGordon asked to hear more about the difference in the health plans. Chief Groves said an actuarial study was underway by both cities, and there was the potential for Springfield to go with a self-insured plan exclusive to Springfield. They were looking at whether or not it could provide some cost savings. Human Resources Director Greta Utecht said when staff went through the contract, they found that the Springfield health plan was more expensive per employee than the Eugene health plan. Much of that City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 12, 2012 Page 7 expense was because Springfield was fully insured. The experience rate of the two cities in terms of claims processed was not much different. When they first started looking at how to put the two contracts together in a meaningful and cost effective way, they talked about doing a metro trust that would provide health, workers’ compensation and liability insurance. When exploring the possibility of a metro trust, they also looked at whether or not Springfield could become self-insured with a plan that mirrored Eugene’s plan. The review was meant to look at different ways of thinking about our internal system, so they were doing the actuarial study to look at the metro trust and also an actuarial study for the City of Springfield. Ms. Utecht noted that the information on Tables 4 and 5 was as close as they had currently. Chief Groves said the whole process had raised a lot of healthy questions on both sides. Councilor Moore asked if the metro trust would be advantageous to both cities. Ms. Utecht said they needed a huge pool of insured individuals in order to impact the rate. Rates were based on experience as an insured entity. Firefighters as a group were generally younger and healthier, so their experience ratings were good. When looking at an insured trust for all employees, there would be a broader actuary. There was potential for savings. Mayor Lundberg said the big decision was whether or not we would move forward. Once it was set in motion, other big decisions and studies needed to be done. This decision was critical. Councilor Pishioneri said he would like to have all of the Council present before moving forward. He still had some concerns he would like to see addressed if possible. He referred to Attachment B and asked if this table was indicating that it could cost the City $308,628 or more, or save the City up to $203,118. Chief Groves said the figure of $308,628 didn’t take into account the current negotiations with Springfield firefighters. Eugene’s contract was good through June 30, 2012. That figure would be reduced once that was final. Councilor Pishioneri said it sounded like the change in comparables with a larger department would not be much of an issue. Chief Groves said there would not be a new group for comparables for Eugene. The population was used to determine comparables. Councilor Pishioneri asked if increasing the size of the agency would affect the non-represented employees, or if fair market value would be used, including out of State. He asked if that could be a financial risk. Mr. Utecht said it was dependent on the position and the labor pool drawn for that position. Hiring a new fire chief or police chief tended to be internally oriented and part of a promotional track. Having a large organization shouldn’t impact the compensation. Currently, the compensation levels between the two agencies were very similar. Chief Groves said he had not looked at his position as a position for two organizations. Most comparable positions were in the same range if the cost of living was similar. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 12, 2012 Page 8 Councilor Pishioneri said it didn’t appear any concessions had been made by labor groups regarding the merger. He noted that Eugene’s contract would remain the same and Springfield’s would increase. Mr. Grimaldi said assumptions had been made for discussion purposes. There would be negotiations with the unions. At this time, the unions had told the cities they were not looking for the best of both contracts in one contract. Chief Groves said both unions would like to find ways to make this work. They had come forward with ways to shave costs and had been good partners. They were meeting this week to discuss proposals to take back to the budget team to help with reductions while maintaining unit hours. He was very encouraged. Negotiations would be done separately, but they had built a good partnership with the labor force. Councilor Pishioneri said during the last budget cycle, overtime was a significant issue and he had asked what types of ideas could be implemented to reduce those costs. He asked what type of ideas could be implemented and if the could show quantifiable reductions of overtime costs. Chief Groves said part of the proposals they were considering looked at controlling overtime costs. Springfield had been down on base level staffing. When looking at personnel costs, shifts were either filled by full time employees or making up the difference in overtime. As the base level of staff dropped, overtime increased. Springfield was now ready with a recruit class. There would be a number of people retiring who were currently paid at the highest step with the highest vacation accrual, and the new hires would come in at the lowest step at the lowest vacation accrual. That type of changeover was cyclical. The union was aware that overtime costs were an issue. Councilor Pishioneri said he appreciated the work staff had put into this. The more he learned and the more information and response he got from Chief Groves, the better it looked. He also thanked the union for working on the overtime issue. He still wanted to hear from the other councilors before making a decision. Councilor Moore asked if they were looking at a union merger in the future. Chief Groves said that would be his best outcome, but it would be between the two bargaining units. That was their decision. Councilor Moore asked if that would strengthen their position. Ms. Utecht said if the budget authority remained with each individual agency that would be the driver. If they could get the contracts in alignment, that would make a big difference in terms of workload and ease of administration. Councilor Moore said she saw this as a positive step forward and it seemed to make sense. Mayor Lundberg asked staff to bring this back to the Council as soon as possible. She understood they wanted to go forward as soon as possible. Mr. Grimaldi said it would probably be three to four weeks out, depending on the other councilors’ schedule. During that time, some work could be continued. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 12, 2012 Page 9 Mayor Lundberg said in the bigger broader sense she liked the idea. It made sense, but there were still a lot of details that were unknown. There were still a lot of questions, but she was very intrigued with the merger and the potential savings. She was interested in how the wording would be set up for the name of the department. Springfield and Eugene were still two different communities. She commended them for their work. It was exciting to see cost savings and better response times, serving the communities better. Chief Groves said with steps already taken, they were currently serving two communities better now than before. Mayor Lundberg said it was encouraging to hear some of the firefighters were assisting in this process. Chief Groves said it seemed to be the majority of personnel who were supportive. The labor unions continued to work with staff. Councilor Pishioneri said anytime better service could be provided for less cost, he was supportive. He noted Councilor Moore’s comment about the union being stronger if they merged and asked what would happen if the City of Eugene was approached by their union with a large increase that Springfield couldn’t accommodate. Mr. Grimaldi said there were two different models for negotiations in the two cities. In Springfield, the City Council was engaged in negotiations and proposals. In the City of Eugene, the City Manager made any decisions. Ms. Utecht said if there was one contract, but under separate budgets, there would be only one bargaining with Eugene and Springfield together with the union. There would not be a situation where one city made a unilateral decision about what happened with the other city. Mr. Grimaldi said the tricky part of this relationship would be labor negotiations. Eventually, the two cities would need to agree. Councilor Pishioneri said that concerned him because of situations he had seen with the Metro Plan. Mr. Grimaldi said he didn’t believe that would be an issue in this circumstance. They could look at historic information with both cities in terms of labor agreements. They would likely be fairly similar over a period of time. Chief Groves said the cost spread between the two cities was very close. There were many differences between the two cities, but both wanted to control costs. Mr. Grimaldi said unlike other bargaining units, this unit had access to binding arbitration and had to follow the same rules and guidelines. Ms. Utecht said historically, the two cities had been about three percent apart. Collective bargaining laws would govern more than anything else. Mayor Lundberg said she was very optimistic they could work through this. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 12, 2012 Page 10 Mr. Grimaldi said council schedules would be monitored to find a date for the next meeting. He encouraged Council to let staff know if they had other questions that could be addressed at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 19, 2012 at 6:16 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie and Moore. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilors Ralston and Woodrow were absent (excused). 1. Wastewater Service Extension Policy Discussion. City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. On October 17, the City Council held a Work Session concerning a request from a property owner on Anderson Lane for City assistance with extending a public wastewater main to the property because the on-site septic system was failing. Council requested staff to come back with a broader discussion on the City’s funding policy concerning wastewater service extensions. The City’s current policy was derived from several sources and could be summarized as follows: • A permit cannot be issued to construct or repair a septic system if the property is within 300 feet of a wastewater system that is both physically and legally available to provide that service; and • The property being served must be within Springfield city limits to be served by the Springfield wastewater system; and • A property must abut City limits to be eligible for annexation; and • The full cost to extend a public 8-inch diameter wastewater pipe to, and through the frontage of, the property is assessable to (shall be paid by) the benefitted property owner(s). As discussed in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, staff had identified three typical situations where Council could consider modifying its policy direction to assist property owners: I. Properties within City limits that remain on septic systems because there is no public system available to them; II. Properties with failing septic systems that are outside of City limits and within 300 feet of a public sewer; and III. Coordination with other public construction projects. Mr. Vogeney noted that the current policies had been in place for over forty years. Some were based on Federal regulations and others were set by past Councils. Mr. Vogeney said approximately 195 properties were inside city limits, but not connected to City sewer. He referred to some of those properties on the displayed city map. Of those 195 properties, 76 City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 2 had sewer service within 50 feet, 95 were within 300 feet and 24 properties were more than 300 feet from a city line. There were 119 properties that were annexed into the City and would require a public main extension to receive wastewater service. Of those 119, 108 were annexed before 1980. One of the policy questions before Council was whether to keep with the current policy for those properties. Property owners could approach the City with a Local Improvement District (LID) or could pay on their own under the current policy. Another option would be for the council to direct staff to include projects to bring service to the 119 properties in a future CIP. Those projects would be prioritized. As those properties connected to the sewer, they would be charged for the sanitary sewer through an in- lieu of assessment charge as authorized in the Municipal Code. Currently, that charge was calculated at .64 per square foot of property for the portion of the property to the connection. They didn’t see a lot of those charges in the near term and hadn’t collected that charge in the past four years. Councilor Pishioneri asked how many properties on this list were currently paying sewer. Mr. Vogeney said he wasn’t sure if any of those noted were paying sewer. He said if service was available at the property, they paid. Sixty four cents per square foot matched a recent update with the current LID project on Cherokee Drive. Councilor Wylie asked about the average assessments for the Cherokee Drive LID. Mr. Vogeney said they were about $6700.00. It was based on size of lot. Councilor Moore asked if the lots noted were occupied with buildings. Mr. Vogeney said there were 94 annexed lots that were unserved sites with buildings and within 300 feet of a 12” or smaller line. The other lots may or may not be vacant lots. Councilor Moore said she assumed those properties still had functioning septic tanks. Mr. Vogeney said staff had not gone into a lot by lot detail to determine if were vacant. The building data was from 2008 and things had changed. The map was a continuing work in progress. Councilor VanGordon said when they talked about Anderson Lane, it was noted that the developer had installed pipes that may have deteriorated. He asked if there was a risk that a structure put in by the City could deteriorate before someone chose to connect. Mr. Vogeney said it was possible; however materials used today (PVC) would not likely deteriorate and had a longer life. Mayor Lundberg asked if PVC lines would be affected by rain soaked dirt. She had experience with lines installed from septic to sewer that had moved by dirt pushing on them. The shifts had caused holes in the ground. Mr. Vogeney said pipes on the individual properties were the property owners’ responsibility and it was up to them to decide the types of materials they would use and what they would do with the old septic system. There was a permitting system to take the septic system out of service, but then it was the property owners’ responsibility. The City would construct only the public system with stubs to the properties. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 3 Mayor Lundberg asked if the City would be helping property owners determine the type of materials they should use or if the City would be working with a contractor that could connect an entire street. Mr. Vogeney said the property owners would have the option of when to join the sewer system and if they wanted to work with their neighbor to connect at the same time and use one contractor. The Plumbing Code did dictate some of the types of materials. Mr. Vogeney referred to the Anderson Lane area. In this situation, property owners were adjacent or abutting city limits and within 300 feet of sewer line. When developed, sewers were put in to serve all of the properties. He noted the properties that were annexed into the city in the Anderson Lane neighborhood. For those that were not annexed, if their septic tank failed, they would need to pay the assessment and the annexation fees. It was estimated there were about 1182 properties that were not annexed but were within 300 feet of sewer throughout the City. Of those, 695 were developed and abutted City limits. This was a significant issue. Those residents were not part of the City, but could be potential customers to add to the water user rates and the tax rolls. The current policy was for property owners to process an LID through the Council or pay for permit. Policy options could include keeping the current policy, or let property owners repair their septic systems, although staff did not recommend that option. Developed properties would not likely annex to the City without any incentive. A third option would be to develop CIP projects to extend sewers to unannexed properties. The City could provide stubs and collect in-lieu of assessment fees and system development charges (SDCs). Councilor VanGordon asked if under Option 2 the line would be specific to a lot. Mr. Vogeney said he would suggest it would be on a lot specific basis. He explained. Councilor VanGordon asked about the implications to the other properties if Option 2 was used. He asked if it would preclude the City from providing sewer to the other parts of the City that were not annexed. Mr. Vogeney said because the findings would be site specific, it would not rely on the other parcels. Councilor VanGordon asked how making the findings specific to the lot could slow down the City’s ability to annex land. He asked if they could produce findings for Anderson Lane and continue our current policy on others. Mr. Grimaldi said the Council would need to determine whether they would respond in the same way or differently if another person from a similar situation approached the Council. Mr. Vogeney said there were other properties in that area the same distance to sewer as those on Anderson Lane. Councilor Moore said her understanding was that the properties on Anderson Lane were fairly old. She asked what the life was of a septic system. Mr. Vogeney said the life of the septic system was dependent on maintenance by the property owner and the type of soil around it. With good maintenance, a system could last a long time. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 4 Councilor Wylie said she liked Option 2c. It seemed to be something a city should do when in a healthy budget. She wondered what happened when a septic system failed and how it affected the home. Mr. Vogeney said without sewer, the residents would need to vacate the property. He had worked with some people whose tank was fine, but the drainfield was not. In that case, they would need to have someone pump out the tank monthly. Councilor Wylie said it would be reasonable to let them repair their tanks until the sewer system could be installed. There could be a requirement that in order to repair their tank they waived their right to oppose annexation. Mr. Grimaldi said it was important to look at where the funds came from and the impact to the other users of the system. Councilor Wylie said they were backing financial issues with moral issues. She didn’t want to be part of an organization who would allow someone to have to leave their house because they couldn’t get their septic tank repaired. They needed a system that was fair and equitable and provided the necessary finances to put in the sewers. She didn’t want to allow families to live in conditions that were not healthy. Mr. Grimaldi said the LID system was fair to everyone. He explained. Councilor Wylie said under the current practice, a family had to move out if they couldn’t get an LID or pay for the sewer connection themselves. She asked how much it would cost a family to connect to sewer. Mr. Vogeney said the property at Anderson Lane was 290 feet from the sewer. The connection there would be about $130,000, plus they would need to connect through the frontage at a total cost of $150,000. If they then annexed, there would be additional costs. Councilor Pishioneri said State law governed septic repair. He liked being fair to everyone and to change what we were currently doing might not seem fair to some. He would not like to subsidize someone else’s sewer issues. It would be nice to have funds available, but in the current times it was not feasible. He asked how much it would cost other users if the City took on the cost of the project. Mr. Goodwin said every $50,000 was a 1 percent increase to the users. Mr. Vogeney said the Cherokee Drive LID was about $350,000, which was about a 7 % increase. Councilor Pishioneri said he agreed with leaving the current policies in place. Mr. Vogeney spoke regarding the third situation as listed in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. Along 10th Street the City was currently under design and ready to go out to bid for a sewer line for added capacity. Several properties in that area were still on septic systems. Two property owners wanted to know when sewers would be available to connect. The City negotiated an easement for the new sewer with one property owner. That property owner had an obligation to build an 8” service main along his Q Street frontage for his lot and two other properties. The City would build his portion of sewer in exchange for the easement and connect it to the new lines. That would bring the line to property City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 5 further north. The City talked with three of the property owners in that area. Two of those property owners would like the sewer built in front of their properties and it would bring a cost savings to them. They would agree to pay sewer and assessment fees or one-third of the sewer connection if they connected by 2013. This would provide them with an incentive and the cost to the owners and the City would be lower. Staff was beginning to contact property owners further up the road to see if they were interested. Another developer asked for a stub to serve his property. The City had done this in the past when possible, although it had not been done often. Councilor Moore asked how many other properties were not served and could benefit along 10th Street. Mr. Vogeney said the only properties not served were the few highlighted in Attachment 4 of the agenda packet. Everyone else was served along the entire route. Councilor Moore spoke regarding Anderson Lane. She felt it might be best to annex the block along the freeway to keep the costs down. If they were annexed, they could divide the property. She asked if annexing all properties would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Mr. Vogeney said some of the properties had already paid for sewers. There were only about five that could be assessed. Mr. Grimaldi said annexation didn’t compel the property owners to hook to the sewer. Mayor Lundberg asked for information of how much it would cost and what all was involved from connecting to annexing. She knew that annexation costs were monumental. It would be beneficial to discuss annexation and current policies. Mr. Grimaldi asked if they wanted another work session to discuss this further. Mayor Lundberg said that would be a good idea. During the next work session they could look at annexation from another viewpoint. She asked staff what other communities did in these situations. Mr. Vogeney said in the research he had done, all of the other communities followed basics of State law. Mr. Grimaldi said staff would schedule another work session. He sensed that some of the Council was interested in assisting property owners, so staff would look at some options. Councilor Moore asked if staff needed direction regarding the 10th Street project. Council felt current practice in that situation was working well. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 6 ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 19, 2012 at 7:09 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, and Moore. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Finance Director Bob Duey, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilors Ralston and Woodrow were absent (excused). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Lane Community College (LCC) Mill Race Log Sculptures. Springfield Civil Engineer and Mill Race Restoration Project Manager Jesse Jones presented this item. The City of Springfield and Lane Community College (LCC) recently worked together to salvage logs from the Mill Race Restoration construction site. Students at LCC had used some of the salvaged wood to create 3-D sculptures that incorporated themes related to the Mill Race and the history of Springfield. These sculptures were currently on display in the City Hall lobby. The sculptures ranged in size, with some freestanding and others placed in the display cases. This partnership had been beneficial to both parties. LCC was able to secure a long term supply of wood for teaching purposes while the City was able to clear the logs from the construction site at no cost. LCC planned to use the remaining wood in future sculpture classes. This partnership between LCC and the City of Springfield should result in future display opportunities. Mr. Jones introduced Lee Imonen, Sculpture Instructor from LCC. Mr. Imonen thanked the City for the wonderful gift of material for them to use in their program. It was unique and rare to find material of this type with such character and history. He also thanked Mr. Jones for his assistance in securing the logs. In the sculpture course, he had encouraged the students to think about the background and history of the Mill Race, the region and Springfield. From that research, the students chose a theme and imagery for their project. Because of that, a lot of the work done by the students was rooted in that process and in the history of Springfield. He introduced several of the students from his class who were in the audience. Mayor Lundberg said the display was gorgeous and was much appreciated. She asked where the display would go next. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 2 Mr. Imonen said this had been the first opportunity for the class to display their work as one display. The students would end up in student exhibitions at LCC. As a collection, this was probably the only time it would be shown together, so it was a great opportunity to put this out to the public. Mayor Lundberg again thanked Mr. Imonen and the students for their hard work. 2. Sustainable Cities Year (SCY) Student Presentation – Rain Garden Project. Environmental Services Technician Meghan Murphy presented this item. Ms. Murphy said she worked in the Water Resources Division of the Environmental Services Department (ESD). Her job was to make sure the stormwater runoff from the City was as clean as possible before getting to the Willamette River. That took the help of all of the citizens to accomplish, so the department had a number of outreach programs that encouraged citizens to take action. A couple of their programs included Clean Water University, which was a hands-on science program for fifth grade students; and the Clean Water Gardens Program which included brochures displayed at nurseries around town. The brochures encouraged homeowners to put in rain gardens in their home landscapes. The Clean Water Gardens Program had been very popular, but there had not been a demonstration where citizens could get ideas. When ESD learned that the University of Oregon (UO) wanted to work with the City for the Sustainable Cities Year initiative (SCY), it seemed like a perfect opportunity to get a demonstration rain garden built. The City teamed up with Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and the UO to design and build a demonstration stormwater area. Another partner was the Springfield School District. After a lot of discussion and looking at several possible sites, the area between the Brattain House and Two Rivers/Dos Rios Elementary School was chosen for the demonstration area. This site had good public visibility and was a perfect educational opportunity with the grade school students. The demonstration garden would be used as part of the curriculum at the elementary school and would also be incorporated in the 5th Grade Clean Water University Program. ESD hoped to find more funding through grants for additional demonstration areas around Springfield. To date, the students had developed concepts and operational designs specific to the site. The design included a rain garden, pervious pavers, educational signs, and a covered area. The project was expected to be completed by summer of 2012. Hiroshi Kaneko, project manager for the Design Bridge team said the Design Bridge was a student lead and student run organization in the architecture department that lasted one year. The team worked with the professor and clients to understand design problems, design, then build. He presented a slide show that showed the site of the Rain Garden project and what the project would look like. He noted the team members. The three things that Ms. Murphy and the City asked the team to do were to demonstrate stormwater management, educate citizens of Springfield why it was an issue, and create a place for people to go and have fun. During the first term, the team decided to have a built element in a rain garden demonstration project with educational elements. The project was meant to highlight the rain, water, plants and pollution, and the fact that stormwater was a big issue in Springfield and affected drinking water. The team did research and looked at many rain gardens for examples. The site between Brattain House and the Two Rivers/Dos Rios Elementary School was chosen because of visibility from the street and proximity to students that could learn from this project. An education syllabus was developed that included work with Springfield Utility Board (SUB) to get information on stormwater. The team had City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 3 done infiltration tests and graded the site to prepare it for the structure. A donation of permeable pavers for the pathway was received from Willamette Graystone. The built structure would be made of metal and would include the rain garden, several signs and educational materials. He encouraged everyone to go into the main lobby of City Hall to see the mockup of the rain garden. It had been fantastic to work with City and SCI members. Mayor Lundberg asked for a brief explanation of a rain garden. Mr. Kaneko said the technical term for a rain garden was an infiltration basin. The idea was that instead of funneling stormwater into stormwater sewer drains, it would go into the ground in a ditch and slowly infiltrate into the ground. The plants and soil helped to clean the water as a filter and picked up extra fertilizer and nutrients that could be detrimental to rivers. That water eventually went underground into our springs. The team had also worked with Matt Stouder to regenerate springs. Councilor Lundberg said it was like a bioswale. She thanked Mr. Kaneko for the presentation. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims a. Approval of the February 2012, Disbursements for Approval. 2. Minutes a. February 21, 2012 – Work Session b. February 21, 2012 – Regular Meeting c. February 23, 2012 – Joint Elected Officials Meeting d. February 27, 2012 – Work Session e. March 5, 2012 – Work Session f. March 5, 2012 – Regular Meeting 3. Resolutions a. RESOLUTION NO. 12-04 – A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROJECT P30485; PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR WESTWIND ESTATES SUBDIVISION. 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Benedetti’s Meat Market & Deli, located at 533 West Centennial Blvd., Springfield, OR 97477. b. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for TaRaRin Thai Cuisine, located at 1410 Mohawk Boulevard, Springfield, OR 97477. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH CHECK # 112576 FROM THE FEBRUARY 2012 REIMBURSEMENTS REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – RALSTON AND WOODROW). City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED 1.a. Check #112576 from the February 2012 Disbursements. Councilor VanGordon recused himself from this item as the check was made out to his employer United Parcel Service (UPS). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO APPROVE CHECK # 112576 FROM THE FEBRUARY 2012 REIMBURSEMENTS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – RALSTON AND WOODROW AND 1 ABSTENTION - VANGORDON). 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. 2013-2017 Capital Improvement Program, A Community Reinvestment Plan. Civil Engineer Jeff Paschall and City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. The Draft City of Springfield 2013 – 2017 CIP was reviewed at the Planning Commission’s February 7, 2012 meeting. The Commission recommended Council approval of the plan at their February 22, 2012 meeting. The City Council reviewed the draft CIP in work session on March 5, 2012 and requested additional information, which was included in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. Council also provided direction to bring the CIP as drafted to the March 19, 2012 Council regular session for public hearing and approval. As a reference, the Council Briefing Memorandum from the March 5, 2012 work session was included as Attachment 2 of the agenda packet. After hearing public comments, Council was requested to adopt the 2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Program by motion . 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 MOORE TO ADOPT THE 2013-2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, A COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT PLAN. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – RALSTON AND WOODROW). BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. William Vaughn, 44th and Aster, Springfield, OR. Mr. Vaughn said he wanted a stop sign on his corner. He had lived in his home for six years and there had been three accidents he had witnessed. There were two accidents prior to when he moved there. He had talked to many people at the City, including Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett. The dead end sign was replaced. The street was only three blocks long with one intersection and he was concerned someone would be killed at that intersection. Many of the accidents were t-bones with people driving west on Aster hitting people City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 5 on 44th Street. The City did put in a Yield Sign, but there was another accident after that was installed because people didn’t respect a Yield Sign, but they would a Stop Sign. He felt he was running out of options. COUNCIL RESPONSE Mr. Grimaldi said staff would like to do anther analysis of that intersection. They needed to make sure it met criteria because if a stop sign was installed where it shouldn’t be, it could have a negative impact. They would work to make this a safe intersection. The accidents at that site were worthy of note and would be considered in the analysis. Staff would like to wait until studded tires came off before doing the analysis regarding traffic counts. Information would be brought back to Council in a Communication Packet for their information. Mr. Vaughn said the traffic studies had not been working. Mayor Lundberg said she would be getting back to Mr. Vaughn. Councilor Wylie thanked Mr. Vaughn for coming to Council with his concerns. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS ORDINANCES 1. Springfield Sign Code Ordinance Revision. ORDINANCE NO. 6276 – AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SIGN STANDARDS AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8, AMENDING AND ADDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OR PORTIONS THEREOF: 8.200, PURPOSE, 8.200(7); 8.201, AUTHORITY; 8.202, DEFINITIONS; 8.204, DESIGN (2) WIND LOADS, (3) SEISMIC LOADS, (5) ALLOWABLE STRESSES; 8.206, CONSTRUCTION (2) MATERIALS, (3) USE OF COMBUSTIBLES, (4) ANCHORAGE; 8.208, PROJECTION AND CLEARANCE, (4) CLEARANCE AND ACCESS, ROOF SIGNS; 8.210, LOCATION AND SETBACKS; 8.216, TESTS; 8.218, PERMITS-REGULATIONS-FEES (2) PERMIT FEES, (4) PERMIT ISSUANCE, (5) PENALTY FEES, (6) INSURANCE; 8.232, NON-CONFORMING SIGNS; 8.234, EXEMPT SIGNS (1) CHANGING OF COPY/FACE CHANGE, (4) UNDER MARQUEE SIGNS, (5) HOME OCCUPATION SIGNS, (6) DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, (7) REAL ESTATE SIGNS, (8) ELECTION CAMPAIGN SIGNS, (9) BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SIGNS, (10) STADIUM SIGNS, (11) INVISIBLE SIGNS, (12) NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH, (13) DRIVE UP MENU BOARDS, (14) PARKING LOT SIGNS, (15) MURALS, (16) SPECIAL EVENT/HOLIDAY SIGNS, (17) PORTABLE SIGNS; 8.236, PROHIBITED SIGNS (6) POSTERS, (7) EMITTING SIGNS, (8) PROHIBITED SIGN MATERIALS, (9) EXTERIOR FENCING, (10) UNAUTHORIZED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, (11) ILLUMINATION/GLARE; 8.240, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SIGN STANDARDS (2) MULTI FAMILY, MOBILE HOME PARKS, DAY CARE FACILITIES, SUBDIVISIONS AND GROUP LIVING FACILITIES, BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITIES; 8.244, GENERAL OFFICE SIGN STANDARDS (1) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 8.246, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 8.246 (1) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON- RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 8.248, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND MAJOR RETAIL City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 6 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, (1) SINGLE BUSINESSES, (4) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 8.250, DOWNTOWN SIGN DISTRICT, 8.250 (1) WALL SIGNS, (4) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 8.252, BOOTH KELLY SIGN DISTRICT, (3) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON- RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 8.254, I-5 MALL DISTRICT, (5) TENANTS, (6) ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNAGE, (7) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 8.256, I-5 COMMERCIAL SIGN DISTRICT, (1) SINGLE BUSINESSES, (5) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 8.258, LIGHT-MEDIUM, SPECIAL HEAVY (2) SINGLE BUSINESSES, (5) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON- RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 8.260, BILLBOARD DISTRICTS (7) ABANDONED BILLBOARDS; 8.262, PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN SPACE, 8.262 (1) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 8.264, SPECIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (3) ENTRANCE SIGNS, (4) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON- RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 8.266, SCHOOLS, 8.266 (1) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 8.267, SPORTS FACILITY SIGN DISTRICT (3) MURALS, (4) ILLUMINATION FROM SIGNS ON NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Springfield Building Official David Bowlsby presented the staff report on this item. The purpose of this update was to make necessary changes, update code references, provide adjustments to and clarification for use of this code. This update also had the goal of adopting modifications to portable sign permit requirements. The Sign Code amendments were intended to better serve the citizens and to provide clarifications within the code. The provision allowing two sandwich boards per business with no permit or fee was intended to provide economic stimulus for local businesses during this economic downturn, and therefore an emergency clause had been added to the ordinance. Mr. Bowlsby noted some of the changes included in this amendment. Councilor Wylie asked for a definition of ‘invisible signs’ as noted under Section 8.234(11). Mr. Bowlsby provided an example of invisible signs in places like malls or medical campuses. Signs not generally visible to the general public from the right of way, but providing direction to people once they were inside the property were considered invisible signs. Councilor Moore thanked Mr. Bowlsby for meeting with a business owner personally and settling an issue to the citizen’s satisfaction. She appreciated that he worked with business owners. Mayor Lundberg thanked him for his work on this with the number of changes that were made. She had received very good feedback that allowing the sandwich boards was a wonderful opportunity for business owners. At the end of the year, Council would look at the sandwich board item again to see how it worked. Councilor Pishioneri said he also appreciated the work done. More things would be coming forward in the future regarding the Sign Code. He also noted that business owners were very happy. Mr. Bowlsby acknowledged the other staff that assisted him in this process. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 7 IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 6276 INCLUDING THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE LANGUAGE. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – RALSTON AND WOODROW). BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments a. Appointment of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce Nominees to the Lane Workforce Partnership Board. City Manager Gin Grimaldi presented the staff report on this item. The Lane Workforce Partnership requested that Ms. Sakaguchi and Ms. Ray, nominees from the Springfield Chamber of Commerce, be re-appointed to their position as required under federal regulations. Federal regulations guiding the Partnership required the City of Springfield to appoint from business nominations made by the Chamber of Commerce. The Lane Workforce Partnership was charged with directing the operation of local employment and training programs funded under the Work Force Investment Act (supplanting the Job Training Partnership Act). Lane Workforce Partnership assisted employers in recruiting and retaining employees, and helped individuals find employment and progress in their careers. They worked with approximately 750 Lane County businesses and served over 23,000 residents annually. Additional information was included in Attachment 4 of the agenda packet. Federal regulations required the City seek nominations from general-purpose business organizations (the Springfield Chamber of Commerce) for business appointments. The appointees must be business owners or managers in Springfield, but need not be City residents. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MOORE TO RE-APPOINT ANNIE SAKAGUCHI AND JERI RAY TO THE LANE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP BOARD WITH TERMS EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2014. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – RALSTON AND WOODROW). 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports 1. Mayor Lundberg said the SPROUT opening event was amazing and a lot of fun. This venue would be a huge draw for downtown. b. Other Business BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 8 The meeting was adjourned 7:47 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 26, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Matthew Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Cell Tower Siting Standards. Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. At the December 5, 2011, Council requested that staff provide information about the feasibility of having design standards for cell towers in the City limits. Springfield was one of the first cities in Oregon to draft cell tower standards in 1997. Springfield had 18 cell tower facilities within its Urban Growth Boundary. Seventeen were built between 1995 and 2005. Only two applications for tower facilities had been received since 2005 and only one of those two were built. Based on the trend towards the use of smaller antennas for WTS coverage, it was unlikely that there would be a significant new demand for imposing new tower facilities as was experienced in past years. For the most part, providers in Springfield had replaced and upgraded equipment on existing towers and related facilities to accommodate increased service demand. Springfield had used increasing levels of design review to encourage towers to be built in industrial areas and on public land. Design review for placing towers in industrial/public land may be built using a Type I review process (staff review without public notice) requiring just building permits. Locating towers in commercial areas required Type II review (staff review with public notice) and Site Plan Review. Placing towers in residential areas required a Type III review process that brought the matter before the Planning Commission (or Hearings Official) in a public hearing. A Discretionary Use process was used which allowed wide latitude on the part of the decision makers to require “stealth design” to minimize the visual impacts of the facilities. This approach had been largely successful. Fifteen of the 18 towers in Springfield were located in industrial zoning districts or on land zoned Public Land and Open Space. Councilor Ralston asked about the cell tower that went in at the Elks and if it was considered residential. Mr. Metzger said that area was in a commercial zoned area. The developer went through public review, and public notice was provided allowing time for public comment. He explained Type I, Type II and Type III review. Of the three towers that were not located in industrial areas, two were located in commercial areas, one at the Elks Club and the second on Gateway Loop; and one was built at the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) electric substation on Game Farm Road, which was zoned Medium Density Residential. He explained the process required for people applying to locate a cell tower. One of the things the person applying to site a tower needed to prove was that they could not locate on an City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 2 existing tower. The City preferred collocation. If it was shown that a new tower needed built and it got approved, the builder must sign a lease agreement allowing other companies including competitors to locate on the same pole. This was an attempt to try to minimize the number of towers in our community. Mr. Metzger said Council had asked for this discussion, so he was open for questions about current policies, issues or other concerns. Councilor Pishioneri asked about conditionally suitable sites that went to the Planning Commission, then to a hearings officer. He would prefer those applications come to Council for review before they reached the level of going to Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). He noted the cell tower that was located at Thurston High School and that the surrounding neighbors didn’t have a choice. Mr. Metzger asked if he wanted them to go to the Planning Commission first. Councilor Pishioneri said it should go through the Planning Commission first to make sure it passed applicable laws, then to the Council for review and to hear public comment. Mr. Metzger said an application for a tower on public property in a conditionally acceptable location in residential would, if in City limits, go to the Planning Commission first. The Planning Commission would make a decision, and if that decision was appealed it would come to the Council. The other situation that went from the hearings official to LUBA was because it was located outside City limits. Councilor Pishioneri said he felt sites on public land should come to Council and the PLO should be taken off the preferred site area. The cell tower on the water tower at Weyerhaeuser was good, as was the stealth tower in Roseburg. There was a difference between putting them up in industrial areas and putting them up in commercial and residential areas. He didn’t want to see a proliferation of cell towers and billboards. He understood that with new technology smaller and more stealthy equipment could be used. The City may need to loosen up areas in the Code to accommodate for those types of antennae. He also noted that he would be concerned if the proposed realignment of the Metro Plan Boundary would affect the City’s ability to weigh in on applications for towers outside our UGB. He liked the idea of sharing pole sights with other fixtures. He asked if there was a new application in for a cell tower. Mr. Metzger said there had been an inquiry about a tower several months ago, but no application. There were no outstanding applications that could be grandfathered. Councilor Pishioneri said he would like this to go forward quickly. Mr. Metzger said he understood the issue of having a cell tower close to residential. When the policy was first drafted it was unlikely that it was envisioned cell towers would be going in at the high school. These were legitimate issues. As he reviewed the tower standards for Albany, Medford, and Roseburg he found that some had minimum setback standards. Councilor Woodrow said she agreed that it would be beneficial to have a way to run this by the Council. She felt there would be less than minimum concern as they came through. Having read the information, it sounded like there would be less and less requests. City Manager Gino Grimaldi said he understood that Councilor Pishioneri was asking for Council review on an appeal. He asked if Councilor Woodrow wanted a review prior to an appeal. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 3 Councilor Woodrow said it would depend, but she was fine waiting until it had been appealed. She felt comfortable with the process. Councilor Ralston said there could be a way to resolve this by revising the standards. He said having a certain setback could make it less of a concern. He asked if there were current setback requirements. Mr. Metzger said to locate a tower on a PLO without additional review, it needed to be away from the property line of the next property at least the height of the tower. Councilor Ralston said maybe it could be twice as far. He agreed with having Council review before something went to LUBA. Mr. Metzger asked Councilor Pishioneri for clarification on the Council review piece. Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted citizens to have the right to appeal a decision by the Planning Commission to the City Council, rather than having to go to LUBA. Mr. Metzger said for an application inside City limits, the Planning Commission had the power to make a decision on discretionary use, but if there was an appeal it would go to Council. That appeal and review was already in place. The tower that was taken to the hearings officials was outside City limits so there was a different tract through Lane County. Councilor Wylie said it looked like there had only been one cell tower built in the last 7 years. It sounded like there may never be another one built. Mr. Metzger said he was not sure about that, but technology was changing and more people were going with the small antenna. In the City’s code there were provisions for a whip antenna to be attached to an existing telephone pole without extension review. He again referred to the tower in the Yolanda area that had been appealed. He said one of the concerns was from a neighbor running a day care who was concerned about electro-magnetic radiation and the health risk. From a federal standpoint, the City was not allowed to consider health risks if the tower was built to FCC standards. Councilor VanGordon asked if there was an opportunity in the Code to promote upgrade or improvement for current cell towers. Mr. Metzger said there were no provisions for upgrading appearances in the Code. The Code currently required collocating if available. Councilor VanGordon asked if there was a chance the City would run out of capacity. Mr. Metzger said since 2005, most applications had been to replace or upgrade equipment on existing poles. That was allowed with a building permit. They had not received any applications for new towers recently. If an application were to be submitted tomorrow, it would be under current regulations. Councilor VanGordon said he was not sure this would be a big issue in the future. He agreed with having the ability for citizens to appeal to the Council. Collocation would do a lot to keep the number of new towers very minimal. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Metzger reviewed Council’s comments. Some councilors wanted staff to look at how PLO and residential sites were handled, and perhaps some setback issues in other areas. He asked if Council wanted staff to come back with some recommendations. Councilor Pishioneri said he would like the PLO moved from acceptable to allow Council to see it. Mr. Metzger said they could move PLO to the classification for commercial or residential. Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted it to be reviewed by Council especially if a tower was going in to a neighborhood. Mr. Metzger said it was possible a new tower could come in, but technology was improving and fewer towers were being proposed. Councilor Woodrow said if the review by Council was in place, they would be ready if an application was submitted. Mr. Grimaldi clarified that Council wanted the PLO to be moved to a Type IV review, meaning it would come from the Planning Commission to the City Council before proceeding. Mr. Metzger said currently residential was Type III, which provided an appeal to the Council. Mr. Grimaldi said if they moved PLO to a Type IV review, they should also move the residential sites to be Type IV as well. Mayor Lundberg said cell towers were unattractive and unsightly. She agreed that they should move PLO and residential to Type IV. Mr. Grimaldi said another option could be to legislate some things in those two areas to help achieve the goals Council has noted. That would make it clear to the applicant from the beginning what they could or could not do. Mr. Metzger said federal law didn’t allow City to prohibit cell installation if it could be shown that coverage could not be provided another way. The City did have the ability to determine how they wanted the structure to look. Councilor Pishioneri said there were many dead cell reception spots throughout Springfield especially in the Thurston hills. Mr. Metzger said the construction of the amendments could be done in about six months. Staff would want to talk with the right people to get input. Planning Manager Greg Mott said they would receive technological input. The fallback for applicants was that it could be done but would be more expensive to meet new standards. Applicants might then try to find another location that was less expensive. He was sure they could have the amendments ready in six months. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 26, 2012 Page 5 2. Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Springfield Utility Board Concerning Implementation of the Glenwood Refinement Plan. Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. There were a number of details about the provision of utility service, particularly electric service, which would be affected by the updated Glenwood Refinement Plan, which was before the Council for consideration. Since these details did not involve land use matters appropriate for a land use document, staff from the two agencies had met to reach agreement on those details. The agreement reached at the staff level was represented by the draft Intergovernmental Agreement included as Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. Once the Glenwood Refinement Plan was adopted, staff from each agency would present the agreement for final adoption by the respective agencies. Should the process of adoption of the Glenwood Refinement Plan result in any substantial changes, staff would review the agreement and may make any modifications necessary to incorporate changes to the Refinement Plan before presenting it for formal action. Mr. Mott said he and Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin worked with Bob Linahan and Jeff Nelson from Springfield Utility Board (SUB) on the agreement. They looked at the City’s interest to redevelop Glenwood with an overall appearance that was attractive. In Glenwood, form was nearly as important as function and that message was conveyed to SUB. They felt they arrived at a number of collaborative resolutions on issues such as overhead power lines, transformer boxes, etc. One of the principle concerns was cost where the action of redeveloping and providing electrical service in Glenwood was part of SUB’s improvement. For the most part, SUB would pay for that. Where it could be more of an optional performance standard, the cost (generally the overage cost) would be negotiated. There were other techniques people could use to minimize the effects. Some facilities needed proper ventilation so some transformers may need to be outdoors. That cost would be the burden of the developer. He noted that the St. Vincent DePaul building had an indoor transformer. SUB was taking this IGA to their Board in May. There were no questions from Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:19 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 2, 2012 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Work Session Discussion of a Proposal to Expand the Springfield Homeless Overnight Parking Program. Planning Supervisor Jim Donovan presented the staff report on this item. In July 2009 Council adopted Ordinance 6244 allowing overnight parking for homeless families in church parking lots under supervision of the St. Vincent DePaul Overnight Parking Program. Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance (SSRA) now proposed extending the program to: 1) permit camping by homeless singles and couples on approved sites, and 2) expand the list of approved sites to include public institutions, industrial properties and construction sites in addition to participating church properties. Staff was recommending preparation and adoption of code amendments allowing expansion of the existing program to serve homeless singles and couples as requested and to expand the list of approvable sites to include industrial properties with the proposed referral system. The staff memo (Attachment 2 of the agenda packet) outlined the proposal and staff recommendations. The existing budget authorization of $7000 per year would be sufficient to cover the costs of expansion in the first year and fund approximately 25-75 sites total, depending upon length of stay. There were no new financial impacts at this time. Future work session discussions would include specific financial impacts based upon Council direction for the program. Mr. Donovan referred to the expansion of the program to serve singles and couples. Staff recommended a referral process for applicants continue to be used to ensure Springfield citizens were being served. He discussed Attachment 2 of the agenda packet which showed the different sites requested and staff comments of each. Councilor Woodrow asked how many sites were available. Mr. Donovan said about a dozen churches were signed up and the program had served about a dozen families. He noted that the budget was set aside at $7000.00 per year and had been lightly used. The program could be expanded with very little additional cost. Councilor Pishioneri asked Chief Smith if there had been any issues with this program. No. He asked for the description of industrial properties. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 2 Mr. Donovan referred to Attachment 2 page 3 which outlined the advantages and disadvantages of industrial sites. Mr. Donovan clarified that when they referred to ‘security’ under the advantages, it referred to the client, not security of the site by having someone acting as a night watchman. That should not be confused with legitimate security or night watchman’s presence. The City didn’t want to put the clients of the program in that role or have those expectations. Councilor Pishioneri said it was a great program and he appreciated all of those that had been involved. To make it more inclusive was appropriate. He supported including industrial sites, but wanted construction sites looked at more carefully. Construction sites would likely be a higher risk for criminal activities, so he would discourage construction sites. Councilor Moore asked if they had contacted any industrial sites and if there were any potential sites that had interest in participating. Mr. Donovan noted a number of members of SSRA and St. Vincent DePaul in the audience. People that were members of churches and also business owners were aware of the possible expansion. One function of the public notice for adoption of the ordinance would be to solicit comments from others. There would be some education needed for those interested in participating. Councilor Moore said the application did appear thorough and she appreciated that. She would like to expand to singles and couples. Councilor Woodrow asked if there was a reason to have a maximum number of sites. Mr. Donovan said part of it was due to budget. He had referred to 25-75 singles and couple that could be served, which was citing the difference between family stays of up to 3 months. Singles and couples would have a 30 day maximum stay, so 12 parties could be served for each site costing about $1000 per year for garbage and sanitary facilities. They could implement this incrementally and then adjust as they determined what worked best. Councilor Woodrow said incrementally was a good idea with a re-evaluation at a certain point. She would like a timeline established for a check-in to see how the program was being utilized. Mr. Donovan said at that increment, staff would meet with Council to determine whether or not to expand or decrease the program. Councilor Ralston asked for an example of an industrial site. Mr. Donovan said they could include some of the large industrial areas similar to those on Laura Street. They often had a large amount of parking and large setbacks. There was opportunity to have the camper behind the façade of the building to maintain integrity of the business, but maintain safety for the occupant. Councilor Ralston said there was a lodge on Laura Street. He asked if they would qualify. Mr. Donovan said they could if they were zoned industrial. Councilor Ralston said he agreed there was an unserved constituency of the homeless so was pleased with the expansion. He supported industrial, but not construction sites. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 3 Mr. Donovan said the budget constraints would dictate how much they could expand the program. Councilor Pishioneri encouraged the members of SSRA to look under Oregon Statute 181.870(6), (3) and (8)(a) in regards to the definition of private security and licensed professionals. It needed to be clear to the residents that they were not providing security. Mr. Donovan said that would be clear in the staff report and that information was provided to all of the residents. Mr. Heath from St. Vincent DePaul (SVDP) was on every site routinely checking in and while there he provided the rules in a clear way. Councilor Ralston said the cost was $1000 per site per year. He asked about the figure provided in the staff report. Mr. Donovan said the number was based on using one site numerous times. They hoped this would make a difference in a lot of people’s lives. Councilor Wylie said it was important people had a place to go that was safe. The City had taken it slow and it had a good track record. She supported the expansion and noted that SVDP were excellent managers. Mayor Lundberg thanked the SSRA for their work and for advocating for the homeless in the community. It was an important issue that needed to be addressed. This gave people a spot to stay rather than having to move from place to place. Many construction and industrial sites had alarms, so it would take some thought in deciding which sites would work. She would like feedback on how those sites worked, but was very supportive. 2. Fire Merger. Fire Chief Randall Groves presented the staff report on this item. This item was discussed with the Mayor and four councilors on March 12, but was being brought back so the full Council could participate in the discussion. In July 2007, Chief Murphy, Chief Groves and staff initiated Three Battalion integrated responses where the closest and most appropriate response was sent regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. This was to try to provide the best service possible and had been succesful in making response times better, performance on scene better, and safety for clients better. In July 1, 2010, Springfield and Eugene Fire Departments implemented the Functional Consolidation. That intergovernmental agreement (IGA) left the two fire departments as separate entities, but took a common administration oversight over the two organizations. The primary benefit of a functional consolidation was that it permitted both cities to share savings resulting from eliminating redundant resources, taking advantage of existing vacancies of key personnel. Meanwhile, service levels were being maintained or improved as a result of joint efficiencies. In FY11, savings of $606,999 were realized due to the functional consolidation, with Springfield’s share estimated at $286,952. Projected personnel savings for the City of Springfield for FY12 was $413,608, with a combined savings of $876,239 for the two cities. Some of the reductions were for budgetary purposes and some as a result of consolidating services. Everything reduced from the consolidation was one less thing that needed to be reduced in the budget reduction, and vice versa. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 4 Chief Groves said page 2 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet included tables that showed the cost savings achieved each year. The cost savings had not been adjusted for inflation. Table 1 reflected the FY11 actual savings by city which were entirely from the functional consolidation. More was saved during this first year than anticipated. The next year (FY12) savings included a combination of staff reductions and functional consolidation reductions. Those savings were projected, but the department was on target to meet or exceed the savings by the end of the year. FY13 projected savings included further staff reductions and anticipated a savings of $1,169,639 for a total combined savings of $2,652,967 for the three years. Information on the cost to restore the departments back to two separate departments was noted on Table 5 of Attachment 1. These costs were adjusted for inflation to FY13 dollars. That cost was estimated at just under $500,000 for each City. Chief Groves said another concern from Council was the cost differential between the two IAFF contracts. Comparing the Eugene and Springfield contracts showed a 3.25% difference. That did not take into account Springfield’s current contract which would narrow that margin even more. There was also concern regarding the labor market if the two departments combined. He noted that State statute provided that comparables were based on city size served, not size of the department and Eugene was already compared to Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVFR). He referred to two arbitrations that included using TVFR as a comparable to smaller communities and noted that because TVFR served communities of comparable size to those cities, they were used as a comparable. Chief Groves said tonight staff was here to ask for direction from Council to move forward with a common form of governance between the two departments. The goal was to keep working with the labor units and the two cities to have one organization with the Chief still reporting back to the two City Managers and two City Councils in the budget processes. This would allow them to work with the labor units to try to negotiate a common success agreement. In doing that, the department could achieve further savings with logistic support, and with hiring and training. The two departments had already held one successful joint recruitment and training process, and were just starting another. This process had cut costs in half for both cities not only in fire administration and training, but Human Resources as well. They hoped to move forward with that next level of efficiencies. They had tried to take this at a slow pace to make sure everyone was comfortable with the process. They were approaching two years with the functional consolidation, which was intended to be an interim step as they worked towards a common unit of operation. They currently had fewer staff doing more work, which was not sustainable, but was a necessary step to get to this next level. Chief Groves referred to Attachments A and B located in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. Those tables showed the cost breakdowns of what the cost differentials could be regarding the labor contracts. Attachment A applied the Eugene contract to Springfield utilizing the City of Springfield health care insurance. The difference in that scenario was $308,628 without adjusting it to Springfield’s new contract, which would decrease that difference. Attachment B applied the Eugene contract to Springfield with the Eugene health care costs included within a range. Both cities had entered into a study regarding health care and looking at self-insured (which Eugene had now) and fully insured (which Springfield had now). Going to the self-insured model could range from costing $38,628 to saving $203,118. Mr. Grimaldi said they were looking for direction from Council. The City Council had three options: City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 5 1) Direct the City manager to negotiate an intergovernmental agreement that implements the governance model outlined in the Council Briefing Memorandum (Attachment I of the agenda packet) and also negotiate labor agreements that reflect a merged organization 2) Direct the City Manager to stop discussions regarding the merger and take actions needed to reestablish a separate fire department 3) Request additional information prior to giving direction regarding the governance model and labor agreements Councilor Woodrow said she was very appreciative that they currently had a chief and two city managers that were willing to work together, but that may not always be the case. She asked how they would address disputes when they didn’t all agree. Mr. Grimaldi said the governance model did not require that both cities made the same policy decisions. He provided an example. There could be a time when differences would arise. If they had a difference that was irreconcilable, they could terminate the agreement. Chief Groves said over the last two years, they had worked to normalize the standard operating procedures (SOPs) between the two cities. Those were nearly complete. In talking with both cities’ human resources staff, they had determined that it was important to come up with standard personnel policies for both cities since the firefighters would be working in both cities. The other area they were working on standardization was through purchasing and information technology. Through some of this work, they had found the savings in the insurance costs. As they progressed through the process, they were providing conservative cost saving figures. Mr. Grimaldi said the two cities would need to be on the same page regarding labor issues. Through the years, they had never collaborated and yet were still less than 3% apart. Councilor Moore said a constituent had a concern about team building among the firefighters. She asked if that was part of future planning. She felt it may take several years before we identified ourselves as an integrated department. Chief Groves said they trained together more now than ever before. Joint labor management was meeting on Tuesday with both unions to talk about those types of issues and how to integrate the crews. Currently, they had captains from each city training members in both cities, and Battalion Chiefs had been moving between cities. Through this process, they had found ways to streamline because of the idea sharing. Councilor Woodrow said when she went on a ride-along with the fire crews, she asked the firefighters what they thought of the merger and didn’t receive a negative comment. Councilor Moore asked about uniforms and equipment. Chief Groves said funds wouldn’t be expended to repaint equipment now, but as they moved forward they would order common uniforms and equipment. Symbology was important to firefighters – the tradition, history, sense of meaning, mission and purpose – and those things would need to be developed. Councilor Moore asked if the name of the department was known. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 6 Chief Groves said there had been some discussions, but they needed to wait until they were given approval to move ahead. The name would take a lot of thought and needed to include pieces from both organizations. Councilor Moore said she was interested in seeing us move ahead, not only for the cost savings, but for the efficiencies and support. Councilor VanGordon asked if there would be just one labor contract under the governance model. Mr. Grimaldi said they would need to talk with the unions. Chief Groves said there were also other negotiations with the service staff and their contracts. For the firefighters, it could be one singular contract or two companion contracts that were identical that eventually merged into one contract. Councilor VanGordon asked if there were two contracts, if the language that tied them together would be in the contract or in the IGA. Chief Groves they needed to wait until things were more assured before having some of these conversations. The contract may not happen in one year. Councilor VanGordon said he was ready to go forward and liked the governance model. It was important when negotiating the IGA to provide some flexibility to allow them to find more advantages and benefits in merging. He would like the IGA to give some management and administrative flexibility. He acknowledged the administrative staff that had been going above and beyond. He wanted to make sure they knew they were appreciated. Chief Groves said it was the most dedicated staff he had worked with and they couldn’t move in this direction without them. He acknowledged that labor had also come along and tried to help problem solve through this process. He appreciated the support. Mayor Lundberg noted the three choices Council had before them and asked Council for their direction. Councilor Pishioneri said this was a big decision. He noted the charts showing the savings each year and asked if Springfield had been able to reduce our budget by those amounts. Mr. Grimaldi said yes, the budget had been reduced. Councilor Pishioneri spoke regarding the comparable with TVFR. Eugene was currently in their comparable pool and Springfield was not. With a merger, he asked if Springfield would then be in the comparables with TVFR. Chief Groves said they would. He noted that it was not certain what an arbitrator would say if Springfield went to arbitration regarding comparables. He had only provided information from past arbitrations as examples. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 7 Councilor Pishioneri said Springfield made budgetary decisions based on different factors than Eugene. He asked how a large disparity between the two cities regarding ability to pay would be addressed. Mr. Grimaldi said there were options. They could choose to work with the City of Eugene to find a compromise or they could terminate the agreement. Councilor Pishioneri said future budget committees would need to consider that it would cost $500,000 to separate the departments. Mr. Grimaldi said he would suggest they took a multi-year look at costs for separating if that was the direction they chose to go, not just one year. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the work load would increase for those already over-worked. Chief Groves said the capacity would improve back to a manageable level. Currently, there were two separate contracts to administer and two joint management meetings they attended. He would continue to attend both cities’ executive team meetings because it was important for him to understand the issues of both departments and both cities. Even though they had normalized a number of things, they still had two ways of operating. Mr. Grimaldi said staff needed guidance to proceed with labor negotiations and with the governance IGA. Mayor Lundberg said they needed to prepare in the best way possible. Council consensus was to move forward as outlined in Option 1. Chief Groves thanked them and said staff would continue to try to outperform. So far, all of the surprises had been a benefit instead of detriment. They had spent a lot of time talking about cost savings, but the reality was that this was a better way to operate. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE JOINT REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HELD MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2012 The City of Springfield Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 2, 2012 at 7:03 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present from Springfield were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Finance Director Bob Duey, City Attorney Matthew Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Leiken and Board Members Bozievich, Sorenson and Stewart. Also present were County Administrator Liane Richardson, County Planners Kent Howe and Mark Rust, and County Counsel Steve Vorhes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Confirmation of the Appointment of Development Services/Public Works Director. City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented the staff report on this item. The City of Springfield recently conducted a recruitment process for the newly created position of Development Services/Public Works Director. Len Goodwin was selected to fill the position. Len had approximately 35 years of local government experience, including 18 years with the City of Springfield. He currently served as the Assistant Public Works Director and was ideally suited to lead the newly created department and its exceptional employees. The City Manager was requesting that the City Council confirm the appointment of Len Goodwin to the position of Development Services/Public Works Director. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF LEN GOODWIN TO THE POSITION OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR EFFECTIVE APRIL 3, 2012. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. Councilor Moore acknowledged the work the Public Works Department had done in the cleanup since the recent storm. She thanked them for that work. Councilor Wylie said the Council was pleased with Mr. Goodwin’s appointment. He had an excellent history, background and knowledge and the City was fortunate to have him. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 2 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. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Phase 1 (Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00006, TYP411-00005, TYP311-00001, TYP411-00007, Lane County File No. PA 11-5489). Commission Chair Leiken read the ordinance titles for Lane County into the record. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF ORDINANCE NO. PA 1288: IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE‐SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM, THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT, THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3-12: IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF LANE CODE TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR APPLICATION TO URBANIZABLE LANDS WITHIN THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH AREA (LC 10.600-15) AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES. Mr. Duey read the ordinance title for the City of Springfield for the record. ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM, THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT, THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Planners Gary Karp and Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. Ms. Markarian noted that the proposed amendments before the elected officials were a result of a three-year collaborative effort with stakeholders to update Phase I of the Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP). The amendments applied to only Phase I the Glenwood Riverfront, which included approximately 275 acres. The amendments involved changes to the Metro Plan Diagram, Refinement Plan Diagram and Text, Zoning Map Diagram and Development Code Text. Included in the agenda packet were a number of items to help guide the elected officials through the presentation, public hearing, and first/second reading on the ordinance amending the documents. The proposed amendments had undergone extensive review and revision prior to tonight’s presentation. Attachment 1 of the agenda packet was the council briefing memo which summarized the modifications made to the proposed amendments as they were reviewed by staff, citizens, and the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions. The process culminated most recently with the joint Planning Commission public hearing. Their public hearing started on October 18, 2011 and was reconvened on December 20, 2011 at which time the joint Planning Commissions voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the proposal with thirty recommended text modifications. Attachment 3 of the agenda packet, which was prepared by Mr. Karp, summarized the written and oral testimony submitted into the record throughout the Planning Commission process with a City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 3 corresponding staff response as to how each item had been addressed to date. Attachment 4 of the agenda packet included the minutes of the December 20, 2011 meeting where the joint Planning Commissions made their final recommendation. Staff last met with the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners on January 23, 2012 and provided a high level overview of the project. During that meeting, several issues were raised by Councilors and Commissioners. Attachment 5 included the minutes from that meeting. The questions that were not answered at the work session were addressed in more detail in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. Ms. Markarian noted that staff would spend some time further explaining the staff response on those issues. Ms. Markarian pointed out that following the January 23, 2012 work session, staff had to make sure the Plan/Plan District were consistent. They made some minor adjustments to the Plan/Plan District text since the Plan District was revised more extensively than the Plan. These adjustments provided consistency in both documents. Ms. Markarian reviewed the proposed subareas. Staff was proposing a vertical and horizontal mix of uses that responded to buildable land needs, unique development opportunities, and market interests. The Subareas included were A, B, C, D (Residential Mixed-Use, Commercial Mixed-Use, Office Mixed-Use and Employment Mixed-Use). Glenwood was not intended to compete with the retail hot spot in downtown. At the same time, commercial uses that complemented and supported the proposed high density residential neighborhood and office and manufacturing areas should be allowed. The commercial uses could help make the area more vibrant and safer both day and night, and could help stimulate some of the internal capture with regards to traffic. Glenwood was not intended just for people who lived and/or worked there. The proposed Subareas also helped to create a riverfront destination with parks, restaurants and hotels. Ms. Markarian discussed the Councilor/Commissioner topics raised at the January 23, 2012 work session. In an effort to keep the presentation brief allowing time for the public hearing and Council/Commissioner discussion, she asked the elected officials to ask questions for clarification, but reserve discussion on any of these items until after the public hearing. Ms. Markarian referred to Attachment 1 pages 3 and 4. The memo listed how the City had used peer review in the past. While not a current requirement for plan modifications, all plan modifications currently required a post acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA), a more onerous process than the provisions made for in the Plan. The intent of including the peer review concept in Glenwood Phase I was to enable a process by which the Planning Commission, staff and City Council could seek help in evaluating proposals that varied from what was adopted for consistency with the Plan’s fundamental principles, especially with regards to design. One of the questions related to why peer review would be at the applicant’s expense. Staff’s response was that in the instances peer review would be employed, it would be the applicant asking for something different than the Plan proposed, the development of which was already paid for by the City, so the applicant should pay to help the City assess whether the proposed changes met the Plan vision in the event additional technical expertise was needed. There was precedence for this practice and the City had passed the cost on to developers. Staff refined the peer review wording a couple of times leading up to the Planning Commission review to clarify the intent. At the hearing on December 12, 2011, the Planning Commissions directed staff to further modify the proposed text so that it would be even clearer that peer review was an option the City could City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 4 pursue only in certain circumstances. Staff told the Planning Commissions they would make that change prior to Council/Board review of the text, therefore the text in tonight’s document incorporated that change. Attachment 1 page 4 of the memo included the current proposed wording of this item. Based on comments received from the elected officials at the January 23, 2012 work session, it seemed there were two parking issues. One was a general questioning of how the Plan addressed parking in the Glenwood Riverfront and the other dealt specifically with a proposed regulation regarding the placement and design of parking areas in Subarea D. For a staff response regarding the more general parking issue, she referred them to Attachment 1 pages 4 and 5. Parking maximums worked well where there were multiple travel options, a mix of land uses, and where transportation demand management strategies existed. The Glenwood Riverfront was one of these places. The Plan outlined how the Glenwood Riverfront development could be served by multiple modes of transportation such as biking, walking, transit and cars. It also proposed a mix of land uses. The Plan was structured so that some developers may choose to offer carpool or vanpool parking, subsidized transit passes, alternative work schedules, car sharing spaces, and/or unbundled parking, all of which were strategies that encouraged less demand for parking. Other developers may find that the minimum of five acres they developed would lend itself well to shared parking agreements that took advantage of different peak demand periods. Because developable land was a finite resource and parking was expensive, parking maximums gave developers the flexibility to identify the right mix and cost of parking for their particular development and the most appropriate incentives to encourage people to drive less. Travel behavior was influenced by the way parking was planned and managed, so using the parking maximum concept in Glenwood helped justify Springfield’s request for a greater than 10% trip reduction to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The parking maximums addressed how much parking each developer may provide, but the parking might take on different forms in different developments and may also change over time. Parking might occur on- street, in off-street surface parking interior courts, off-street within or on top of buildings; or in off- street aboveground and underground structures. The required five acre minimum development area would likely result in phased development so interior surface parking courts or parking on the ground floor of buildings might predominate in initial phases but as land was developed and there was more pressure to develop sites densely and locate uses in close proximity, parking structures might be needed in later phases to further develop properties. Ms. Markarian referred to Attachment 1, page 6 regarding the Subarea D issue. One of the Plan goals was to “encourage aesthetically pleasing, sustainable buildings and sites that were context-sensitive and oriented to human activity.” One of the reasons the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) came up with this goal was that Glenwood was one of Springfield’s principal entryways and what people saw upon entering Glenwood would stick in their minds when they thought of Springfield. The development and design standards in the Plan District were formulated to help achieve this goal. One of those standards had to do with the placement of parking in Subarea D, the intent of which was to limit the amount of parking directly in front of buildings. The focus of this standard was where parking was located and the way in which it was screened. In auto-oriented development, the parking was usually located in front of buildings. However, in those cases, the parking separated the building from the street, sidewalk, and transit stations. The separation sent the message that driving was preferred. Also, the placement in front created an uninviting environment for walkers and could be viewed as unattractive. If the parking was located behind buildings and/or screened by the buildings or landscaping, it created a more attractive and pedestrian-friendly streetscape. For comparison to other communities, office employment and manufacturing uses tended to be screened much like was done in Campus Industrial with deep landscaped setbacks. Where developable land was already scarce, such as along McVay Highway, they looked to find a way to still achieve an attractive and City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 5 pedestrian-friendly entrance to Springfield without constraining so much land in a setback. The joint Planning Commissions agreed that for an entryway to Springfield, the parking should not be in front of buildings, but they directed staff to allow some parking on the sides provided it was screened. Staff made the change requested by the Planning Commissions, and the current wording was detailed on Attachment 1 page 6. One of the items that came up at the work session was questioning the need for the park blocks. This topic was addressed on Attachment 1 pages 6 through 9. The park blocks represented an essential quality of life amenity for future high density development. Research had shown that access to safe, attractive, well-maintained parks led to resident satisfaction with a dense, built environment because it provided both visual and physical relief from the built environment. It also provided residents with access to light and green space. Springfield’s current multi-family design standards acknowledged that open space was needed in conjunction with higher density residential development by requiring that private open space be developed as part of all multifamily residential development. In Glenwood, more dense development was being proposed, and onsite private open space requirements like those in the current multi-family standards would be counterintuitive if trying to encourage density. In those areas, meeting the need for open space in one place off-site, such as the park blocks, seemed more efficient. Springfield’s adopted Residential Lands and Housing Needs Analysis reiterated the need for open space for dense housing by showing that a minimum of 7 acres of high density residential (HDR) designated land was necessary to meet the public needs (such as parks) of 21 gross acres of residentially-developed HDR land. The park blocks met about half of that requirement and the other was met through the linear park and riparian setback. The Willamalane Comprehensive Plan showed the same thing and pointed out that more parkland was needed as density increased and also that close to home parks were considered by Springfield residents in surveys to be very important amenities. Ms. Markarian noted that the park blocks could bring with them economic, social, health, and environmental benefits to the community. The park blocks could also provide a large, continuous physical or visual corridor from Franklin Boulevard to the river, and the park blocks could be a recognizable centerpiece leading to district identity. Another question that came up at the work session was why the park blocks were being proposed at the size noted in the Plan. The proposed size and scale of the park blocks was proportionate with the mass and scale of future surrounding buildings and the number of people who would live, work and be attracted to the Glenwood Riverfront. The multi-functionality of the park blocks was also linked to their proposed size. The park blocks had been sized to compatibly meet recreation, pedestrian connectivity, and stormwater management needs. Willamalane had depicted what it took to create usable recreation space, and Public Works had calculated what would be needed to manage stormwater runoff from the proposed right-of-ways. Willamalane had also maintained that there would be little room to do anything other than the multi- use path along sensitive natural areas next to the river. One of the items raised at the work session related to the proposed location of the multi-use path. She referred to Attachment 1 page 10 for an explanation of how the wording had continued to be clarified throughout the refinement planning process. Staff’s intent all along was that the multi-use path, a community asset, would not encumber the use of individual private property any more than was already done so by riparian regulations. The current wording stated this while leaving the door open to continue the path should topographic features of the land make putting it in the setback area impossible. Ms. Markarian said another topic raised during the work session had to do with how we would get from today’s reality of privately owned land all along Glenwood’s riverfront to a future public linear park. She referred to Attachment 1 pages 9 and 10. This kind of transformation would require collaborative discussions and the preparation of cooperative agreements with land owners and partner City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 6 agencies similar to what happened with the annexation and development of RiverBend. Agreements like these could spell out more clearly how to phase, fund, design, construct, access, and maintain public open space integrated with private development. One property owner was concerned about precisely when public access would need to be granted through his property to a future multi-use path. The intent of any policy that talked about enabling public access to the riverfront path through private property assumed access would not be granted until phases of the path were completed. The Refinement Plan policy included information about what was desired for the end result, and this kind of minutia and detail about the interim use on a particular property would be worked out in an annexation or development agreement. Ms. Markarian said Willamalane was worried about having in writing what might be their responsibility and what wouldn’t be their responsibility, such as riparian maintenance or maintenance of the facilities that treated stormwater from the City’s right-of-way. These, too, were the types of details that could be worked out through a partner agency agreement like the one the City had been working on with the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) to provide more specific direction about electric and water facilities than the broad policy direction in the Plan. Ms. Markarian noted that the final item raised during the work session revolved around Plan flexibility. She referred to Attachment 1 page 2 for a discussion about how this Plan responded to developer desires for both certainty and flexibility. In the development of policies in each chapter, staff tried to write them so that what was envisioned as an end product was clear, but the way to get there was left flexible. Attachment 1 pages 2 and 3 also listed the less onerous adjustment mechanisms than Plan amendments that staff had devised for possible developer-requested Plan changes: For example, the Plan outlined a process for modifications requested by developers that were consistent with Plan policies. A process was also detailed if a developer wished to address a building design standard in a manner different than what was suggested by the Plan. Staff had also outlined a process for over-the-counter interpretations of uses in the use categories that couldn’t be listed. Finally, the City could amend the Plan as necessary based on evaluation of continued applicability every five years. Ms. Markarian formally entered into the record two pieces of written testimony that were received by staff on March 22, 2012 and March 28, 2012. Staff had evaluated the concerns expressed in the letters and responded to each in the attached documents that were also entered into the record. Nearly all of the issues had been addressed deliberately by the Planning Commission and their action or direction was noted where applicable. Therefore, staff did not propose any further modifications to the proposed package of amendments based upon this written testimony. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Johnny Kirschenmann, Springfield, OR. Mr. Kirschenmann said he was testifying as Chair of the Springfield Planning Commission. The City planners and staff had worked extremely hard over the last three plus years and he thanked them for their work. The Planning Commissions had held seven work sessions and one continued public hearing (October 18, 2011, December 20, 2011) regarding the approximate 268 acres of Phase I in Glenwood. Mr. Kirschenmann was also able to sit in on two CAC sessions and was impressed how the staff and committee worked together. One of the more concerting issues the PC worked through during this time was a study from Crandall and Arambula showing 100 dwelling units per acre. After some discussion, the CAC agreed upon 50 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission concurred. More discussion was held with staff bringing about a modification. This City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 7 modification allowed 35 dwelling units per acre at the start up if warranted, and 65 dwelling units per acre further in the development, as long as they averaged 50 dwelling units per acre. During the Planning Commission public hearing, staff assured the Planning Commissions that they need not feel a sense of urgency to complete the work at the meeting, particularly if there were any unanswered questions. This was indicative that the staff wanted to get it right. With many Code modifications raised by property owners, the staff had been very responsive and both Planning Commissions trusted staff to come up with the final version which was before the Council and Commissioners. Mr. Kirschenmann said he also had the opportunity last fall to attend with City Council, staff and other Planning Commissioners a tour of a mixed-use commercial area in Hillsboro called Orenco Park. Although it was very nice, with the amenities in Glenwood, such as the Willamette River, there were unlimited possibilities. The final motion recommended adoption of the proposed Metro Plan Amendment to adopt the Glenwood Refinement Plan. It passed unanimously by the Springfield Planning Commission, with one member absent. 2. John Sullivan, McKenzie Highway, Vida, OR. Mr. Sullivan was testifying as Chair of the Lane County Planning Commission and with unanimous approval of that commission commended Springfield and Lane County staff for providing both commissions with complete staff reports. They took testimony from members of the public, both verbal and written. Generally, the testimony was favorable, but there were substantive recommendations and Springfield staff did an exemplary job of responding to those and incorporating much into the Plan. This could be found in Lane County’s attachment 3-1 through 3-43. Flood related issues were of some concern to some commissioners and those were addressed in this document. The record was left open from the October 2011 public hearing so the Planning Commissions could better understand the issues. On December 20, 2011 the public hearing and completed record was addressed. Because of the complexities, the Commissions devised a system of addressing the amendments and issues brought before them. They identified with staff the items that would be considered no discussion (no concerns). By consent, those items were moved to one motion. Those issues that had concerns were put together and staff responded to those. That system might be a benefit for the Council and Commissioners if those chose. Lane County Planning Commission found there were some issues that were worthy of discussion, but they chose not to focus on those in a voting situation. Some of those issues, such as parking, were more of a City of Springfield issue. He encouraged the Council and Commissioners to review the seven motions made by the Planning Commissions on December 20, 2011. The Lane County motions were all unanimous except for one dealing with diagrams. The final motion recommended adoption to the Metro Plan. The Lane County Planning Motion passed unanimously with two members absent. The recommendations were based on the findings that the Springfield staff fulfilled City Council’s request to implement a forward thinking vision based on citizen input and concurrence with the CAC by taking steps to 1) attract and facilitate appropriate land uses; 2) demonstrate commitment to high quality development; 3) protect investments in new infrastructure; and 4) provide reasonable stewardship to a Willamette River corridor. He noted that it had been a treat working with the Lane County Planning Commission and City of Springfield. . He 3. Randy Hledik, Eugene, OR. Mr. Hledik said he was present on behalf of the Wildish Company. Wildish owned approximately 40 acres of redevelopable property along the McVay corridor. Throughout the evolution of this process, they had attempted to evaluate their a to achieve the plans goals within the constraints of the proposed ordinance. Staff had bee responsive to most of their concerns; however, there were three provisions that remained and bility n City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 8 in their opinion posed subjective, arbitrary and unnecessary impediments to redevelop. His letter of March 28 was entered into the record. The concerns were within three sections of the implementing code. The first section was the provision for peer review in certain plan modifications at the discretion of the Planning Director, and the cost of the review was to be borne by the applicant. The request from Wildish was that this requirement be eliminated from the Code. The second section identified several prohibited uses in the district and specifically prohibited drive through facilities including, but not limited to, banks and restaurants, service stations and gas stations. Wildish requested that those uses be allowed in the district by deleting them from the prohibited uses list. The third section stated that the Code provided for additional surface parking in the area of Subarea D south of the Union Pacific Railroad trussle; however, a subsection to that particular section of the Code limited the amount of parking allowed on the side of a building adjacent to a street to no more than 150 feet. Wildish requested that requirement be removed from the Code as well. He thanked the Council and Commissioners for their consideration and time. 4. Rick Satre, Springfield, OR. Mr. Satre said he was here speaking on behalf of himself. Mr Satre said he was a 30-year resident of Springfield practicing land use planning and landscape architecture. He had been a fan of Springfield and of Glenwood. Centrally located, Glenwood was well connected, it had history, identity and purpose. There had been many planning efforts over the years regarding Glenwood. Staff should be commended for wonderful work over the past three plus years. The Plan before the Council and Commissioners was the best yet, but there could be some changes. He referred to the testimony provided by his firm and by himself on October 18, 2011 (Attachment 3 of the agenda packet). He supported parking maximums (in particular flexibility in parking), park blocks, mixed uses (particularly flexibility of uses), density and riverfront setback and path. There were three items he asked the elected officials to consider under the theme of flexibility and certainty. His clientele was primarily focused on the private sector including developers, investors, property owners, and business owners. In the market place, those seeking to invest in real estate sought certainty in the process and certainty in the outcome. The Glenwood Plan and proposed Code amendments went a long way in providing certainty in process and in requirements. Yet the marketplace also required flexibility; therefore, he asked that they consider flexibility with respect to parking, in particular parking in front of buildings in Subarea D. Franklin Boulevard and the McVay riverfront were different places within Glenwood. Franklin was a direct link from downtown (Springfield) to downtown (Eugene) and had great potential for office, commercial and residential uses. McVay Highway had a different feel and was an industrial area; therefore, parking being more flexible with regard to parking allowances in Subarea D helped to respond to park-n-place and to set up a situation where those seeking to invest, develop or redevelop had more flexibility with how they might choose to arrange property’s indoor and outdoor spaces. The second section he wished to address was prohibited uses, which was included in the comments in his letter. He thanked the elected officials for the opportunity to speak to them. . 5. Artemio Paz, Cedar Flat, Springfield, OR. Mr. Paz said he was here to comment on how Phase I of the Glenwood Refinement Plan affected one of his clients. His client had conducte his business, Cafeto Coffee Roasting, in Glenwood for over 17 years, and in t Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area for approximately 28 years. His client had 22 employees and was looking at an expansion of his facility. His facility was located in the Plan Phase II, but one piece of four acres he recently purchased was part of Phase I. The certainty that had been commented on was very important to his client because they were looking at consistency d he City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 9 in land use activities with the activities that currently occurred on the property that was accessed off 22nd Street. The majority of Phase I was along the riverfront, but there was a small percentage that went up the hill and was contiguous with property that was only accessed from 22nd Street. When looking at flexibility, they needed to look at public safety and firefighting as well. He and his client were in agreement with the proposed land use designation of medium to light industrial employment. That was appropriate and the best use for the community and the land that would enhance the existing history of activities in that area. He felt, however, there were some public safety issues. When they looked at establishing a land use category, it would influence the upper shelf which hadn’t been a part of the conversation. Some of those people were ready to act today and could affect the Plan. He appreciated the work. In 2007, the American Institute of Architects had the Glenwood area as part of their proposal for AIS150. It gave him great pleasure to see the transparency and dialogue the City had with the community, private sector, residents, and property owners to bring this Plan to a level that had the complexity it needed to justify that diamond in the rough that was being revealed to the community. 6. Lee Beyer, Springfield, OR. Mr. Beyer said he was speaking on behalf of Willamalane Park and Recreation District. He was pleased with the current stage of the Glenwood Refinement Plan. He commended the work of the Planning Commission staff, as well as the Planning Commissions of the City of Springfield and Lane County. From the development perspective, Glenwood was one of the best pieces of land for commercial redevelopment in the state of Oregon, but was not easy to do and they needed to take a long-term view. In his experience, looking at other developments across the country, every $10 of private development was usually preceded by $3 - $4 of public development. He spoke regarding the riverfront and block parks that were in the Plan. He was looking at this section not only from a Park Board member, but also from an economic perspective. Areas across the nation that had gotten the best in redevelopment and the highest return on their public investments dollars were those that took control of the waterfronts and included public investments. He named a few examples such as Corvallis, Bend, Salem and Portland. None would have happened if the cities hadn’t made a commitment to park land. Last week while at a National Parks Convention, he spoke with the former Mayor of Pittsburgh about the rebirth of their city by recovering the riverfront. It had taken a long time. High and mid level residential development such as that outlined in the Glenwood Refinement Plan needed open space for quality of life and economic return. This wouldn’t be easy or quick and they couldn’t expect one owner to do it on their own. He congratulated the City on where it was at this time and knew they would do a good job. 7. Jason Genck, Willamalane Parks and Recreation District, Springfield, OR. Mr. Genck said he was speaking on behalf of Willamalane Parks and Recreation District where he served as the Deputy Superintendent. He commended and complimented the Plan, especially the collaborative approach which had been implemented. Willamalane supported parks that were both highly desirable and essential amenities to urban infrastructure. Willamalane supported the types of parks outlined in the Plan, both the linear park as well as the park blocks. They were supportive of the approach of integrating natural resource protection in stormwater management into the provision of public park land and had been involved to insure policies were structured so the integrated approach would consider outlay of space, configuration, safety and functionality. They were supportive of policies of placement of the parks. From their experience, parks that were along ample street frontage and good visibility overall had more use and were less likely to be abused. The City staff collaborated with Willamlane on City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 10 the development of parts of the Refinement Plan where their areas crossed over. Willamalane was flexible and ready to partner and work with development to insure that the appropriate amount of parks and open spaces were in Glenwood. While the Plan had specific information, Willamalane remained flexible and was generally very supportive of the Plan. Willamalane was interested in continuing to serve as a partner in an exciting future. 8. Roger White, Auburn CA. Mr. White said he was a land development consultant based in Auburn, California, and represented a majority of the landowners north of Franklin Boulevard and east of the mobile home park. Collectively, they were working on a 30 acre master plan. Their team members included the Meyer Group for master planning, land use planning and architecture; Balheizer and Hubbard for engineering; and Evans, Helder and Brown for marketing and eventual sales and leasing. His observation as a developer over the last 35 years was that redevelopment work was not glamorous, but was hard. Redevelopment was difficult with many obstacles including diverse and sometimes conflicting interests. Staff had done an admirable job. They had been good listeners and willing to consider some of the thoughts and ideas presented by the team. He was pleased on behalf of his team, to endorse staff’s work. It was not perfect for their property, but they saw it as a good foundation and it had high standards which was very important. His team was close to make an exciting announcement on a major anchor project within the 30 acres. Some of the comments tonight had expressed concerns. He would not be articulating any concerns this evening as he had already done that with staff. None of them were major concerns and he had found a very cooperative environment to collaborate with staff. Staff had honestly represented that they were open to ideas that could take shape in the marketplace that were slightly different than what had been envisioned by staff. In general, he found the Plan workable and he was pleased to endorse it. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chair closed the public hearing for Lane County. He noted that they would have another reading of their two ordinances at a future date. Ms. Markarian said at this time, the Lane County Board could leave or they could stay to discuss the testimony together with the Springfield Council. Mayor Lundberg said she would prefer having them stay to hear comments. Each jurisdiction would discuss these again separately before making any final decisions. Councilor Ralston spoke regarding Mr. Roth’s concerns about the street running through Roaring Rapids. He asked staff to provide information on how that was resolved. Ms. Markarian said she believed that issue had been resolved. Staff met with Mr. Roth on September 15, 2011 to discuss how the Plan policies could be worded to allow for a grandfathering of current use on that site. An implementation action was cited in staff’s response to Mr. Roth in response to how that would be addressed. Board Chair Leiken asked what Ms. Markarian meant when she noted that Glenwood was an entryway. He asked if she meant to downtown or into Springfield. Ms. Markarian said she meant an entryway into Springfield, especially along McVay Highway coming off of I-5. From that direction, it was the first thing people saw when entering Springfield and City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 11 Glenwood from the south end. Also from the west end, from the Walnut Station and Franklin Boulevard, it was the first thing people saw. It was not the only thing because people could enter Springfield from the north or east. Board Chair Leiken asked transportation staff if the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was no longer interested in building new off ramps from the new bridge. Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said that was correct. The City did have in writing a letter from the ODOT director from several years ago that the bridge would be designed to be adaptive to something in the future. Board Chair Leiken asked if there were potential plans to redevelop the current interchange into Glenwood to make it more of a full service interchange than it was now. Mr. Boyatt said there was a project on hold that had Federal funds ready. There had been a couple of designs, but it was a challenging location. Work had been done and there was funding to continue that work. They felt it made sense to first get through Phase I of the Glenwood Refinement Plan. Board Chair Leiken said the interchange from northbound traffic on I-5 into Eugene was no longer being used and traffic needed to go into Glenwood in order to get to the University of Oregon. He asked if ODOT was doing some traffic counts to see how many people were using that interchange, not only to enter Springfield, but also to go to the University of Oregon. Mr. Boyatt said they were not to his knowledge. If they were not taking traffic counts, Springfield could do that. Board Chair Leiken asked Lane County staff to work with the City of Springfield staff to get that information. He felt it would be interesting. That intersection was to be closed for two years and a traffic count would give them a good idea of who was using that interchange. Mr. Boyatt said they would also take counts on McVay Highway. Board Chair Leiken said he brought up the entryway at Glenwood because Springfield had a great entryway at Gateway on the north side. He appreciated Mr. White’s comments coming from the private sector, and Mr. Beyer’s comments regarding public funding. The problem was that there weren’t public funds to do projects that were done in years past in other cities. Mr. White’s comments made him understand this could be a destination opportunity. The University of Oregon had become a brand name around the country because of the football program. It was important to have a connection with the University of Oregon and Glenwood. He hoped the City would see that connection. The University of Oregon was one of the few entities getting grants and funding in our area. Councilor Wylie applauded everyone who had worked on this and their flexibility, coordination and cooperation. She was very excited about the possibilities in Glenwood. She referred to comments made by Mr. Hledik from Wildish and Rick Satre. She said she represented an older population with limited mobility. When planning, those people and people in their cars needed to be considered. She often used drive throughs for services and enjoyed parking by the river to eat. Those types of spaces could be limited in number and duration, but should be available. She also suggested limits for drive throughs. She would like to see more flexibility regarding parking and drive throughs. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 12 Commissioner Bozievich asked when this would be coming back to the Board for the 3rd reading. He asked if it was necessary to hold a 3rd reading, or if the Board could take action now. Lane County Planner Mark Rust said the Board could take action tonight. Commissioner Bozievich asked if the record would remain open or closed. Mr. Rust said that could be discussed now if they chose. There was no request to leave the public record open so it was at their discretion. The public hearing tonight was for two ordinances for the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Bozievich agreed that there should be flexibility. He noted difficulties in areas where no parking was allowed in the front of buildings. When expanding street fronts in those areas, buildings were moved instead of parking spaces. He noted another example that would allow expansion with removal of parking spaces. A complete ban of on-street parking in front of buildings left no flexibility for future transportation needs. A little bit of parking in the front of a building was not a bad thing. Commissioner Stewart asked what the normal process would be for a developer that wanted to develop in Glenwood. He asked if they would still need to go through the Planning Commission with City Council approval on some items. He was trying to understand the peer review process and whether or not it was a duplication of other requirements. Mr. Karp said the Code would require a minimum 5 acre development area to allow for master plan approval. That process would require Planning Commission review. Land along the Willamette River would be in the greenway and would also require Planning Commission review. If someone wanted to submit modifications to the Plan to allow development to occur and the department director wanted a peer review as part of that application process, those applications would be processed at the same Planning Commission hearing so as not to delay the process. Commissioner Stewart asked if the City Council would be involved in any decisions. Mr. Karp said the decision would be made at the Planning Commission level for Type III applications. If the applicant or citizen disagreed with that decision, it could be appealed to the Council. Commissioner Stewart said it sounded like instead of having peer review, the current process could be changed slightly. Mr. Karp said the rationale for peer review was to give the Planning Commission a second opinion, if staff didn’t have the expertise, for their consideration in making a better decision. Current City Code regarding hillside development discussed the peer review process because of the geotechnical work that was required for that type of development. In those cases, peer review was required and the applicant paid. This was not a new precedent, but was establishing that same standard in Glenwood in certain instances. Commissioner Stewart asked what type of issue might arise in Glenwood to warrant peer review. Springfield City Engineer Ken Vogeney responded to this question. In Glenwood they might be looking for peer review for flood plain mapping as conditional studies or modification along the City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 13 waterfront were needed. The City did not have the expertise or staff to conduct in depth evaluation of floodplain studies. They had used that in other developments. Commissioner Stewart asked how the correlation between properties such as the one Mr. Paz spoke of that were affected by both Phase I and Phase II was being addressed. Mr. Karp said the property mentioned by Mr. Paz was in Phase I. There were a number of properties that went up the hillside that were zoned public land and open space. A number of years ago one of the property owners had approached the City about rezoning properties to commercial to allow billboards. When looking at the boundary for Phase I, staff decided to include that hillside piece and designate it employment mixed-use. Mr. Paz was supportive of that use. The regulations in the existing Refinement Plan would stay in place until the Phase II Plan process was complete. If Mr. Paz wanted to come in with an application for that property today, it would be permitted. There was an issue regarding access as 22nd was a one-way dead end street. That issue needed to be resolved. It was unclear whether or not that issue could be resolved with Mr. Paz’s application, but he could talk with staff about possible accommodations. Commissioner Stewart asked if it would detrimentally affect what they wanted in Phase I if someone developed in Phase II today. He was a firm believer in flexibility. This was great plan and he hoped it would develop just as planned, but experience had shown that things didn’t always work out that way. He noted some of the advantages they had in Portland that helped with their redevelopment. Redevelopment in Glenwood would take some time. He wanted to make sure the Plan was flexible and he was hearing that it was flexible. That would allow people to address drive throughs or parking. The true Glenwood redevelopment may not look like the Plan for several years. Mr. Karp said the Glenwood Refinement Plan was a 20 year plan, with 5 year increments to re- evaluate. If someone came in with something totally different, staff would do what they needed to do to make it happen. Mr. White, in his testimony, had pointed out that there were some issues to be resolved and felt he could work it out with staff. Flexibility allowed adjustments so the Plan didn’t need to be amended each time there was an adjustment. Councilor VanGordon spoke regarding parking and maximums. He asked if there was anywhere in the Lane metro area that was under a parking maximum requirement. He asked if there was a minimum for parking. Mr. Karp said there were no parking minimums. Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett said the City of Eugene did have maximum standards in downtown. Ms. Markarian said parking maximum were included in the Plan to assist with the commercial lending process. The market would often dictate parking. Councilor VanGordon asked if developers were concerned with parking maximums. Ms. Markarian said the developers staff had talked with endorsed the parking maximums as it provided them with flexibility dependent on the type of business. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 14 Councilor VanGordon said the Plan provided the maximum and the market provided the minimum. He spoke regarding Subarea D and if anyone had asked for a large expanse of parking in front of the building. Ms. Markarian said no one had made that request. Councilor VanGordon noted where peer review was required in the Code (hillside development) and where it was an option. Ms. Markarian said the City could invoke peer review in some cases. Mr. Vogeney said it wasn’t specifically stated in the Code that the City could use peer review. For engineering technical issues, he used his discretion as City Engineer to determine if peer review was needed. Councilor Woodrow felt this was an opportunity to have a different entity in Glenwood that wasn’t to itself, but was part of the bigger area which included the University of Oregon and Springfield downtown and a future plaza. Glenwood was an avenue opportunity between those in addition to the wonderful planning of what they wanted Glenwood to look like. There needed to be reasons for people to go back and forth among these connections. All of the areas had the opportunity to thrive if they worked off each other. There was an opportunity to use it all and that’s where she saw the flexibility. They needed to remember Glenwood was part of a whole. Councilor Moore asked for clarification of the different types of mixed-use. Ms. Markarian said typically mixed use designations needed to identify the predominant use. She provided some examples. Councilor Moore said there was a lot of riverfront area. She asked how flexible this Plan was for zoning changes. She provided an example of a request for a hotel near the riverfront. Mr. Karp said hotels were allowed in Subarea B and Subarea C. Staff didn’t feel it made the best planning sense to put hotels in industrial areas. Councilor Moore said it sounded like there was not a lot of flexibility in that regard. Mr. Karp said the Wildish property along the riverfront was vacant. He was not aware of any requests for hotels along that area, but there could be interest if hotels were built out in the other areas and there was demand. Councilor Moore confirmed that the path would provide the access to the river. Mr. Karp said the Commercial Industrial Building Land (CIBL) inventory required the City to focus on the larger vacant industrial sites to be reserved for those uses. Mayor Lundberg said she was happy about the flexibility and the idea that the Plan could grow and change in regards to parking. She felt that they needed to revisit peer review carefully as it could be a deal killer. There was a unique setting in Glenwood with the riverfront, the state highway, the University of Oregon and high density residential needs. They could possibly move some of the City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 15 residential depending on development interest. Originally, there was going to be medium-density residential where PeaceHealth built RiverBend, but through flexibility they were able to change. There would be people that wanted to come to the riverfront. When they first started looking at Glenwood, they saw what was hidden. There were a variety of transportation choices and they needed to keep all transportation options available. Board Chair Leiken spoke regarding peer review and asked if the Development Services Director would have discretion on when that was needed. Mr. Karp said the text stated, “the director may require peer review”. Before staff changed the language based on Planning Commission input, it stated “required”. Board Chair Leiken said that made sense. He provided some examples where peer review might be necessary. Mr. Karp said it would depend on each individual case, but there was a lot of truth in what he was saying. Board Chair Leiken complimented the Plan. He would caution them not to go overboard on flexibility. When developing a riverfront plan, they needed to develop it appropriately. He noted that several years ago a hospital was looking at the Wildish site. He asked if that could be built today based on this Plan. Mr. Karp said that was correct. Staff had deliberately included that acceptable use in that area based on that experience. Board Chair Leiken said it sounded like the City was going to hold a work session before coming back for their second reading. He asked the Board members how they would like to coordinate the dates. County Planner Kent Howe said past practice had been that the City initiating the amendment acted first, followed by the County Board. That was not a requirement, however, and they did have the option to take action tonight. There was a possibility that the Springfield City Council might propose some minor changes so it may be beneficial for the Board to wait. Mr. Markarian said the Springfield Council could not act until their second reading. It was up to the Council whether or not they would like a work session before the second reading. If Council had direction they would like to provide to staff to work on and bring to that work session, they could do that. The other option would be for the Council to hold their second reading without a work session. Commissioner Bozievich said he was very excited about this plan. Glenwood could become a major economic driver for all of Lane County. He was licensed by the State to do development plans and he had done a number of them in Springfield. Having that license meant he was liable for the work he did. He had a real concern with peer review. Those doing the development were required to hire licensed professionals, and those professionals had a duty under State law. The developers were paying for those professionals and to require the developer to pay for that service a second time seemed redundant and somewhat punitive. There were licensed geologists and engineers that only did work within their expertise. He was concerned with the subjective nature of the peer review process in the Plan. He noted issues that could be caused with the use of ‘may’ in the Code. He recommended City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 16 that the City take a second look at peer review requirements. He also recommended that the Board approve the second reading and move the 3rd reading to a later date. Councilor Ralston said he still had a concern about maximum standards for parking and that it may not be enough for a particular business that may want to build a restaurant. He asked if there was flexibility for someone wanting more parking than the maximum. Mr. Karp said if the master plan included a restaurant that a developer wanted to build in the first phase of their four phase development, they would have a lot of open area that would be available for parking which they could use. As the property continued to develop, some of those parking areas would be removed. The Code did provide that if someone wanted more parking than the maximum, they needed to consider a parking structure. As properties developed over time, a parking structure would likely be needed. Councilor Ralston expressed concern that a business could locate there and later find there wasn’t enough parking allowed. Parking structures were very expensive. He felt that took away the certainty. Mr. Karp said the certainty was in the master plan process. At that time, it would be explained what would occur in each phase of their development. They would know the requirements from the beginning. Councilor Ralston asked who would pay if a parking structure was needed. Mr. Karp said it could be private or a private/public partnership. Mr. Barnett said the parcel minimum was 5 acres. If a developer wanted to put in a restaurant, it would not take the full 5 acres. There would be other uses on that 5 acre site that could possibly share parking with the restaurant and still have an adequate amount of parking for their use. There would also be some on-street parking which would not be counted towards anyone’s maximum. When looking at initial stages of development, they would likely see the shared use and on-street parking before a parking structure. Councilor Pishioneri thanked staff for all of their work. He said he had an issue with the way the peer review piece was worded. He would like information regarding that for an upcoming work session. In looking at the concerns, he saw a number of impediments for development. He noted the flexibility that was incorporated regarding residential densities. He appreciated that flexibility, but didn’t see enough flexibility to bring in development in Glenwood. He spoke regarding drive throughs such as banks and kiosk and was concerned that there wasn’t more flexibility for those uses. They needed to look at small businesses and large businesses. He spoke regarding parking and asked to see how the requirement of 150 feet that was noted in Mr. Hledik’s letter was justified. This was a great plan and it was good to have standards, but they needed to remain flexible so they didn’t shut out businesses. Ms. Markarian spoke regarding drive through facilities and why the prohibition was included in the Plan. One factor was safety for pedestrians. Another factor was that the State’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) required no drive throughs or gas stations. Drive throughs generated a lot of traffic. Councilor Pishioneri felt the drive throughs could and needed to be designed to be safe. He understood the requirements from the TPR report, but wanted to see if there was another way to make it work. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 17 Mayor Lundberg said this was a huge project and there were a lot of decisions to be made. The broader decisions had been made and now they needed to look closely at the details during a work session. Some of the things for discussion during that work session included parking, peer review, access to the river and drive throughs. Board Chair Leiken said the Board of Commissioners would like the date for the second reading and action by the City Council so they could incorporate that into their motion. Mr. Grimaldi said originally they had the second reading for May 21, but the work session needed to be scheduled first so that date would likely change. It was important for everyone to take the time needed to make a good decision. Board Chair Leiken asked how staff would like them to proceed. Discussion was held regarding possible dates for the next reading by the Board and whether or not to keep the record open. June 20 was a date provided for the 3rd reading. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SORENSON WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEWART TO HOLD THE THIRD READING ON JUNE 20, 2012 AND LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL THAT DATE. THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – HANDY). City Attorney Matt Cox said if the County kept the record open, the City may want to consider leaving the record open until June 20. The record would need to be closed before the Council made their decision. Planning Manager Greg Mott said it was staff’s objective for tonight’s hearing to have Council hear testimony and staff hear concerns about the ordinance. In anticipation of that occurring, a date of May 21 had been discussed for a possible work session. All of the issues raised by the elected officials tonight were part of the record and there was nothing new in that respect. Staff’s response would not generate anything that was not already in the record. In his opinion, there was no reason to keep the record open for staff to respond to those issues. If the Council wanted to leave the record open for the public to provide additional testimony, that would be their choice. Based on holding a work session on May 21, the Council could be ready to hold the second reading on June 4. Regarding leaving the public record open, there had been no request from the public to do so and there had been no new testimony. Mayor Lundberg said that sounded reasonable. Councilor Pishioneri asked if closing the record would not allow someone to address some of the comments raised tonight. Mr. Mott said there wouldn’t be anything to comment on until the Council held the work session and provided direction to staff. The concerns raised tonight had not received unanimous support either way, so until they determined how to resolve those issues during the work session, there was nothing for the public to react to. They could re-open the public hearing after any changes were made. If they did that, the Board would need to do the same thing. If the resolution Council came up with was City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 18 something that hadn’t been seen or anticipated, staff would recommend advertising for a re-opened public hearing. Mayor Lundberg reconfirmed that both the public record and public hearing were closed for the night. The Springfield City Council took no action as this was a first reading of their ordinance. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 9:07 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder