Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 04 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/21/2012 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 13, 2012 – Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing b) May 7, 2012 – Work Session c) May 7, 2012 – Regular Meeting d) May 14, 2012 – Work Session DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. JOINT ELECTED OFFICIAL/BOARD OF COMMISSIONSER REGULAR MEETING March 13, 2012 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Sid Leiken opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. City Councilor Dave Ralston opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council City Councilor George Brown opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council Present from Lane County were Board Chair Sid Leiken, Jay Bozievich, Rob Handy and Faye Stewart. Pete Sorenson was excused. Present from the city of Springfield were Sheri Moore, Dave Ralston, Sean Van Gordon and Joe Pishioneri. Christine Lundberg, Hillary Wylie and Marilee Woodrow were excused. Present from the city of Eugene were George Brown, Pat Farr, Andrea Ortiz and Chris Pryor. Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor and Kitty Piercy were excused. 1. WORKSESSION A. Joint Work Session for the Metro Plan Boundary Amendment for PA 11-5092 to include a review of Ordinance Items Nos. PA 1281, PA 1283, PA 1284, PA 1290 & 2-12. Kent Howe, Land Management, recalled in 2004 the Eugene Springfield Metro Plan was just completing the Periodic Review. He reported the Board of Commissioners identified five issues with the Metro Plan they had concerns with: the description of urban services, relating how it affects to special districts; the urbanizable area citizen representation of the Santa Clara River Road area; the jurisdictional autonomy with the Metro Plan boundary adjustment; the dispute resolution process and farmland and open space protection. He indicated that it took some time to get the cities’ interest around those issues. He noted in 2009 the Board of Commissioners and the two city councils started meeting as the Joint Elected Officials. (JEO) He added that a subcommittee was formed and they reported back on recommendations in June. He added that the JEO in June adopted those recommendations, giving staff direction to work on specific changes to the Metro Plan based on recommendations from each jurisdiction that include but were not limited to the following: the overarching policies of identifying and addressing regional issues; policies that allow for individual Refinement Plans for Eugene and Springfield to address jurisdiction specific issues; adjustments to the Metro Plan Boundary and text to address jurisdictional specific issues arising in the urbanizable areas and the area outside of the urban March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council growth boundary. (UGB) He added there was a dispute resolution process that reflects the changes. Howe reported that in 2011 the Board of Commissioners initiated the application before the JEO. He said this Work Session is to provide details regarding the Lane County initiated Metro Plan Boundary Amendments. Howe indicated that the three jurisdictions are continuing to work on updating and amending the Metro Plan to reflect the June 2009 JEO subcommittee recommendations. He reported that Eugene and Springfield have been working extensively to implement HB3337, the legislation requiring two separate urban growth boundaries. He added that Lane County has been working through regional issues that are of importance to the County. He noted that Springfield is gathering more information about the UGB expansion areas reviewed and recommended by the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions and Springfield and Lane County are preparing amendments to the Metro Plan Chapter 4 clarifying and re-describing the classification of Metro Plan Amendments. He reported that Eugene is unveiling its results from the Envision Eugene process in preparation for a UGB proposal this spring. He added that these are all a part of the June 2009 subcommittee recommendations of which it states that the jurisdictions shall work on adjustments to the Metro Plan Boundary and text to address jurisdictional specific issues arising in the urbanizable areas and the area outside of the UGB. He recalled that this area’s first Comp Plan was the 1990 Plan and it was adopted in 1968. Howe recalled when the Metro Plan was submitted for acknowledgment in 1980, many of the concepts and components of the 1990 plan were carried forward. He added that the UGB had to be justified on the rules and statutes of the Goal 14 Inventory Requirements as opposed to the aspirational concepts of the 1990 Plan. He said because of the historical regional planning and the fact the County had not submitted a Comprehensive Plan for the rural area, the elected officials included most of the 1990 plan urban service area extremities within the Metro Plan, resulting in a plan boundary unique statewide that was exterior to the UGB. He added that the Metro Plan was acknowledged in 1982. He reported that Lane County was not acknowledged as meeting the requirements of the statewide planning program until 1984 and that year the same regulations that protect all of rural Lane County were applied to the lands outside the Eugene Springfield UGB inside the Metro Plan. He noted the artifact of the Metro Plan Boundary remains, that it does not provide any additional regulatory protection. He reported that there are rural resource lands within the boundaries of the Urban Comprehensive Plan and the role of the two cities is elevated from interested parties to decision makers. He explained that this unique plan allows for either city to prevent a land use action proposed on Rural Resource land outside the city’s UGB. He noted 2 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council that now Lane County implements the Statewide Planning Goal Protections to resource lands outside the UGB, just as the cities of Springfield and Eugene changed the amendment process in the early 90’s to provide the cities with autonomy with amendments inside city limits and established home city and county responsibilities for amendments between the city limits and the UGB. Howe recalled in 2007, HB3337 was passed to provide additional autonomy requiring Eugene and Springfield to adopt their own separate UGB. He indicated that the Lane County Board of Commissioners is now interested in achieving a level of autonomy from the cities for the rural lands outside the cities UGB and outside the cities’ purview of providing urban services. He recalled that the JEO directed staff to explore these concepts during the implementation of HB 3337 and last year Lane County initiated the proposal in front of the JEO. Alicia Hanson, city of Eugene, gave a presentation of the Metro Plan Amendment Review process. (Copy in file). Keir Miller, Land Management, distributed a supplemental memorandum from staff (copy in file) and a two sided color diagram. He noted the supplemental memorandum has attached to it a revised ordinance that if adopted would amend the Metro Plan Boundary. He explained that the reason there is a revised ordinance is that as a requirement of the Metro Plan, Chapter 4, Policy 7, each jurisdiction participating in a Metro Plan Boundary Amendment must adopt substantively identical ordinances affecting the change. He noted that city staff reviewed the ordinance that Lane County came up with and they had some minor modifications. He noted the ordinance was reviewed by Legal Counsel from each of the cities and they have each developed a substantively identical ordinance that would implement the change. He also distributed a decision tree diagram regarding policy choices during deliberations. (Copy in file). Miller explained the issue the County is seeking is one of equity. He said since the early 90’s the cities have exercised full jurisdictional autonomy over land use matters that fall within their city limits. He said Lane County is a decision maker in the land use actions that occur within their city limits, but this is not reciprocated on County land. He indicated that the city can be a decision maker on certain plan amendments outside of the UGB on rural lands. He noted the cities have decision making powers that the County doesn’t and that is the root of the proposal. He indicated that Chapter 4, Policy7 in the Metro Plan requires any proposed amendments to the Metro Plan be jointly approved by the County and the partner city or cities, otherwise the amendment is referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee for study, possible conflict resolution and recommendations back to the governing body. 3 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council Miller indicated that they are doing the amendment in two phases. He indicated the first phase deals east of Interstate 5 in the area outside of the Springfield UGB. He noted that Springfield is ahead in their HB3337 work program and they have identified their parcel specific UGB. He said Lane County is proposing to amend the Metro Plan boundaries so it is co-terminus with the new parcel specific UGB that has been developed by the city of Springfield. He commented that no other city has a boundary that extends outside the UGB. He said that cities typically plan for further expansion within the UGB area and the Metro Plan is one step beyond that. He stated the County’s proposed solution is to modify the plan boundary to move it back to make it co-terminus to the UGB. He noted there are concerns over the Springfield Utility Board’s drinking water supply. He thought there might be similar issues on the Eugene side. Miller reported there are six actions the County is proposing to do to modify the plan boundaries. He added there are no policy amendments they are trying to change in the Metro Plan at this time. He noted this was an issue that came up during the Public Hearing of the Planning Commission. He indicated that they are adopting the Springfield Parcel Specific UGB on the County’s Comprehensive Plan maps. He said they are applying plan designations to the lands leaving the Metro Plan. He added that they need to receive some type of plan designation, as currently Lane County carries the Metro Plan designations. He said Lane County is proposing to apply corresponding plan designations within the Rural Comprehensive Plan. He indicated Lane County would amend the Rural Residential Zoning and there are minor rezones that need to occur as part of the process. He added that Lane County would adopt Rural Comprehensive Plan Policies to existing Goal 5 resources. He indicated that within the Metro Plan there are adopted inventories for Goal 5 resources and since those areas will be coming into County control, they would either need to go through a process to re- inventory those lands or to adopt the inventories that have already been established for those areas and apply the existing policies that are within the Metro Plan into the Rural Comprehensive Plan to provide the proper protections for those areas. He added that the net effect would be no change to the treatment of Goal 5 resources in that area. He noted that the sixth proposal will be minor housekeeping code changes necessary so the code reflects the new inventory of Goal 5 resources in the Rural Comprehensive Plan. Deanna Wright, Land Management, reported there are five affected areas equaling 80 properties where the zone change would take effect. She said the Metro Plan RR Zoned land contains what is to be considered an outdated version of the Rural Residential Zoning in the Oregon Administrative Rules. She said the changes are necessary to gain consistency with the Goal 14 Rural Residential Oregon Administrative Rules. She added that it is also known as the 1994 Community Rule Change. She indicated that it was updated for the rest of the County zoned 4 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council RR lands during the County’s last periodic review but the Community Rule changes were not applied to the Metro Plan Boundary RR Lands because the change was a Rural Comprehensive Plan Periodic work task. She added the Goal 14 Rule compels jurisdictions to come into compliance when they amend their plan provisions that apply to rural lands. She said if the Metro Plan Boundary is to be adjusted; the rezone items will all need to be approved. Miller explained that the final two components to the Rural Comprehensive Plan changes are adopting Goal 5 regulations into the Lane Rural Comprehensive Plan and removing references to the Metro Plan within the Riparian Code Ordinance. He indicated those are considered housekeeping changes and if they make the changes, they have to amend the riparian regulations to take out existing references to the area that will no longer exist within the Metro Plan. Ralston asked what happens to Springfield’s Riparian Zone requirement when adopting Goal 5. He asked if Lane County’s requirement was different than Springfield. Greg Mott, city of Springfield, responded that there is not a direct answer. He indicated that the city of Springfield undertook the periodic review assignment to update their Goal 5 inventories within their UGB. He said that occurred during a rule change regarding Goal 5 preservation. He noted that each city was able to determine the values they would place on their Goal 5 inventories based on protection regulations. He added that Springfield’s are different than the city of Eugene. He stated they recognize their wetlands and stream corridors based on flow volume and presence of fish. He said at the time they were evaluating for Goal 5 they were also subject to the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. He reported that they applied a simple preservation protection setback along the streams, based on a 75 foot measurement. He added that they have adopted measures to regulate the activities that can occur in that setback but they are specific to streams of a certain volume and the presence of fish. He stated that there is no guaranty their measures are the same as the city of Eugene or Lane County. Ralston asked about Lane County’s requirements. Miller explained that for Lane County’s riparian regulations, because of the Metro Plan and boundary, their current regulations inside the Metro Plan follow the same as Springfield’s based on the cubic feet per second flow. He added the setbacks are either 50 feet or 75 feet. He reported that outside of the Metro Plan Boundary, Lane County’s riparian regulations are either 50 feet or 100 feet. He explained that what they are proposing to do would create a larger buffer by changing the riparian ordinances. 5 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council Ralston commented that as a Springfield City Councilor he wasn’t sure that he would want to have the same buffers Lane County is proposing because they are talking about lands adjacent to Springfield that could someday come under Springfield’s jurisdiction and they will have to deal with buffer zones that don’t make sense. Mott explained that the city of Springfield’s regulations apply only within their jurisdiction which is the UGB. He said in the event the city of Springfield sought to expand the UGB, one of their obligations in the expansion would be to identify Goal 5 resources. He said the County will have adopted their inventory. He believed they would be subject to their own standards once it was being considered for inclusion in their UGB. He said they would probably recommend the city standard be adopted. Handy stated that he will need persuading about the phasing approach and why they are doing some of the changes with the Metro Plan now as opposed to some of the other things that need addressing. He recalled this started with the County in 2009 when they wanted to see issues of jurisdictional representation and authority dealt with in the unincorporated and unannexed areas inside the UGB. He said they wanted to see issues addressed with River Road and Santa Clara and in North Springfield. He asked if there was anything drafted for the River Road Santa Clara area. Howe responded that the recommendations the JEO acted on (providing direction to staff on specific changes to the Metro Plan) were the direction on overarching policies that identify and address regional issues. He added they were policies that allow for individual refinement plans for Eugene and Springfield and adjustment to the Metro Plan Boundary and text to address jurisdiction specific issues arising in the urbanizable areas and the area outside the UGB. He noted that tonight they are working on the area outside the UGB and the areas inside the UGB. He also noted that the Envision Eugene is addressing the River Road Santa Clara issues. Miller reported that they have had public input on this process. He said after the Board gave direction to process this proposal in a phased approach, they had a public work session in April. He commented that it was not well attended and there wasn’t a lot of interest in the project initially. He indicated they sent out notice to 2,600 landowners and they had a discussion during the Planning Commission process. He said as a result, 23 comments were submitted during the Planning Commission Public Hearing. He noted five were in support; ten in opposition and the rest were neutral. He reported the major concern they heard initially was that this proposal would negatively impact regional planning efforts. 6 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council He added that it was echoed by several people who gave testimony. He indicated that County staff response was that regional planning will still carry forward. He said the Metro Plan is not going away as a result of the proposal and there will still be incidents where the cities and the County will have to coordinate on planning efforts. He noted the plan limits the area the cities might have a say in, but it doesn’t stop regional planning efforts. He said many people thought they shouldn’t address this as a phased approach. He said it was put on their work plan this year to deal with this phase. He indicated the city of Eugene is not in a place yet with their UGB where the County could initiate this process. Miller stated that he had heard a blanket fear that this would lead to annexation, but this project has nothing to do with annexation. He added that it won’t change the annexation policies with the cities. He indicated that part of this is dealing with the Donna Robinson property. He said she is hamstrung by some of the policies in the Metro Plan that currently exist and adoption of this proposal would address her concerns. He noted the big issue that came up during the joint Planning Commission Public Hearing process was a concern over the Springfield Utility Board’s drinking water. He said in the process of moving the boundary, Lane County would be the sole decision maker on those types of land use issues. He indicated that the criteria and zoning is the same, it is about who makes the decision on the land use change. Miller reported that four potential options came out of the Planning Commission Public Hearing to deal with the Springfield Utility Board’s issue. He said the first option would be to move the plan boundary as proposed except leaving out the large area. He added that the second option would be to move the boundary but have Lane County adopt some type of drinking water protection plan like Springfield has in place that would address Springfield’s drinking water concerns. He indicated the third option is to move the plan boundary and develop an intergovernmental agreement between the County and the city that would enable the city to be a decision maker on certain types of actions they feel would impact the ground water. He added there is also a no alternative option to address the Springfield issue. He reported that the Lane County Planning Commission voted 7-2 to deny the proposal. He said they unanimously voted to amend the maps to show Springfield’s parcel specific UGB, a requirement of state law. He said the Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 to support the amendment and the Springfield Planning Commission voted 4-2 to support the amendment with the understanding that the County and the city enter into some type of agreement to address the Springfield Utility Board’s concerns. He said if they agree on changing the plan boundary, the Rural Comprehensive Plan Amendments item 2 through 6 need to happen if a plan boundary has changed. He said if consensus is not reached, what would need to occur is for no action to be taken on the Rural Comp Plan amendments. He said they could direct staff to implement an 7 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council ordinance to adopt Springfield’s parcel specific UGB or they could direct staff to modify the proposals. A. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) by Adopting a New Metro Plan Boundary that is Coterminous with the City of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary East of Interstate 5; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. PA 1283/In the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by Applying Plan Designations to Lands Removed from the Metro Plan Pursuant to ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281; Adopting the City of Springfield Parcel Specific UGB Boundary on official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan Maps to Comply with OAR 660-024-0020(2) and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. PA 1284/In the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by Rezoning Rural Residential Lands Regulated Under Lane Code 16.231, Which were Removed from the Metro Plan Pursuant to ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281, with Updated Rural Residential Zone Language Contained in Lane Code 16.290 and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. PA 1290/In the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to Apply Goal 5 Inventories, Policies and Findings of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to those Lands Removed from the Metro Plan by ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281 and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. 2-12 in the Matter of Amending Lane Code Chapter 16 by Modifying Existing Stream Riparian Regulations to Continue Applying Safe Harbor Setbacks to Goal 5 Riparian Resources on Lands Removed from the Metro Plan by ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281 (LC16.253) Leiken opened the meeting for the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Sid Leiken, Jay Bozievich, Rob Handy and Faye Stewart present. Pete Sorenson was excused. Mayor Piercy opened the meeting for the Eugene City Council. Present from the Eugene City Council were Mayor Kitty Piercy, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, 8 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council George Brown, Pat Farr and Chris Pryor. Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka and Betty Taylor were excused. Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting for the Springfield City Council. Present from the Springfield City Council were Mayor Christine Lundberg, Sheri Moore, Dave Ralston, Joe Pishioneri and Sean Van Gordon. Hillary Wylie and Marilee Woodrow were excused. Leiken explained that tonight they are holding a joint Public Hearing of the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and Lane County elected officials to consider amendments to the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan General Plan, commonly referred to as the Metro Plan. He added that the Lane County Board of Commissioners will be considering related amendments that are specific to the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan for areas that are removed from the Metro Plan. Mott explained that the Springfield City Council is conducting a joint hearing and the First Reading on the following ordinance: an Ordinance amending the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro Plan by adopting a new Metro Plan Boundary that is co-terminus with the city of Springfield UGB, east of Interstate 5 and adopting savings and severability clauses. Leiken stated the Board’s decision will be subject to findings of fact showing compliance with the applicable Metro Plan policies, Rural Comprehensive Plan policies and Lane Code criteria sited in the staff report. He said that evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria and testimony not directed toward the approval criteria is irrelevant to this land use proceeding. Miller explained that Lane County has initiated an amendment to modify the boundaries of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. He said pursuant to Chapter 4, Policies 5 a and 6, implementation of this amendment requires review and approval by each of the Metro Plan partners. He added that in addition to the Metro Plan Boundary Amendment, Lane County is also proposing several related amendments to the Rural Comprehensive Plan which will be necessary if an amendment to the Metro Plan Boundary is adopted. He stated these Rural Comp Plan specific proposals must be reviewed in a Public Hearing of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. He noted the proposals under consideration would perform the following six actions: 1) to amend the Metro Plan Diagram and Boundary Maps to modify the Metro Plan boundary east of Interstate 5, so the boundary is co-terminus with the parcel specific UGB that has been developed by the city of Springfield. He explained that action would remove 12.5 square miles of land currently under jurisdiction of the Metro Plan and place it under the jurisdiction of the Rural Comprehensive Plan. He added 9 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council that action will not change the plan designations for any properties that remain within the Metro Plan boundary after this action. Miller noted the current and proposed Metro Plan diagram map and boundary maps are included as Exhibit A through D to attachment 1 in the packet. (Copy in file) He indicated that legal staff from each jurisdiction have developed substantively identical ordinances that if approved would implement these amendments. Miller explained that Action 2 would amend the city of Springfield’s parcel specific UGB on Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan maps. He said that Action 3 would apply correctly corresponding Rural Comp Plan designations to lands previously designated under the Metro Plan. He added that the Rural Comp maps that depict both current and proposed parcel specific UGB change and the Comp Plan designation change are Exhibits K through R to attachment 2 in the packets. (Copy in file). He explained that Action 4 would update the Rural Residential Zone updating of properties removed from the Metro Plan to maintain consistency with residential zoning regulations applied to other lands within the Rural Comp Plan boundaries. He noted the current and proposed official zone maps depicting these changes are included as Exhibits A to F in attachment 3 and the current and proposed residential zone language has been included as attachment 11 and 12 in legislative and standard format in the packets. (Copy in file). Miller indicated that Action 5 would amend Rural Comprehensive Policies to apply existing Goal 5 Metro Plan policies to Goal 5 resources removed from the Metro Plan. He said the proposed Rural Comprehensive Policy is included in Exhibits A and B to attachment 4. He noted that Action 6 would perform minor housekeeping amendments to Lane Code 16.253 to maintain existing Safe Harbor riparian setback regulations to lands removed from the Metro Plan. He indicated the changes are shown in attachment 21 in the packet. (Copy in file). He added because the Metro Plan and the Rural Comp Plan amendments are interrelated, all of the amendments will be the subject of tonight’s hearing and public testimony may be directed toward any of the proposals. Miller reported that notice of tonight’s Public Hearing was mailed out to approximately 2,600 property owners within or adjacent to the proposed boundary adjustment area and an ad announcing tonight’s hearing was published in The Register Guard. He recalled a First Reading and announcement of the Public Hearing occurred on February 21 in accordance with the requirements of the Lane Charter and a public information open house concerning the proposal was held on April 21, 2011. He noted on July 19, 2011 a joint hearing between the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions was opened. He added that 10 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council hearing was continued to August where additional testimony was heard. He said the Planning Commissions then closed the Public Hearing and left the record open for four additional weeks to allow additional written testimony to be submitted into the record. He recalled that during the Planning Commission process, 23 comments were received on the proposals. He indicated that staff responses are reflected in the adopted minutes to the joint Planning Commission Public Hearing process and in supplemental memos to the Planning Commission. He said the minutes and supplemental memos have been included in the packet materials as attachments 15 through 20. (Copy in file). He reported on October 25, the Planning Commission deliberations on the proposal were held and the Lane County Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal by a vote of 7-2. He added the Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the proposal and the Springfield Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval with a condition that Springfield and Lane County enter into an intergovernmental agreement to address concerns about Springfield’s drinking water. He stated that Lane County staff recommends approval of the Metro Plan Boundary amendment and related Rural Comprehensive Plan amendments. He added that detailed findings of facts supporting this recommendation have been provided as Exhibit E to attachment 1. (Copy in file). He said it should be noted that if deliberations begin tonight, Springfield and Eugene elected officials should limit their deliberations to the Metro Plan Boundary amendment element only. He added if consensus on the Metro Plan Boundary change is reached then the Lane County Board of Commissioners may deliberate and take action on the Rural Comp Plan specific amendments. He noted in addition to the 23 comments they received, they have received two other pieces of testimony to be entered into the record. (Copy in file). Commissioner Leiken opened the Public Hearing. Donna Robinson, Springfield, said her family owns the 8.6 acre parcel that lies on the far eastern border of the Metro Plan. She had given previous public testimony in favor of Phase 1 of the Metro Plan as this amendment would remove her property from the Plan and would permit her to split the lot in half as originally planned. She said the written facts in tonight’s packet do not tell the important element of her story. She said the facts make her sound like a disgruntled old lady who has a five acre zone and wants a two acre zone. She said that was not what happened. She explained that when they purchased the acreage in August 2008, Lane County assured her that the property was zoned RR2 and that she could divide the property in half for her sons and that was why they purchased the property. She stated that Lane County staff failed to note the property lies within the jurisdiction of the Metro Plan and is subject to the restrictive RR5 zone. She indicated that eight months into the partition process the County caught their error and called her saying she had a problem. She added 11 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council that it has been four years since they purchased the property. She indicated that neither of her sons can obtain a construction loan until they own their half of the parcel and that can’t happen until they can partition the land. She recalled that last October one of the planners pointed out that there is a process she can follow if she wanted a zoning change. She was aware of the filing fee of $26,458 and that the process could be risky and could fail. She stated that this was all to rectify a mistake that was made by the County, not by her. She said that they followed all the rules and contacted the proper officials, paid the necessary fees and they were assured the land was zoned RR2 and they purchased the property on that basis. She commented that they have a problem with accountability and transparency. She said if her property is zoned RR2 but she has an overlay zone of RR5 for properties in the Metro Plan, she should have been told of that fact. She added that to date there are only four rural residential parcels in the whole Metro Plan that could be partitioned and if they added them, there would only be nine parcels in the entire plan. She asked that if the amendment doesn’t pass, to find one of the options outlined in the packet that would help her family. Janet Calvert, Eugene, stated that she represented the League of Women Voters of Lane County. She said the League of Women Voters is a non-partisan grass roots organization that encourages citizen participation in government. She said their group studies and reaches positions on issues of concern to the public well being and public policy. She said the League is concerned about the proposal of the County to exert jurisdictional control over the lands that lie between the UGB and the Metro Plan boundary. She said they support interjurisdictional planning authority with comprehensive citizen participation that supports and coordinates sustainable development and considers the impact of growth decisions on adjacent areas over the long term. She said the quality of drinking water for Eugene and Springfield is at risk under this proposal. She indicated that at this time there are no County protective regulations regarding water quality or the resources to provide them. She said the League believes that interdependence of land use planning and water planning must be recognized and required at all levels of government. She commented that water is a resource that should be managed for the benefit of the public and sustainable habitat for all life forms. She said the League opposes Ordinance PA 1281 and urges the Board of Commissioners to reject it. Mia Nelson, Eugene, 1000 Friends of Oregon, commented that this is a major change and one of the most important decisions they might ever make. She asked for Springfield and Eugene to be careful. She said this is only about the County’s ability to say no. She stated that if the cities say yes to this, they will have the same rights that any citizen has and not more. She didn’t understand why the city would give that up. She commented that this is not just about the County and 12 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council Springfield; there are substantive rights for Eugene at stake. She thought the phased idea was a bad idea. She stated there is no urgency to this. Robert Emmons, Fall Creek, said he is President of Landwatch Lane County. He commented that it was disingenuous to say that this proposal would retain regional planning. He said when Springfield instigated HB3337 to separate itself from Eugene; regional planning was on the way out. He commented with Metropolitan Planning, Eugene, Springfield and Lane County benefit singularly and collectively by having a governing body where decisions of regional import are based on the separate but equal authority of its three jurisdictions. He said that land use decisions that affect Eugene and Springfield affect the County as a whole and the reverse is true. He thought that regional or interjurisdictional planning could help mitigate or eliminate negative impacts and protect common resources. Kate Kelly, Eugene, said she is speaking as a private citizen and River Road resident. She recalled that since the 80’s Eugene, Springfield and Lane County have worked jointly concerning issues around the Metro Plan Boundary and all three jurisdictions have had a joint voice in what is happening in the areas. She stated there is a move by the present Board of Commissioners to do away with this long established tradition. She added that the Board wants to establish sole authority for the land between the UGB and the Metro Plan, leaving Springfield and Eugene without a voice in how these lands are developed. She said she was concerned about the potential of water quality. She asked why Springfield would give up authority over its drinking water and leave it to the discretion of the County. She noted that both Eugene and Springfield are looking to expand the UGB’s in the future so she didn’t know why this issue was taking place now. She was concerned about eliminating the checks and balances that are in place. She asked the elected officials to think long and hard about giving up this right. Carleen Reilly, Eugene, said she was dismayed at Lane County’s efforts to give County Commissioner’s sole authority over property between the UGB and the Metro Plan Boundary. She thought advance planning would allow the Sheriff’s Office and other emergency services to focus on crime, health emergencies and house fires instead of being engaged in search and rescue during flooding. She commented that the drinking water ordinances proposed for the McKenzie would have come in handy in dealing with the flood conditions they experienced. She thought prevention would have been less expensive and less emotional wrenching than cleaning up the crisis. She stated that water must be their first priority over gravel resources. She thought County staff could focus on their primary task instead of throwing all personnel into search and rescue. She commented that regional planning is a prevention measure and a flood is a failure to plan. She 13 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council urged that the Metro Boundary UGB region be maintained with multiple jurisdiction decision making. Lee Deveau, Eugene, said she was in opposition to the proposal by the Lane County Board of Commissioners to amend the current Metro Plan. She stated that she is a resident concerned about her community. She thought the Metro Plan should continue in its present form as a collaborative process between the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County. She thought it was appropriate and important that the two cities have a vote on proposed development and it would be negligent for the cities to abdicate their responsibility to their residents and leave land use decisions solely in the jurisdiction of Lane County. She stated the Metro Plan has served its function well as a collaborative planning tool that includes all stakeholders in decision making. She thought they would be doing more collaboration instead of less. She urged the cities of Springfield and Eugene to vote against the proposed amendment and continue the current Metro Plan. Jozef Siekiel Zdzienicki, Eugene, opposed Ordinance PA 1281. He said the interface between urban and rural areas is the one where the most conflicts arise. He said if the ordinance is passed, there will be less voices heard. He thought the Robinson issue could be solved with site specific designations. He thought the water issue in Springfield could be resolved with an IGA. Walt Johnson, Eugene, asked that Ordinance PA 1281 not be approved. He was concerned with the acceptance of this proposal that LCOG will disappear. He said if that is the case, more citizen involvement will be taken out of the picture. He thought since they were on the cusp of making UGB decisions, it makes more sense to do that now. Joel Narva, Eugene, said he sent a letter to the elected officials. He said his comments are addressed to the city councilors of Eugene and Springfield. He asked them to deny Ordinance PA 1281. He thought if the city councils give up their authority they might be making a huge mistake. He commented that if the cities give up their sole authority of the lands to the County, it will be easier for industries and sand and gravel and residential developments that are not appropriate for the cities’ urban atmosphere to be approved easily and quicker. He stated to the city councilors that if they vote for this plan amendment, they are shirking their duty to their constituents because they will be giving up their authority on these important boundary questions. Amy Chinitz, Springfield Utility Board, Springfield, said she is SUB’s water quality protection coordinator and she was speaking on behalf of SUB. She stated that SUB was concerned that the proposal to modify the Metro Plan Boundary to be co-terminus with the Springfield UGB, weakens Springfield’s ability to protect 14 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council its drinking water sources. She noted that 31 out of 35 SUB and Rainbow Water District wells are located outside the UGB. She stated the source of over 75 percent of Springfield’s total groundwater based production capacity is located between the UGB and the Metro Plan Boundary. She noted that the Metro Plan establishes a means for coordinating planning across jurisdictional lines. She said planning for the protection of drinking water source areas that follow hydrologic instead of jurisdictional boundaries is a logical subject for cross jurisdictional coordination. She reported that currently any proposed zone change within the Metro Plan boundary that would have an effect on Springfield’s water supply would allow for multi-jurisdictional decision making. She added that this process allows the city of Springfield to participate in major decisions that could affect its own municipal water source. She stated the proposed modification to the Metro Plan Boundary would remove the city of Springfield from this process for areas between the UGB and the current metro plan boundary. She said SUB, Rainbow Water District and the city of Springfield adopted a pro active drinking water protection program in 1999. She said they value the partnership with the County and look forward to furthering their work together but even with successful partnerships with Lane County, they view the city of Springfield’s participation and decision that could affect their water supply absolutely essential. She believed it was possible to avoid the setbacks for drinking water protection while still meeting the County’s goal of establishing jurisdictional autonomy. She asked that this conversation continue during the JEO process so they can be sure that shrinking the Metro Plan boundary does not lead to any unintended harmful consequences. Joe Meyers, Springfield, said that he has lived in Springfield his entire life. He noted that the cities of Eugene and Springfield are inside of Lane County and surrounded by Lane County and not the other way around. He believed they should have some sort of control on what goes on directly around the cities. He thought it would be bad for an entity to have sole jurisdiction over so many people. He thought it added to mistrust and the potential abuse of power. Donna Riddle, Eugene, said she would personally benefit from Phase 2 because she has five acres that border the UGB west of I-5 and the city limits of Eugene. She said her main concern is clean water. She stated that interjursidicitonal decision making on water is better to protect the rivers and the other wetlands. Rodney Meyers, Springfield, said he has a shop near Cedar Creek. He said if there are setbacks, he asked what the affect would be on the operation of his shop. Leiken indicated that what was submitted tonight will be part of the record. He added that failure to raise an issue to enable a response, may preclude an appeal to 15 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council LUBA. He stated that only persons who qualify as a party may appeal the actual decision of the elected officials to LUBA. Commissioner Leiken closed the Public Hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Hearing for the Eugene City Council. Mayor Lundberg closed the Public Hearing for the Springfield City Council. Stewart said this has been going on for a number of years and the Board gave direction over a year ago to move forward with this phased approach. He added it was the recommendation because Springfield was further ahead in their UGB work than Eugene and Lane County was approached with Mrs. Robinson’s family issue and he thought it was one of the most logical ways to move it forward to fix. He stated that this metro boundary is specific to Springfield. He indicated this exercise is trying to find out if the metro boundary is appropriate and having the discussion to see if it is worthy to have it go back to a different location or leave it alone. Handy thought they had the cart before the horse on this issue. He noted in River Road and Santa Clara, a Mr. and Mrs. Getty fell into a no man’s land. He indicated that the Board worked for a legislative fix to address that particular parcel. He added that was passed in the legislature without any controversy. He said it avoided the bigger issue that has unintended consequences they haven’t looked at. He thought they should look at a site specific redesignation to look at to address the concerns of some of the property owners without their moving into the bigger proposal. He wanted a fifth or sixth option to address Mrs. Robinson and others’ concerns while they have broader concerns about the bigger issue. Ralston stated that he did not have a problem with the phased approach as it made sense. He said according to what they have heard tonight, for the areas between the Metro Plan Boundary and the city limits, Lane County will have sole decision making authority. He thought those areas were close enough to Springfield that Springfield should have code decision making. He did not like an all or nothing proposition. He didn’t like any of the options but he said if they change the boundaries and go the phased in route, that Eugene, Springfield and Lane County would have code decision making. He said for Phase 2 he would support Eugene and Lane County having authority on their sections too. He added if the areas outlined are going to be solely for Lane County decision making, then he wouldn’t support it. 16 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council Bozievich asked if there were any wellhead protection ordinances that cover the areas outside of the Springfield UGB currently. Chinitz responded that there are no local ordinances. She indicated that the wellhead zones extend quite a bit. She added that they have their wellhead production areas delineated out to the 99 year time of travel. Bozievich asked how many of the wells that lie in the area are under the influence of surface water. Chinitz reported their Willamette Well Field has 13 wells designated as being under the direct influence of surface water. She added that they run that through a treatment plant and they have one well in the Thurston Well Field that is designated. She said the actual ground water under the direct influence of surface water is active in their Willamette Well Field where they have their treatment plant. Bozievich commented that there is little protection in the area they are discussing and how much of the area that needs to be protected is outside the plan boundary. He reiterated that there is a request to have some jurisdiction in an area where there is none. He said he had no objection in the future to Lane County adopting a wellhead protection ordinance in the zones they are discussing, similar to the fact that they have adopted pollution discharge with regard to stormwater regulations that are the same as the city of Eugene. With regard to sole jurisdiction, Bozievich asked under what authority Lane County exercises their Rural Comp Plan. Miller responded that it is an acknowledged Rural Comprehensive Plan under the statewide planning program. He added that Lane County’s plan has been acknowledged by the state and that is the authority they have to administer their Rural Comp Plan. Bozievich said this is a question of having representation in the body that actually has jurisdiction over the land they own. He thought it was questionable in the UGB areas. He said the issue is they have people who live in an area who are not able to ever vote for a city council member but with the Metro Plan Boundary, the city council members are allowed to have jurisdiction over land use. He asked if there is a question about jurisdiction, why they are stopping where the Metro Plan Boundary is now. He indicated the Metro Plan is a leftover artifact of a 1968 plan that was developed before the statewide planning goals were made and Lane County is the only jurisdiction in the entire state that has it. He added that it takes away the rights of people to have representation and the people governing their land. He stated that is why he wants to make them co-terminus. He thought this 17 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council was about being fair to the people who own the land. He thought they could deal with the issues by coming up with agreements and passing their own wellhead protection ordinances. He didn’t think Lane County having sole jurisdiction was endangering the water quality of Springfield or Eugene. He added that all of Eugene’s water comes under the sole jurisdiction of Lane County. Ortiz said she was concerned about this. She said that Eugene has been going through a lot of work around Envision Eugene. She added that they are working on the issues of Santa Clara River Road and what they can do to help be better neighbors. She hoped that they can have that conversation before any of this gets decided. She asked what the next steps would be for the jurisdictions. Miller explained that is up to the elected officials whether or not they want to continue deliberations. He recommended a joint deliberation as it is better for the public and it is more efficient. He added that if they can’t conclude deliberations this evening, they can coordinate a future date. He stated it was important to give the date, time and place of the future deliberations so they don’t have to notice it. Emily Jerome, city of Eugene, didn’t think anyone anticipated additional hearings from the governing bodies. She wanted to know if the elected officials were going to close the record. She added that then the three jurisdictions would deliberate on their own and those minutes would be included in the overall record and the three jurisdictions make decisions separately. She stated that because the city of Eugene is the least affected, they would wait until Lane County and Springfield makes their decisions. Ortiz requested to leave the record open for one week for additional comments and this would be the city of Eugene’s last Public Hearing on this matter. Mott explained that the Springfield City Council cannot make a decision on the night of the First Hearing and Public Hearing. He added that was stated in their charter. He indicated there was a need for the Springfield City Council to have a work session. He said it was rare for the elected officials to reconvene after their initial Public Hearing to jointly deliberate on the same night. He added the protocol is that for whichever entity initiated the hearing to be the first to act and then the other jurisdictions would act as soon thereafter if they can, assuming they all adopt identical records. He recommended that the city of Springfield have a work session that will occur in May. Moore said she had concerns about Phase 1. She asked how Ordinance PA 1281 was advantageous to the city of Springfield. She added that she had heard things that made it advantageous to Lane County. 18 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council Lundberg indicated that issue needs to be discussed in a work session to look at what it means for the city of Springfield. Miller explained that the intent is to help provide recourse and accountability to the elected officials for the people who live outside of the area but who are impacted by the decisions that the elected officials make. He said the County is interested in a quality relationship among all of the jurisdictions. He indicated that the cities currently enjoy decision making autonomy within the city limits but the County doesn’t have the same authority and this reciprocates that relationship and it helps the cities and the County. Councilor George Brown left at 8:20 p.m. There is no quorum for the city of Eugene. Piercy commented that there is a strongly improved relationship between the three jurisdictions and a current good working relationship. She thought that they were at the front end of the water issue. She thought it is going to get more challenging. She added that water issues are the issue of the future. She thought they needed to be thoughtful before they relinquish any oversight over water. Poling concurred that they should keep the record open for one week. He recalled they started the meeting with a quorum but Councilor Brown had to leave. He asked if they could put out a motion and vote on it. Jerome responded that the Eugene City Council cannot take action without a quorum. She thought they could discuss this issue at the next meeting. Poling recommended that the city of Eugene not have another Public Hearing on this issue. He wanted to make sure the city of Eugene was the third group to take action in this process. He thought they needed another work session to discuss this issue. Piercy asked about extending the record without a quorum. Jerome said the city of Eugene cannot close the record these evening. She said the default for the city is the record remains open and tomorrow there is a meeting at noon when they will have a quorum. She recommended moving forward with the city of Springfield and Lane County to take the action they want to take. She recommended that all three jurisdictions do the same thing with the record. She said if they have to file a LUBA record, they want to file it as one. Pishioneri commented that this was one of the first JEO meetings where he had enjoyed the comment and thoughtfulness that had been shown. He concurred that 19 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council they have huge water issues. He said with their combined abilities within their jurisdictions, they can place protections and get to where everyone wants to go but it will take work. He was willing to move forward with this as long as they keep in mind that the County will have to put wellhead protections in place. Lundberg stated that they have come to a new level of cooperation. She agreed with Bozievich on many points. She agreed that water is an issue for everyone. She thought from this meeting they will go back and have a meaningful work session. She added that many options are workable. Farr commented that he was happy they were moving forward with this. Leiken thought the relationships between Springfield, Eugene and Lane County have improved greatly since HB3337 passed. He commented that no matter what they end up doing, that drinking water will be protected. He added that it is a large priority for him. MOTION: to move that the Lane County Board of Commissioners close the public record on Tuesday March 27 at 5:00 p.m. Bozievich MOVED, Stewart asked that the motion include a Third Reading and Deliberation of the ordinances for June 13, 2012. Bozievich modified his motion : to close the Public Record at 5:00 p.m. on March 27 and set the Third Reading for June 13, 2012 for Ordinance PA 1281, Ordinance PA 1283, Ordinance PA 1284, Ordinance PA 1290 and Ordinance No. 2-12. Stewart SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0. Ralston thought since Lane County was taking the lead on this, they should make a decision before anyone else. MOTION: to move to keep the record open for two more weeks to March 27 and have a work session on May 16. Pishioneri MOVED, Moore SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0. 20 March 13, 2012 Joint Public Hearing Lane County Board of Commissioners Springfield City Council Eugene City Council 21 Stewart stated that he had concerns about the additional layer and different land use laws that apply inside the Metro Boundary. He thought if at a minimum the land use laws were the same as what is allowed in the County, that Ms. Robinson would have been able to proceed. He indicated they are different now. He said the reason the Metro Boundary was there was the potential for growth in the future, but they were told because of the location of the piece of property, Springfield will not be able to justify moving in that direction. He commented that there are protections on the land to protect it from future growth from the city but there is no intent to move it out. He thought that needed to be dealt with. He said they need to bring the plan up to date to what the needs are today. Piercy said if it deals with representation, she wants to make sure that no decision they are making over representation will be balled up in that discussion. She added the same applies with the Santa Clara River Road area representation issues. Leiken commented that was why the phased approach makes sense to pursue. Commissioner Leiken adjourned the meeting for the Lane County Board of Commissioners at 9:05 p.m. Mayor Lundberg adjourned the meeting for the Springfield City Council at 9:05 p.m. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 9:05 p.m. Melissa Zimmer Recording Secretary ______________________ 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, MAY 7, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 7, 2012 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Matthew Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused). 1. Springfield Economic Initiatives. Community Development Manager John Tamulonis introduce this item. Claire Seguin-Carpenter from NEDCO and Dan Egan from the Springfield Chamber of Commerce were also in attendance to provide information. Mr. Tamulonis said at TEAM Springfield on January 28, 2012, the Springfield Chamber of Commerce and NEDCO described each organization’s activities and a desire to do additional programs in Springfield to help turn around the local economy in useful and effective ways. Ms. Carpenter, Executive Director of NEDCO, said they felt that between the two proposals, they had a comprehensive approach to economic development strategies for Springfield that were focused and with good measurable outcomes. NEDCO was initiating a Business Assistance Program. They would be focusing on businesses of about 30 employees or less who already existed and perhaps some start- up businesses interested in locating in Springfield. They were hoping to do some assessment on these individual businesses to find out their individual needs, how they were doing their business now, if they had good operations and capital, and what they needed to move to the next level of productivity. Ideally, they would be looking at job creation and increased revenues. They also had some strategies that could be combined with their Incubator Program to potentially fill up some empty storefronts in various parts of the City. This program would be targeted assistance based on the actual needs of the business. It would require some classroom work, one-on-one business coaching and counseling, and mentoring. They wanted to make sure the businesses that were more technically specific got exactly the type of technical expertise they needed. The program would provide industry specific training as well as general business practices to help people who were doing business in Springfield, or wanted to locate in Springfield, take advantage of market opportunities and grow. Mr. Grimaldi said this program would be funded mostly through TEAM Springfield ($20,000), with an additional $15,000 of budgeted City funds. Mr. Egan, Executive Director of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce, said their program was more focused on new businesses coming into Springfield. The Chamber had been very anxious to do this work for the City as they saw the growth and diversity of the economy. Part of that growth was businesses expanding and doing better, but part of it was to welcome new businesses to our City. Many of the businesses in the Gateway area had come from other states and cities, and they had added City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 2 energy and diversity to our economy. The Chamber of Commerce would like get started so Springfield would have a continual program of recruiting and welcoming businesses. There were three components to this program. The first two would be done by a university class from the University of Oregon. The Chamber had already contracted with the University and they would begin work in June or July to do an economic scan to show where Springfield was now, where the strengths and weaknesses were, and qualify clusters. Qualifying clusters was a common strategy to try to increase businesses within clusters that were already successful in cities. The students would be conducting interviews with people in all parts of Springfield where businesses could grow. Implementation would flow from the first two parts. It was likely they would start with two clusters to support and grow with new businesses coming into Springfield or expanding into Springfield. He and Mr. Tamulonis had met with a couple of businesses from Eugene that were trying to find a location in Springfield. They would meet with businesses such as that on a continual basis, but would also proactively reach out into the national development community and ask them to look at Springfield. Springfield needed to get to a place where we could compete and that took a lot of research. The end result of their activity would be more businesses from other areas coming to Springfield and adding jobs and investment in the land. The Chamber would self-fund this initiative by working with the University and also raising funds from the private sector. They would like the City to be involved in a small way when needed, but for the most part they believed the private sector would support this effort. Councilor Woodrow thanked them for the two-pronged approach. She asked if the students would identify future clusters for specific areas in Springfield, such as Thurston. Mr. Egan said clusters weren’t necessarily location specific, but more industry specific. It might mean second or third tier businesses with good jobs locate in Springfield. Some clusters may fit better in a certain location, but currently they were looking at clusters of businesses where Springfield could compete. Councilor Pishioneri said he was pro business in both finding businesses and for existing businesses. He asked where Lane Metro Partnership fell into this plan and if there was redundancy. The City currently paid funds to Lane Metro Partnership. Mr. Egan said the Chamber had approached the City several years ago with a modest proposal to begin this type of work. In the interim, the things noted in phase one and two of their proposal did not occur in Springfield. He felt that unless the Chamber took on those tasks, it would not get done by another agency. The Metro Partnership’s role was to do some of the things listed here, but he was convinced Springfield needed to take care of business in Springfield and the Chamber had a desire to take on that task in order to get it done. He didn’t feel there would be a redundancy. The Chamber would meet with the Metro Partnership and gather information, but this would be breaking new ground that the Metro Partnership had not done. Mr. Grimaldi said the Metro Partnership primarily responded to leads from the State and a couple of other sources and were not doing active recruitment. The Chamber proposal would be actively recruiting businesses. That was a distinct difference. Councilor Ralston said he had thought of clusters as area specific, but it sounded like they meant more of a business cluster. Mr. Egan gave examples such as RV industry, health care and manufacturing clusters. The clusters were base on activity. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 3 Councilor Ralston said it could also be based on vacant land available. Mr. Egan said that was true. Councilor Moore asked about the scan that would be provided by the University students. She asked if this was an inventory of businesses in Springfield. Mr. Egan said developers wanted information about communities such as the tax base, SAT scores, available land, etc. The students would be gathering that type of information. Councilor Moore said it sounded like it was more workforce, livability and tax rates, and not so much the businesses currently located in Springfield. Mr. Egan said the businesses here did come into play as well. Mayor Lundberg said she was very happy NEDCO was taking on small businesses because they were great champions of small businesses. Many small businesses didn’t have the extra time or energy to focus on those types of things. She supported that partnership and putting funding towards that effort. She recalled when the Springfield Chamber came to the Council last time with a proposal to help take care of Springfield in their approach to businesses. The Council needed to think about what was provided by the Lane Metro Partnership, who benefited and what level of support should be provided by the City. The purpose of the Metro Partnership was economic development. She wanted to know what it would mean if the Chamber worked on bringing large businesses to Springfield in terms of funding. Mr. Grimaldi said during their upcoming budget process, Council would have the opportunity to discuss how much they would put into the budget. They could also look at their contracts with various outside agencies. Mayor Lundberg said the Council needed to determine what they wanted to see happen and who would participate. She said the two initiatives presented were great and could help bring jobs to Springfield. She thanked Ms. Carpenter and Mr. Egan for sharing their initiatives. 2. Scenario Planning Update. Planning Manager Greg Mott and Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt presented this item. Mr. Boyatt said the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) would meet on May 10 to review a draft work program for scenario planning. Attachment 1 of the agenda packet was a one page piece on the scenario planning framework, and Attachment 2 was the draft Scope of Work which the various metro area agencies had been putting together. Attachment 3 was a slide show that had been presented to the MPC by a representative from Fregonese Associates and was provided to the Council for information. He referred to page 3 of Attachment 2 of the agenda packet which included the three stages of scenario planning. This outlined how staff planned on proceeding. It included time to determine the choices, strategies and actions, and output measures. The next step would be designing and evaluating scenarios in 2013, and testing the choices in 2014. Their hope was to take this state-mandated activity which would be reimbursed by Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and investigate different pieces for the community and look at community livability to make things easier for people such as Mr. Tamulonis and Mr. Egan to bring businesses to the community. There was a lot of positive City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 4 in this process. There were benefits to Springfield that could be investigated through the scenario planning process. Councilor Woodrow asked if the scenario process determined realistic end results. Mr. Boyatt said it could do that as a second layer. He provided an example of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which was cost prohibitive. The first step was to dream big, then find ways through the process that were feasible. Councilor Woodrow said the graph going out to 2050 showed very few people in cars. She asked if they were realistically headed in that direction or if that was the big dream that could be brought down to something more realistic. Mr. Boyatt said the ultimate preferred scenario needed to be agreed to by the Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO) members, but there was no requirement at this time for implementation. Councilor Wylie referred to the Sustainability Conference she just attended, and was excited about the scenario planning. Mayor Lundberg said she understood there was a lot of work to do and it was difficult to determine what was wanted and how they would get there. She asked if they would eventually be required to implement the planning scenario. Mr. Mott said the law didn’t require it at this time, but Council could determine they would like to move forward with some of the plans. It was hoped that the values Council wanted to see enhanced in the community were consistent with what would be done whether or not they were required to go through this process. It could be something that was out of our reach financially or because of timing, but was now something they could move forward with. He would hate to see this effort taken without a product as an end result. This could be very beneficial and in the City’s best interest. He also noted that the biggest investment the City had other than its citizens, was the transportation system. It was hard to imagine that infrastructure wouldn’t continue to be shared. It was a good transportation system and would still provide efficient connections for everyone, including automobiles. Mayor Lundberg asked if the scenario planning was for Springfield, or Eugene and Springfield, and if it would then go to the State. Mr. Boyatt said this was a several year process. The MPO was charged with doing this by legislation, but the jurisdictions (Springfield, Eugene, Lane County) were charged with cooperatively selecting the preferred scenario. There was a report back requirement where the MPO would report to a State legislative committee. He was not sure what would happen from that point. Mr. Grimaldi said Springfield’s scenario would be independent of Eugene. If something conflicted, that could be sorted out between parties. Mr. Mott said looking at the benchmark or measurement required by statute, it would be possible based on the work Envision Eugene had done, that they could make some changes to their number and location of town centers, mixed-use centers and transit ridership, and achieve the benchmark mandated by the State. He provided the example of Metro who had already undertaken this task. They had developed a number of different techniques to make changes to their land use and transportation plans. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 5 As a result, they were able to meet the standard benchmark in over 80 of 120 scenarios. The local effort was to create two scenarios to select and agree upon. Mr. Boyatt said the different pieces of the scenario could be different in Springfield compared to Eugene. Councilor Ralston said the goal was to reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles under 10,000 pounds by 20% below the 2005 level by 2035. He asked if they had the benchmark from 2005. Yes. He asked for clarification of a 10,000 pound vehicle. Mr. Mott said that would include almost every automobile and most every pickup truck. When creating the legislation, the vast majority of vehicles on the road were personal vehicles. Freight was subject to State, and the State was trying to plan for a reduction of GHG emissions on the freight system, air rail, buildings, etc. It was a broader approach to GHG emissions. Mayor Lundberg thanked them for the information. 3. Police Special Levy Renewal. Finance Director Bob Duey and Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. The current 5-year Police Special Levy would expire at the end of the next fiscal year (June 30, 2012) and would require a successful vote, most likely in November 2012, to renew the levy for an additional 5 years. Essential services provided by the City relied on the $1.09 per thousand of assessed valuation levy for funding. This levy, first passed in 2002, added funding for the Municipal Jail in 2006 and now included police and jail services as well as municipal court and city prosecutor. Staff was asking Council to consider both service and funding level requirements in establishing the final ballot measure. Staff was recommending that the Council execute a request for a special levy election to be filed with Lane County Elections prior to any summer break. Mr. Duey said the questions tonight were regarding rates for a levy and what to put on the ballot. Tonight staff was looking to see what additional information Council would need for their second work session on June 4. During their June 4 work session, it would be best if Council could provide direction to staff about how to prepare a final ballot title that could be filed with the County. Mr. Duey explained the process of putting a measure on the ballot and submitting it to Lane County. There were requirements for the ballot title regarding number of words for the title, question and summary. Council would hold a public hearing on the ballot title and adopt it by resolution. The ballot title would then be submitted to Lane County and provided a number. Any informational distributions by the City or campaigning by a political action committee (PAC) could begin after that time. Staff would like to have the ballot title approved by resolution of the Council prior to summer recess to allow adequate time to provide information to the public. If Council was comfortable with a figure during their June 4 work session, staff would bring it to Council for formal approval on July 2. Mr. Duey provided some history on this levy for those councilors that were not here when it was first put on the ballot. In 2000, staff met with Council to discuss how to improve services. One of the highest priorities was to improve response time with a levy. Discussions were also held at that time about whether a levy for services or a bond measure to build a jail should go first. In 2002, Council decided to put the levy of services on the ballot. That first levy allowed Police to hire about 22 FTE, most in the Police Department, some in Court and some in the Prosecutor’s Office. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 6 Chief Smith said response times were cut significantly with the first levy. Mr. Duey said by the time the 2002 levy expired, the bond measure for the jail had been approved. Council was cautious about a levy for operations of the jail so construction of the jail was delayed until the City had funding for the first three years of operation. The levy that went forward in 2006 increased the amount to $1.09 to pay the increased cost of the existing police levy and operation of the jail. That was a five year levy that spanned six years as they did not collect during the first year of the levy. That period would be up June 30, 2013. Mr. Duey said the figures in the agenda packet were an attempt to renew the current level of service. The first figure was $1.34, but after using other factors they were able to bring that amount down to $1.22. This was still an increase over the current rate by $0.13. A community survey would be conducted by an outside firm to determine the tolerance for support for the different rates. Information from that survey would be available by June 4 for the Council’s next work session. Chief Smith said the jail was accomplishing the goals intended and making people accountable for misdemeanor offenses. People were posting bail. He noted the figures of bail funds that had come in since the jail opened. Failure to appear which had been costing the department had been reduced substantially. He noted four members of the Police Planning Task Force (PPTF) who were in the audience and thanked them for attending. A letter from the PPTF had been distributed to the Mayor and Council, which stated the PPTF was comfortable with the $1.22 level and supported going forward with the levy. Mr. Duey said the jail budget was set in 2005 before the jail was fully designed. The jail had come in fairly close to those projections regarding revenues. Staffing levels had decreased by one FTE and overall operational costs for the jail were in line with projections. The jail was a large operation and was fully operational. Councilor Moore asked if there was a Fire and Life Safety (F&LS) levy. Mr. Duey said there was a F&LS levy that was $0.36/thousand. That levy was first passed in 2006 at the rate of $0.36, increased to $0.40 in 2006, and then went back to $0.36 in 2010. That levy would expire in June 30, 2016. Councilor Moore asked what we might expect to see if the County put a levy on the November ballot. Mr. Grimaldi said the Sheriff and District Attorney would likely do all they could to try to get something before the voters in November. It would, however, be up to the Board of Commissioners who had expressed some reluctance to put a measure on the ballot. Councilor Moore said that would have an impact on Springfield. Mr. Grimaldi said in the past, voters had voted independently. Last time the County and City had measures on the ballot at the same time, both passed in Springfield. Councilor Moore asked what other funding sources could be used so the levy would no longer be needed. She asked if it would be an increase from the General Fund to the Police Department. Chief Smith said it would most likely come from the General Fund, or less likely from a law enforcement district. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 7 Councilor Moore asked how much General Fund money it would take to replace the levy. Mr. Duey said it would take about $6M per year, which was a very high percentage of the General Fund. There could be options to find funding for other non General Fund purposes, but those had been difficult to find in the past. When the committee looked at this before the Jail was built, they prepared a report on about a half dozen different types of funding sources. At that time, the committee recommended an income tax, but that did not have community support. If Council wanted to try something besides the levy, they would need to start looking at options now in order to have something in place by the time the next levy expired. Councilor Moore spoke regarding street funds and asked how staff was progressing with the community outreach. Mr. Grimaldi said Development and Public Works staff were starting conversations with a committee about the condition of our streets to look at possible solutions. They would bring those results back to the Council in the early or late fall for further direction. Councilor Moore asked if one of the options could include a tax levy. Yes. Councilor Woodrow summarized the discussion from the PPTF meeting. The group discussed various levy amounts between $1.09 and $1.34. The basic amount of providing the current levels of service resulted in the $1.22 figure which was the recommendation of the PPTF. The community had been very responsive to the success of the Police levies and had seen the results. That positive outlook and sense in the community would help the levy be marketable at $1.22. At $1.09, the department would need to cut what was being provided. The PPTF felt citizenry would understand costs had risen over the last five years. Mayor Lundberg asked staff what they were looking for tonight from the Council. Mr. Duey said if staff knew which figures Council wanted staff to look at further, they could address those figures when doing the community survey. If Council wanted staff to look at the $1.09 figure, more discussion would be needed on the impacts on other services in the City. Staff wanted to make sure that they brought back information on June 4 that responded to Council concerns. Councilor Pishioneri said the increase in assessed valuation in FY11 was .95% and 3.6% in FY12. The increase from the 2006 levy of $1.09 to the proposed figure of $1.22 was about a 12% increase. He asked what type of positive impact would occur on the levy. Mr. Duey said when he started with the FY12 valuation, he increased it by 3% over the next 6 years. Councilor Pishioneri said those were low figures. Mr. Duey said there should be some increase, but if we didn’t receive the assessed value (AV) expected, services could be adjusted during some of the years. Assuming no growth for five years, the dollar rate became so high it would not have been worth pursuing. He tried to find middle ground to propose a rate that was reasonable for growth, but was still manageable. Councilor Pishioneri asked how much of the funds from the levy went to court and prosecutor services. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 8 Mr. Duey said in the proposed budget for the next year, the prosecutor would receive about $69,000 and the court would receive about $334,000. Councilor Pishioneri said he was comfortable with $1.22, but they would need to explain to citizens why it was being increased by 12%. He asked if there was a plan if the funds weren’t adequate. Mr. Grimaldi said they would try to make up for any shortfall with the General Fund if needed. A shortage during the first year could likely be absorbed. Councilor Pishioneri said he appreciated the work. Councilor Moore asked if the City could make up for the loss of services we received from Lane County, such as the medical examiner and prosecution services, with this levy. Mr. Grimaldi said Lane County was still exploring some options regarding the medical examiner and were making some progress. Councilor Moore asked if it would be worth looking at increasing the $1.22 rate another $0.03 to have some funding available to provide some of those services if needed. Mr. Grimaldi said staff would bring that back to the June meeting for more discussion. Councilor Woodrow said it was important to have this ready before recess to allow time to get information out to the citizens. Councilor Wylie said she would like to have talking points if they moved ahead with the levy to address questions when talking with citizens and community groups. She would like information regarding the increase and how much it would cost for an average house. Councilor Ralston said it was fair to say it was a 12% increase over six years. Mr. Duey said the rate was going up 12%, but there had been some revenue decreases and expense increases. Councilor Ralston said that was only an increase of 2% per year. The City’s budget had gone up more than that. Mr. Duey said he felt they had managed the cost on the levy well. It wasn’t that the costs were out of line, but that costs were going up and the AV hadn’t gone up as much as anticipated six years ago. Discussion was held regarding the 12% increase being effective the first year. It was noted that it had taken 6 years to build to the 12%. Councilor Pishioneri asked about other measures that might go forward in the November election. Willamalane Superintendent Bob Keefer said Willamalane may have a 20 year bond that would be on the ballot. It could cost the average home about $48. Councilor Pishioneri asked about compression. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 9 Mr. Duey said the Willamalane bond measure would be outside of compression. Our additional $0.13 would get us closer to compression, but still below. If the County went forward with a levy for public safety, it would affect compression. The County had the compression figure, but it was around the $9 mark. Councilor Pishioneri said if we reached compression, the City would get less than our levy amount. Mr. Duey said each levy that was in place would receive less equally. Mayor Lundberg said Councilor Moore had a good point about the County and the loss of services. People would want to know if the City was trying to make up for the loss of County services through our levy. How that would be addressed with the public needed to be discussed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ 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, MAY 7, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 7, 2012 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Matthew Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. 2012 Earth Day Poster Contest Winners. Environmental Services Public Information Specialist Rachael Chilton presented this item. Ms. Chilton said this year’s theme for the Earth Day Poster Contest was “Small Hands Change the World”. A record number of entries were submitted this year, about 300, from 5th graders around Springfield, so seven were awarded rather than five. Mayor Lundberg presented award certificates to the seven winners: • 1st Place: Carlos Lopez • 2nd Place: Mary Jane Westover • 3rd Place: Dani Shive • 4th Place: Destiny Keith • 5th Place: Dawn Harrison • 6th Place: Maykayla Collins • 7th Place: Jose Sanchez 2. Groundwater Guardians Presentation. Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly said this was an important time to acknowledge the work Springfield did to keep our drinking water clean. This was done through the implementation of our drinking water protection overlay district, which was part of the Springfield Development Code. When development came in with their application and they were within a ‘time of travel’ zone for our drinking water protection wellheads, they went through an additional layer of review to make sure their development would comply. She provided the example of the new fueling facility at Fred Meyer on 5th and Q Streets. Fred Meyer went above and beyond and should be commended for making sure everything at the fuel facility and in their store was in compliance. She introduced Amy Chinitz, Water Quality Protection Coordinator at Springfield Utility Board. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 2 Ms. Chinitz thanked the Mayor and City Council for their continued support of Springfield Groundwater Guardians. Approximately 90% of the drinking water in Springfield came from ground water. This source was not seen, but was susceptible to contamination of human activity that took place above ground. The job of the Springfield Groundwater Guardian team was to help the community ‘see’ groundwater by building awareness of this precious resource and creating opportunities to protect it. Springfield had been a Groundwater Guardian community for 15 years. To earn the Groundwater Guardian designation, a number of things had been done. Young chemists from Thurston High School’s community water testing lab continued to test private well water samples for over 100 households, while their counterparts in the field conducted water quality monitoring in our local streams. With funds from a Drinking Water Protection Grant, more public water systems teamed up with Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) to develop an informative, interactive website about protecting drinking water. Staff from the City of Springfield continued to work with local businesses to ensure that stormwater facilities such as bioswales were kept in good condition so they could do their job of filtering stormwater runoff which was a direct benefit to groundwater. They also partnered with Lane County Waste Management and other agencies to sponsor their Annual One-Day Household Hazardous Waste Roundup in the Middle Fork Willamette watershed where 65 participants properly disposed of over 5000 pounds of hazardous waste. These highlights illustrated that taking action to protect groundwater could mean a lot of different things and everybody could play a role. On behalf of the Groundwater Guardian team, she presented a plaque which represented national recognition of Springfield’s accomplishments during 2011. She thanked the City for helping to keep Springfield a Groundwater Guardian community. Mayor Lundberg received the plaque on behalf of the City. 3. DUII Officer of the Year Award, Officer Tom Speldrich. Police Chief Jerry Smith presented this item. One of the goals of the Police Department was to make the streets as safe as possible for the public, and drunk drivers killed more people than those involved in homicides. Officer Tom Speldrich, a 4 year veteran of the Springfield Police Department had been recognized by the Oregon DUII Multi-Disciplinary Task Force as the DUII Officer of the Year for 2011. He received the Award April 20th at the annual conference. Officer Speldrich arrested 202 impaired drivers during 2011. The skill and commitment to engage in that volume of activity demonstrated extremely exceptional dedication. Officer Speldrich was also certified as a Drug Recognition Expert to identify those who drove under the influence of Drugs. Chief Smith noted that there was a lot of additional time involved when arresting a drunk driver, including paperwork, attendance at hearings and training. Chief Smith said he was very proud of Officer Speldrich. Officer Speldrich introduced his family who were in the audience. He said they were the ones that supported him the most. Mayor Lundberg thanked him for his work. He had taken people off the road that were a danger to the citizens. She also thanked his family for their support. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 3 4. McKenzie/Willamette Award Recognition. Community Relations Manager Niel Laudati presented this item. The Cardiovascular Unit (CVU) at McKenzie Willamette Medical Center (MWMC) had received the Silver Beacon Award for Critical Care Excellence. This award, given by the American Association of Critical Care Nurses (AACN) recognized the nation’s top hospital units that cared for acutely and critically ill patients. MWMC’s CVU was one of 315 out of 6,000 critical care units’ nationwide, one of seven units in the State of Oregon, and the first CHS Critical Care Unit honored with this award. Mr. Laudati introduced Nurse Manager Becky Bellingham from McKenzie Willamette Medical Center. Ms. Bellingham introduced Monica Gibbs, one of the units charge nurses. This award was given by the American Association of Critical Care Nurses (AACN). Certain criteria had to be met in order to receive this award. The criteria identified included leadership and organizational ethics, retention, education, training and mentoring, research and evidence based practice, healing environment and patient outcomes. The section that received the most weight was patient outcome where they had to prove they had done all the right things to provide patients with the best care and best outcomes. Ms. Bellingham said the CVU opened in December of 2006 and was a specialty unit for cardiovascular patients. Their nurses were trained specifically in cardiovascular patients, physicians were specialty physicians and there was great collaboration between the two groups. When they opened, they researched the best way to care for the patients and give them the best outcomes. The model they used was the One-Stop Model. With this model patients came to the unit from the beginning to the end. They had their own patient educator who met with the patients and did all of the patient education. The patients were admitted to their unit, had their surgeries in the unit and stayed with them until they left the hospital. That gave the patients continuity and they were not moved to other areas of the hospital. The physicians all worked together for the benefit of the patients. Both patients and their families appreciated this approach. The staff in the CVU chose to work towards the Beacon. Their inter-practice committee, many of whom were in the audience, worked for about a year on this process. Ms. Gibbs was the coordinator to get them to this point. Ms. Bellingham recognized all of the members of this group who were in the audience. Ms. Bellingham said with this award they joined Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU), St. Vincent’s and Salem Hospital, as recipients of this award. McKenzie Willamette Medical Center was the first in Lane County to receive this award and the first unit in Community Health Systems, their parent company. They were very proud of their achievements and thanked the administration for the support they provided. They appreciated being recognized by the community leaders. Mayor Lundberg presented Ms. Bellingham with a letter of congratulations. The City enjoyed taking the opportunity to celebrate our community’s great successes. She thanked them all for their hard work. 5. ALS Awareness Month Proclamation. Mayor Lundberg proclaimed May 2012 as ALS Awareness Month. She read from the proclamation. ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s Disease was a disorder of the motor neurons causing death of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control the action of voluntary muscles. ALS currently affected an estimated City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 4 35,000 Americans with over 5000 new ALS cases diagnosed annually with a life expectancy between three and five years. MDA leads the search for treatments and care for ALS through its aggressive worldwide research and MDA/ALS clinical programs including those in Eugene, Medford and Portland. It was the responsibility of all Oregon citizens to value the worth, dignity, rights and hopes of families affected by ALS. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. April 9, 2012 – Council Annual Planning Meeting b. April 16, 2012 – Work Session c. April 16, 2012 – Regular Meeting d. April 23, 2012 – Work Session 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Springfield Utility Board for the 10th and N Sewer Upgrade – Phase 1 Project. b. Approve Purchase of Oracle Database Appliance Hardware for the Asset Management System Replacement Project from Six Degrees Consulting for $48,136.58 and Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute all Documents Required to Effect the Transaction. c. Approve Purchase of Autodesk Data Migration and System Integration Services for the Asset Management System Replacement Project from Autodesk, Inc. for $125,000 and Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute all Documents Required to Effect the Transaction. d. Approve the Purchase of 110 Personal Computers, 10 Laptops, and 105 Monitors for the Enterprise-wide Microsoft Windows 7 Upgrade Project from Dell Marketing L.P. for $136,158.00 Utilizing Dell Premier Cooperative Purchasing Pricing and Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute All Documents Required to Effect the Transaction. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON) ITEMS REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. 1. Proposed Resolution Setting Local and Regional Wastewater and Stormwater User Fees. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-05 – A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL SETTING LOCAL AND REGIONAL SEWER USER FEES AND LOCAL STORMWATER USER FEES AS SET FORTH IN THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE. Environmental Services Manager Ron Bittler presented the staff report on this item. At current rates, the local and regional wastewater and local stormwater user fees would not produce sufficient revenue to fully fund the proposed fiscal year (FY) 12-13 budgets for these funds. Council action was needed to establish new rates for FY 12-13. Each year, the City Council reviewed and established the rates for local wastewater and stormwater user fees. These rates were established to provide adequate revenue to fund operation and maintenance (O&M) of Springfield’s sanitary sewer and stormwater systems, and a portion of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for each program. The Council also adopted the user fees set by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) for the Regional Wastewater Program.   The City Council reviewed and discussed the proposed local wastewater and stormwater user fee increase at its April 23, 2012 work session. Staff had prepared a schedule of user charges for a public hearing, based on a 4% increase in both the local wastewater and local stormwater user fees. In addition, the Council was informed that the MWMC adopted a 4% increase in the regional wastewater user fees that also needed to be incorporated into the schedule of user charges for FY 12-13. Given the Council’s input during the work session on future rate increases, staff had begun exploring options for a long-term strategy for reducing pressure on user fees. It was expected that any successful strategy would take several years to implement and would depend, at least in part, on the City’s ability to significantly reduce reliance on user rates as a source of capital, by improving the ability of SDC revenues to take up the burden of capital investment. This could reduce the need to rely on future debt financing and reduce the importance of providing coverage for debt service as an operating budget constraint.   Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, a resolution establishing the local and regional wastewater and local stormwater user fees for FY 12-13, was provided for Council consideration. It was requested that the Council consider acting on the resolution following the public hearing. Rates would go into effect on July 1, 2012. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012-05. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON). 2. Fiscal Year 2012-2013 One-Year Action Plan of the Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development (City of Springfield Section). Housing Manager Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. One-Year Action Plans must be submitted to HUD prior to the beginning of each fiscal year as amendments to the five-year Eugene- Springfield Consolidated Plan. The purpose of the annual action plan was to indicate how the cities City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 6 intended to use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds to fulfill the priorities established in the Consolidated Plan. This was the third One-Year Action Plan under the 2010 Consolidated Plan. The City of Springfield received CDBG funds as an entitlement community and HOME funds as a participant in a HOME consortium agreement with the City of Eugene. CDBG funds were awarded to communities who carried out community development activities directed towards neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and the provision of improved community facilities and services. HOME funding was a housing block grant program allocated to communities to be used for housing rehabilitation, new construction, acquisition and tenant based rental assistance activities. A public hearing was held on April 16, 2012, to review and consider applications for CDBG or HOME funding. Council approved nine projects for CDBG funding and two projects for HOME funding. The FY2012-2013 One Year Action Plan included the CDBG and HOME funding allocations for projects and activities, and was consistent with the Council’s April 16 actions. The Plan must be approved by both the City of Springfield and City of Eugene prior to submission to HUD. In addition to the approved projects, a description of other activities that may be initiated was included in both the CDBG and HOME sections of the Action Plan. The public comment period for the City of Springfield section of the document concluded with the public hearing on May 7, 2012. The City of Eugene section of the Action Plan was being adopted separately by the Eugene City Council. The combined Eugene-Springfield One-Year Action Plan would be submitted to HUD on or before May 15, 2012 for review and acceptance. Mayor Lundberg said in the past they had a set-aside in CDBG for the downtown area. This year there were downtown projects, but no set-aside. Downtown was still a focus for redevelopment and revitalization. She would like to propose that a downtown set-aside would be put under consideration for the future. Mr. Ko said they couldn’t add a set-aside next year as it was the third year of a three-year aggregate. All of the funds under the cap to spend would be accessible for downtown projects. They couldn’t carry over any CDBG funds to the following year. Mayor Lundberg suggested that Council keep in mind to continue the set-aside when the time was appropriate. Mr. Ko said he would be happy to remind the Council as they approached that time. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD SECTION OF THE FY2012-2013 ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON). 3. Liquor License Endorsements for the Renewal Period of 2012-2013. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 7 Assistant Community Services Manager Jackie Murdoch presented the staff report on this item. The attached list of 159 businesses would likely be applying to the Development Services Department for their 2012-2013 liquor license endorsements prior to June 30, 2012. On December 19, 1994, Council approved Ordinance No. 5768 that established specific criteria to be used when reviewing an application for a liquor license endorsement. Council may recommend denial based upon reliable, factual information as it related to any of the criteria listed in Section 7.302 of the Springfield Municipal Code. Some of the required information for liquor license renewal, i.e., ownership of the establishment, could not be determined until staff received the actual application. However, some determination about meeting the listed criteria could be made now since the criteria related to the level of police activity associated with the establishment. The public hearing this evening was scheduled for Council to receive community testimony relative to the liquor license renewal endorsement. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council was requested to provide one of the following recommendations to the Oregon Liquor License Commission for the license renewal of the listed establishments: 1. Grant; 2. No Recommendations; 3. Do Not Grant Unless (applicant demonstrates commitment to overcome listed concerns); or 4. Deny. At this time, staff has no information that would tend to support negative recommendations on these renewals. Accordingly, subject to any public input received at the hearing, staff recommended that the Council provide a positive recommendation for renewal to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Councilor Pishioneri said one of the downtown establishments had four DUII arrests noted. That caused him concern so he asked how that compared with other establishments citywide. Chief Smith said he didn’t have that data with him tonight. When Police looked at the data, there was nothing that appeared to be a concern. The establishment referred to by Councilor Pishioneri had a high number of patrons and it was difficult to determine if it was much better or worse than other establishments. Councilor Pishioneri felt that data might be helpful in the future. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO GRANT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON). BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. Mia Nelson, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Ms. Nelson said she last spoke on March 13 during the joint public hearing with Lane County Board of Commissioners on the Metro Plan Boundary Amendment. After the public comments, some things were said by County Commissioners and staff that she felt were confusing. Following additional research City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 8 on those issues, Ms. Nelson submitted a letter while the record was still open. She provided copies for those that did not receive the letter. One of the things that concerned her most was the County’s response to the question, “What’s in it for Springfield?”. The answer given was that it would help disenfranchise property owners. The concept was that people that lived outside the UGB couldn’t vote for the Springfield elected officials, so Springfield should not have a right to vote on their proposals. In her research she found that this happened only once to a corporation. Beyond that, it was common for someone to own property in one jurisdiction and live in another. Those property owners did not expect to be able to vote on issues as a property owner if they did not live in that jurisdiction. That had been the case for properties outside the UGB for decades. She discussed one example that was actually the County’s fault. Springfield should not be giving up their rights for that reason. The other situation was when someone wanted to redesignate their land, which was very rare. She would hate to see the City forfeit their right to weigh in on those types of situations. She hoped the Council would think about City residents who could be disenfranchised if the City gave up their power to weigh in on the area outside the UGB but within the Metro Plan Boundary. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports 1. Councilor Pishioneri referred to a letter addressed to the Lane County Board of Commissioners that had been provided to the Council regarding Transient Room Tax (TRT) funds and the amount going to Travel Lane County (TLC). Councilor Pishioneri served on the TLC Board. A percentage of TRT had been going to TLC for many years under an agreement with Lane County. That funding was being scrutinized by Lane County. The letter quantified the importance of the funds to TLC and asked Lane County to honor their agreement. He was asking Council to consent that a copy of the letter be sent to the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Councilor Ralston said he supported sending the letter, but knew Lane County was having severe budget issues. Councilor Pishioneri agreed that the outcome was uncertain. Councilor Woodrow said it was important to let Lane County know where the Council stood on the subject. Council concurred. The letter would be prepared for the Mayor’s signature and mailed. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 9 2. Councilor Wylie spoke regarding the Sustainable Communities Conference she was able to attend in Sonoma County California. In the past, the word ‘sustainability’ came on fast and started as a buzz word without much explanation of what it meant. She made a point at the conference to open up, listen and learn. Four tracts were offered and she chose Transportation and she was able to bring back a lot of information for the Public Works staff. Sustainability was to maintain and preserve. Maintaining clean water and clean air in adequate resources to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness today and in the future equaled sustainability. It was to make life livable today and in the future. During the transportation workshops, she studied saving energy. Some of the ways to save energy included electric or hybrid vehicles, waste management to utilize methane gas, and alternative forms of energy through wind, water and solar. She spoke regarding alternative vehicles. California had a lot of alternative types of cars. The speaker in the class said there were six types of alternative vehicles. The first three were: ethanol (corn or cellulosic); natural gas (in 2013 V8 trucks could be powered by natural gas); and hybrid (reduced mileage 33% and was part electric charge with a gas engine). Sonoma County had an all-electric and hybrid fleet, including some of their larger vehicles such as bucket trucks. The fleet for the County also had regenerative braking cycles which also saved a lot of money. Other alternative vehicles included electric cars and fuel cells (still in development). Councilor Wylie also learned about preserving resources such as water, air, soil, energy and food. There was a big movement in getting the community involved, growing foods, converting lawns to food, creating herb gardens, starting worm beds, installing low-flow, switching to hanging clothes lines, harvesting rain water, sharing resources and helping each other meet the challenges. Some of the terms she learned were: permiculture, which was similar to sustainable living; range anxiety, which was the fear of running out of an electric charge before getting to a charge station; and garage orphans, which were cars that didn’t have charging stations at home. Councilor Wylie said legislature in California had required communities to build charging networks in public places. There were grants and other payment sources. Councilor Ralston said the cost was coming from taxpayers. Councilor Wylie said if someone bought an electric vehicle, they would also buy a charging system for their home so there was less demand for public stations. There were two kinds of charges: 40kw which lasted 4-8 hours and the level 3 DC fast charging which lasted 20 minutes. She had a lot of information on funding and grant connections. The conference was extremely interesting and she would be happy to talk more with any of the councilors about what she learned. It was a coming technology. In their California community they were generating a lot of excitement of the changes. Some of the presenters were from Washington and there was some growth there for these sustainable practices. We would all be moving in this direction as we looked for ways to preserve our resources. Mayor Lundberg said there was always the opportunity for new industries that could create jobs as we moved in that direction. It would be important to find ways to figure this out, capitalize on it and bring jobs to our community. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 10 Councilor Wylie said that was the sentiment at the conference. b. Other Business BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Approval to Purchase One (1) Aerial Fire Apparatus. Fire Chief Randall Groves presented the staff report on this item. The aerial apparatus that Fire & Life Safety currently had was a 2002 Pierce aerial that had exceeded its’ reliable lifespan and was in need of replacement. This apparatus was currently housed at fire station #3 (28th Street station), and operated as a first-out engine from that location in central Springfield. This was the only aerial apparatus in the Springfield fleet, with a 100’ ladder and additional equipment typical of a ‘truck company’. This apparatus currently had approximately 75,000 miles on it and had undergone three transmission rebuilds in the past few years. This apparatus was no longer reliable, and the maintenance costs were increasing each year. Cooperative purchasing language in an existing City of Eugene contract with Pierce Manufacturing was available to procure this new Pierce Velocity Aerial Fire Apparatus. The City was using a five year lease purchase option, based on the significant cost of the apparatus. The first two payments on the lease would come from the Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Fund (fund 713). In years 3-5 funds currently dedicated to fire engine/pumper leases could be used to make the estimated $214,000 per year payments. Pierce Manufacturing had a 10-year contract to provide all fire apparatus to the City of Eugene. Pierce’s price represented a good value for the investment, and would maintain interoperability with Eugene Fire’s current/future apparatus plans. Eugene paid $916,342 for their newest aerial platform purchased off the Pierce contract. The Eugene contract stated a built in inflation factor of 4% per year, but our total price of $977,780 was only about 8% above the 2007 base. Additionally, if we were able to execute the contract by May 31, 2012, the City would save approximately $31,000, due to a scheduled price increase June 1, 2012. Councilor Moore asked what would happen with the old ladder truck. Chief Groves said that would be put up for sale, either through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process or through a broker. The truck would likely work for an organization that had less call volume than Springfield. The funds would be put back into equipment reserve. Councilor Moore said she appreciated their creativeness in this purchase. Chief Groves said by using this spec, it promoted standardization within the Three Battalion System. Many of the miles incurred on this apparatus were from a much busier station than where it was currently positioned. It had been moved from the Gateway Station to the 28th Street Station. They felt they could move the apparatus to this location because the Three Battalion System was in place. The call volume at that location was about half of what it was at the Gateway Station. They anticipated a long life cycle from this new engine. He noted that they had used a better spec on the engine, City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 7, 2012 Page 11 transmission, drive trains and running gears. Those were the areas that saw the most degradation during the life cycle of the vehicle. They believed they had a good spec going forward. Councilor Pishioneri asked what the expectant mileage was for that type of vehicle. He noted the type of engine used. Chief Groves said it was not typically the engine that failed, but rather the wear and tear on the transmission. The apparatus they were replacing had gone through 3 transmissions, which was unusual. They were now specing out to get the heaviest transmissions available for future purchases. Councilor Pishioneri asked about the average number of apparatus per city Chief Groves said there wasn’t an average. Based on Eugene’s history, they normally got about 12 years from their apparatus trucks, with five years as a reserve. The one being replaced here was ten years old. As they merged the two departments, there was not a need for a reserve aerial apparatus. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT TO LEASE PURCHASE ONE (1) AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS FROM PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC. FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $977,780.00. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A 5-YEAR, TAX EXEMPT, LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH OSHKOSH CAPITAL TO FINANCE THE APPARATUS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON). BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:57 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, MAY 14, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 14, 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, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Discuss Public Involvement Procedures for the Development Community to Participate in Review of Planning and Development Regulations. Planning Supervisor Jim Donovan and Civil Engineer Matt Stouder presented the staff report on this item. Staff recently completed a Developer Input Process (DIP) with members of the development community, where work products were focused on customer service, efficiency improvements and changes to ministerial code provisions. Some DIP members expressed a desire to work on other larger development related issues and staff has prepared a Developer Advisory Committee (DAC) concept for Council’s consideration. The recent DIP was a successful collaboration between the development community and City staff on continuous process improvement of issues prioritized by the development community. It was, however, limited in scope and lacked the broader public involvement process necessary for larger land use initiatives requested by some DIP members. In order to provide the flexibility to accomplish those requests, the structure would best be similar to a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), where Council would appoint a committee with specific goals and the resources necessary to provide broad public involvement. The Council would then review the committee’s work and provide direction to staff if some proposals were to be implemented. Attachment 1 of the agenda packet described staff’s proposal in more detail. The strengths of forming a DAC were in Council’s participation in goal setting and committee selection, broader committee involvement and input, and streamlined review of work products. These features included the strengths of the former DIP process and allowed for a broader range of issues to be reviewed. If Council was amenable to forming a DAC, staff would move forward with solicitation of DAC appointments for Council’s consideration prior to summer recess, and initiate committee work over the summer, before reporting back to Council in the fall on DAC priorities and issues. Mr. Donovan said a concern was to streamline the process while tackling some of the larger issues. Council involvement would be at two important junctures. The first was in the formation of the committee. Staff proposed following the standard notification process and putting public notice out for participation. The categories would be identified and submitted for Council to review and appoint members. Staff would then work with the committee by providing resources and expertise, and assist with the presentation to be brought to Council. Recommendations would come to Council from the committee with staff assisting. Council could then have work sessions and regular meetings to review City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2012 Page 2 the recommendation and consider resources necessary to take on the range of recommendations. At that point, Council could direct staff to move forward and prepare ordinances for amendments that could be desired. Mr. Donovan said a list of the recommended categories was included in the agenda packet for Council’s review and approval. If Council approved of those categories, staff would proceed with public notice for applicants. The Developer Input Process Committee provided a list of things they wanted to follow-up on from their meetings. Those items would be first to be reviewed by the new committee. They were trying to capture a range of topics. Staff hoped to return to Council in the Fall after working with the committee and prioritizing the issues. The Council would then confirm which issues staff would work on with the committee considering resources and timelines. Mr. Donovan said there was a range of members listed in the core categories from the building community, consultant community, business owners, environmental protection interests, citizens at large, and women in minority owned businesses. Staff was recommending 10-12 people on the committee to balance representation with the work of the committee. Councilor Woodrow asked if this would be an established committee that would be addressing certain tasks. She would like to see a Council liaison to this committee. Mr. Grimaldi said there were two types of committees: one that had a sunset date and one that was ongoing that never sunsetted. Councilor Woodrow said she understood that once this was established, it would be an ongoing committee. Mr. Donovan said the committee could address a set of issues and at that time Council could either continue it or sunset it. At this time, they were approving a structure for something that could be repeated and building a model that didn’t fit the standard approach. It would be at Council’s discretion whether or not it would be continued. Councilor Woodrow asked if members would be selected in light of the particular issues it was set up to address, or if the members would remain on the committee as new issues arose. Mr. Donovan said the work would be starting out general. Presumably the issues would be development related, but the population of the committee would be affecting the community as a whole. He felt they would want to select a broad range of committee members. Councilor Ralston said he looked at this as a temporary committee. Once the items had been addressed, they could sunset. He noted that the core category included 10 members, plus all of those listed in the discretion category. He felt a Planning Commission member needed to be there and wasn’t sure if a Councilor needed to be included. He was comfortable with the way it was presented. Councilor Pishioneri said he had heard positive feedback from local developers about this committee. It may sunset at some point, but he would like to see it as something that continued until such a time the Council felt it no longer produced outcomes. He felt a Councilor should be on this committee to get their input when the issues were brought to the full Council. He was also fine with having a Planning Commission member. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2012 Page 3 Councilor Moore asked about the time involvement with so many issues. The goals sounded admirable, but she was concerned about staff time needed. She wanted to know if now was a good time to add more to staff’s work load with so many tasks currently underway. Mr. Grimaldi suggested looking more into that later after the committee had met. The Council would then review what the committee had come up with, the amount of staff time needed and the expected result. Councilor Moore said she encouraged public input, but with the Glenwood Refinement Plan, street maintenance issues, staff was dealing with a lot. Mr. Grimaldi said that was appreciated. They had also experienced staff reductions. Councilor Wylie said sometimes committees were a good thing and sometime they were not. She was concerned that it could bring up new issues making more work and a longer process. She liked Councilor Pishioneri’s suggestion that the committee could continue as long as it was something that staff found was helpful. She would like to see it evaluated in about a year. Mr. Grimaldi said the original committee noted that some of the processes, like site review, were done differently in other jurisdictions. It might be good to evaluate what other communities were doing to find efficiencies. There could be other issues similar to that to evaluate. Councilor VanGordon asked if they would go to the original committee first for potential recruits to fill the membership of the new committee. Mr. Donovan said the public posting with identified positions would occur, but they would be notifying the original members of the openings. Mr. Stouder noted that some of those people could fit into multiple categories. Councilor VanGordon asked how staff would keep contact with those members that were not selected to serve on the new committee about the progress. Mr. Donovan said they had established relationships with those people and would continue to provide them with information. Councilor VanGordon said that was a positive that had come from this process. He agreed they needed to have a check-in point to make sure this was a good use of time and resources. That check-in could be in one year or after the first set of proposals was identified. Councilor Pishioneri said if there was a Council liaison, they could provide information to the rest of the Council on how things were going. Mayor Lundberg said this process did initiate some developer concerns that the City had gotten off- track. The City had been very good at working with the development community and that edge had been lost. The City was in an economic environment that required us to be competitive with other communities. She agreed with Mr. Grimaldi that we should look at what other jurisdictions were doing that was more efficient and better received. It was legitimate to look at all of those issues. She also supported having a Council liaison. It was helpful to have the Council liaison provide input when the recommendations came forward as they would have been in on all of the conversations. They would be City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2012 Page 4 a good sounding board. She would like the category for builders separated into residential and commercial, as they were two different types of builders. Councilor Ralston said he was not sure he wanted to look at what Eugene was doing, but was willing to do what made sense. He asked about the category ‘environmental protection x2’. Mr. Donovan said that would include people who would look at the quality of life, concern for the environment and livability of the community. Staff felt having two members from that category was proportional to the rest of the committee. Councilor Ralston said he wasn’t sure about having 2 people in that category. Sometimes environmentalists and developers clashed. Mr. Donovan said he felt having 2 was beneficial to get a better opinion. Councilor Ralston said he didn’t want them to be counterproductive. There were federal guidelines in place that the City had to follow regarding environmental concerns. Mr. Stouder said the term environmental was for someone interested in development, but not profiting from the developer. Councilor Ralston said the category of minorities that owned a business didn’t need to be targeted, but rather business owners in general. He didn’t feel that category needed to be x2. Councilor Wylie said she had discovered that now that we were involved in sustainability, there were people that were experts in development and sustainability. Those experts could help to make people aware of how to do things differently. She suggested changing the category of ‘environmental’ to ‘sustainability’. Councilor Ralston said he would prefer calling it sustainability. Councilor Wylie said ‘Women in Minority’ was included in the federal regulations for bids, so she felt that was an important category to keep. It could be one or two, but should be included. The question about non-profits in the housing industry was raised. They were listed in the discretionary category. Councilor Pishioneri suggested adding x2 to the ‘business owner’ category, with preference given to specific types of businesses, such as those owned by minorities or women. That could also be addressed under the discretionary category of ‘business owner – additional’. Mayor Lundberg said it was always beneficial to bring detractors to the table. Having everyone that had a vested interested involved was the best way to get cooperation. She was comfortable with the categories as noted and said they may not get more than one in each position. She didn’t want to be held back if they didn’t fill a category. She was comfortable with the committee categories, but would like to separate the builders into residential and commercial builders. Mr. Donovan said staff hoped to have 12-14 people on the committee including a Planning Commissioner and City Councilor. Council would set the priorities and agenda. Staff would work with the committee, come back to Council with a report of the recommendations and the type of research that City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2012 Page 5 needed to be done. They could then debrief and determine how soon the committee should meet again, or if changes needed to be made. 2. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Phase I (Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00006, TYP411-00005, TYP311-00001, TYP411-00007, Lane County File No. PA 11-5489). Planners Gary Karp and Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions conducted a public hearing on October 18, 2011 and continued the hearing on December 20, 2011. Based on the record and the public testimony received, the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the project proposal with 30 text modifications. On January 23, 2012, the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners conducted a work session on the proposed amendments. Issues raised by Councilors and Commissioners at that work session were addressed during the staff presentation at the April 2, 2012 joint public hearing. The Lane County Board of Commissioners had a first reading on the amendments on March 14, 2012. Following the April 2, 2012 joint public hearing and Council-Board deliberations, the Council elected to close the record and requested a work session to discuss the few remaining unresolved issues prior to their second reading, scheduled for June 4, 2012. The Commission chose to delay their decision until the Council action and moved to leave their record open until a third reading, scheduled for June 20, 2012. Distinct place, identity, a gem, preserve the magic of the river, Glenwood as a bridge, Glenwood as a diamond in the rough – these were some excerpts from the Glenwood Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) initial meeting and visioning session with staff when asked what about Glenwood should be preserved. Among many other attributes, words describing a rare, special and irreplaceable nugget of Springfield were mentioned a number of times. The Council and others had expressed similar sentiments over the years and this vision helped shape the policy proposals for Glenwood Phase I. Glenwood as a whole represented less than .02% of Springfield’s urban growth boundary (UGB), and Glenwood Phase I was an even smaller treasure. Ms. Markarian discussed the issues raised during the April 2 Council meeting. The issues were also noted in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. The first issue was Prohibition of Drive-Throughs. Ms. Markarian said information on this issue was on pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. In that section, nodes were explained. In the past Glenwood was designated as a node and Council had directed staff to expand that node through the 2030 process. The subarea D south was a potential future node with Lane Transit District’s (LTD) proposed expansion of the EmX facilities in the future. The Regional Transportation Plan also identified that area as a potential future node. Through the process, staff felt the nodal characteristics would be an attractor to significant development in that area of Glenwood and that auto-dependent and auto-oriented uses could possibly detract from that concept. On page 3 of Attachment 1, the discussion moved into the Transportation Planning Rule and that auto-related uses were counter to the nodal concept. Staff’s proposal for zoning and development standards supported the City’s request for a trip reduction calculation. That reduction was needed in order for development to occur concurrently with the phased improvements of Franklin Boulevard. Springfield would only be eligible for that reduction if drive- throughs were prohibited in the node. If drive-throughs were permitted outside of the node in Subarea D City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2012 Page 6 south, it would make designating that area as a node less feasible in the future. Staff recommended maintaining the proposed prohibition of drive-through facilities in Subareas A, B, C and D. Alternatively, Council could direct staff to maintain the prohibited use list as proposed within existing and proposed nodal development areas which included Subareas A, B, C and north of the railroad of Subarea D, and provide for an exception to the prohibition of drive-throughs in Subarea D south of the railroad tracks under the circumstances highlighted in Exhibit A of the agenda packet. The restrictions of Exhibit A allowed drive-throughs in Subareas D south, while trying to foster as much of a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. Councilor Ralston said he would have liked to have a map to remind him where the subareas were located. Ms. Markarian referred to a map on Attachment page 11. She noted where Subarea D was located on that map. Councilor Pishioneri asked for an example of a nodal development. Ms. Markarian said some of the development Council saw on their tour of Hillsboro included nodes. Councilor Pishioneri said drive-up coffee places and kiosks were very popular with residents. Based on this Plan, they would only be allowed south of the tracks in Subarea D. Mr. Grimaldi said it was not currently allowed in the Plan, but could be if Council chose to include the alternative outlined in the agenda packet. Ms. Markarian said this area was a potential node with a future EmX line planned for this area. They were trying to prime it for transit oriented, pedestrian friendly development. She explained how having drive-throughs could inhibit safe and pleasant pedestrian travel and could encourage more vehicle traffic. Councilor Wylie referred to the map. She was concerned that prohibited services were on businesses that were currently in Glenwood. Mr. Karp said all of those uses would stay until someone approached the property owner to redevelop the property. At that time, the property would be redeveloped according to the approved Plan. Ms. Markarian said a drive-through use was not the highest and best use of land. If a developer wanted to put in a nice hotel or attractive apartment complex and they wanted to maintain the value of their land, a drive-through could detract from the value of the land and they may choose not to develop. Mayor Lundberg said the City first addressed nodes in the TransPlan process. Nodes referred to employment centers where people lived, worked and played. The City designated the Franklin node, so we were working within regulations already in place. That had already been done and high density residential had been placed in that area. Subarea D was a potential node within a 20 year time frame, so that was a different type of area. She would like to separate Subarea D out to look at possible drive- through exceptions. She said there was a coffee shop near the EmX Station in Springfield and she didn’t think that devalued the property. Ms. Markarian said staff had proposed drive-throughs in Subarea D while remaining as pedestrian and bicycle friendly as possible. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2012 Page 7 Mayor Lundberg said there were ways Council could get to where they wanted to be without having to backtrack through State law and the other approved Plans. Councilor Pishioneri said if they claimed the Plan was flexible, it needed to be. He didn’t want restrictions to prohibit developers from coming into Glenwood. He asked if the restrictions were something the City was bound by per Administrative Rule or if they were someone’s idea. He specifically noted the restriction of drive-throughs at 400 feet. Mr. Grimaldi said the number of feet was discretionary. Councilor Pishioneri asked how hard it would be to allow a shorter distance once they had approved 400 feet. Mr. Grimaldi said it would be better to choose what they wanted now rather than later. Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted to know if there was a reason for 400 feet such as a conflict regarding traffic issues. Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett said drive-throughs would attract trips off the roadway that were not normally in that site. Those vehicles would circulate through the parking lot across pedestrian way, impacting the site by the trips pulled from the roadway. If the drive-through didn’t exist, people would come into the site for different purposes. The generation trips onto the site across the driveway would be significantly lower. That needed to be contemplated when looking at types of uses. Each intersection had an influence area where traffic was either slowing down or accelerating, and there were decision points regarding lane changes. Driveways should not be in the influence area because there were already enough decisions to make in that area. He provided the example of Highway 126 and 58th Street. There were a number of factors that affected the influence area. That could be used as a technique to give a specific number of feet for no drive-through facilities within the influence area of the intersection. Councilor Pishioneri said he just wanted to have a reason why there were prohibitions when a developer or builder asked. Mr. Barnett said if Council chose, influence could be used as a method. Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted reasons for all of the restrictions so he could defend the Plan. Ms. Markarian said part of the 400 feet was based on the influence area, and the other part was to create a pedestrian friendly feeling. They looked at other jurisdictions that had addressed this issue and found they had used 400 feet from intersections. Councilor Woodrow said the exception noted under the drive-throughs allowed in Subarea D south, (2)(b) would prohibit coffee kiosks. Ms. Markarian said it enabled a drive-through as a secondary use. Mr. Grimaldi asked if Council would prefer a different distance other than 400 feet. Councilor Pishioneri said he didn’t want to limit certain types of businesses. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2012 Page 8 Councilor Moore said in looking at nodal development, they were looking at something new and different, yet were stuck in something old and the same. She understood the proposal. She felt Council needed to choose to do a nodal development which was a new way of looking at things, or not choosing a nodal. She would be happier to base the restriction on influence of intersection as she felt it would give more flexibility. Councilor Ralston said nodal development had been discussed for many years, but he agreed they needed to decide what they wanted. The more restrictions, the less likely development would occur. Business determined if they could make it or not. Councilor VanGordon asked what the current standard was in the City regarding drive-throughs. Mr. Barnett said there was none. A traffic analysis would need to be done in order to make sure the queuing distance from the drive-through back to the circulation on the site was adequate. Councilor VanGordon asked about an example of a challenging drive-through. Mr. Barnett said the Mohawk Taco Time had challenges. Mr. Grimaldi said he was sensing Council wanted to allow drive-throughs in Subareas D. He asked if setting criteria rather than a set number of feet would be more acceptable to the Council. Councilor Pishioneri said he just wanted to be able to explain to people why there was a restriction. The reason needed to be defensible and make sense. Mr. Grimaldi said he believed criteria would get them there and provide predictability for development. Councilor Wylie said for years she had been in transportation planning. She believed the future lay in multi-modal transportation and that the automobile would transition into non-harmful emissions, but there would still be vehicles. She felt that some of this Plan was a direct attack on the automobile and she didn’t feel that was the future. If the senior citizen wanted to go out and do their errands, they needed to be able to do them in a short distance. Taking away drive-throughs might force them to drive farther around the community. She believed in reducing greenhouse gasses and in reducing vehicle miles travelled, but they were transitioning into another era and this Plan was already technologically dated. They needed to think about the real future before putting on all of the restrictions. She felt they needed to go further than Mr. Grimaldi’s suggestion and be careful how this Plan was designed. She was concerned about how the restrictions were set up. We wanted to encourage modern development in Glenwood. Mayor Lundberg said if they changed things in this plan, they would have to change the other plans it affected. Subarea D could include drive-throughs, but allowing them in other areas was very significant. She agreed they needed reasoning for restrictions. Mr. Grimaldi said they may need another work session. It was important that what was presented to the Council on June 4 was acceptable to them. People were anxious to move forward with their projects. The second issue was Peer Review. Ms. Markarian referred to Attachment 1 which outlined what was intended and what was not intended. Peer review was not new to Springfield and had been used in the past. Staff took the concerns from the Council and Planning Commissioners and recommended City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2012 Page 9 additional clarifying language in the major modification section of the proposed plan district as shown in Exhibit B of the agenda packet, to more clearly articulate the intent of peer review and that it was limited to circumstances where a proposal sought a major modification. Because the decision to make a major modification was voluntary, staff recommended that the code maintain the requirement that peer review was at the applicant’s expense. Councilor Ralston asked a question about the new language. Highlighted areas were changes. He said in the future he would prefer to have it in track changes to see what was added and what was removed. Councilor Pishioneri said with this recommendation peer review was still going to be at the director’s discretion. There needed to be a lot of trust involved between the developers and the director. He asked if there was a mechanism for developer to appeal the director’s peer review recommendation. Mr. Goodwin said any decision made by the Director was subject to City Manager approval. The City Manager could change that decision. Councilor Pishioneri said he would like that written in the language. Mr. Goodwin gave an example of where peer review could have been used for review of a flood plain. If a national specialist had already reviewed an area, there would be no need for peer review. If the site was reviewed by someone not qualified, peer review would be required. Councilor Pishioneri understood that and was comfortable with their process, but he would like to have it written in the Plan. Mr. Karp said that term was used throughout the code regarding Director discretion. Staff would talk with legal staff about how it could be added. Councilor Moore asked if flood plan review came under the definition of a major modification. Mr. Goodwin said it could. He provided an example. Councilor Moore spoke regarding the cost and asked if there were any situations where the City would pay for all or part of the review. She asked if that had been done in the past. Mr. Goodwin said there had been cases where the City had participated in peer review. He was reluctant to put that in a codified form as it made it less flexible. Mayor Lundberg said if the developer was truly unhappy with the decision by the Director, they could contact their elected officials. There were recourses to how things got done. Councilor Ralston said the language under peer review said it ‘shall’ be at the expense of the developer. He asked if that was too inflexible. Mr. Goodwin said trying to address that was a delicate balance. He explained. The third issue was Locating Parking in Subarea D. Ms. Markarian said a revised Exhibit D had been sent out to the Council and was also distributed during the meeting. The information in the agenda packet outlined the pros and cons of parking in the front of the building. There was a correlation between transit ridership and the experience of walking from a transit station to a destination. Based on City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2012 Page 10 conversations with the property owner earlier on this date, staff recommended Council direct staff to allow parking on the front and side of buildings under the circumstances highlighted in the revised Exhibit D. Previously, there had been a prohibition on parking in the front of buildings within 400 feet of an intersection. That section was eliminated in the revision. On page 15 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, Section 5.b.i. stated “if one row of visitor parking including a travel lane . . . “. That section had been amended to “two rows”. Mayor Lundberg said staff had addressed the major concerns. She noted safety for employees of businesses getting to and from their vehicles in the dark. This revision helped make it safer. The fourth issue was Park Block Width. Ms. Markarian noted that Council had expressed support for the park block concept to achieve objectives outlined on page 6 of Attachment 1: help meet the park and recreation needs for adjacent high density residential mixed-use development; attract visitors and offer usable recreational spaces for the general public that relieved user pressure from more sensitive natural areas along the river; enable implementation of low-impact development approaches for the treatment of runoff from adjacent streets and conveyance of treated stormwater from adjacent development to management and/or water quality treatment areas; provide opportunities to raise public awareness about the relationship between stormwater management and natural resource protection; and establish a continuous view corridor from Franklin Boulevard towards the Willamette River. Council concerns regarding width of the park block and what determined the width of the park block were also noted in the agenda materials. Some of the factors for determining width included design factors in achieving the stormwater objective and the recreation objectives. The width also had an impact on safe intersections basing turn radii and the viability of queuing lengths. It was also determined by the massive scale of surrounding buildings and providing a space to break up that mass. It was comparable in total acreage to the minimum open space required in other areas in Springfield. The intent of the policy was to see Willamalane, the City and the property owner collaborate together in developing the park blocks. The implementation strategies about the size, user safety, and spacing configuration needs were intended to provide certainty and specificity to the developers and the community. The minimum of 150 feet provided certainty to the community that the park would meet the targets for all of the objectives and would provide certainty to the development community regarding the expected scale of the park blocks. It also established a benchmark the City could use to negotiate with developers. Exhibit E clarified that final park block width was dependent upon the definitive stormwater management needs of adjacent development and final park design needs. Staff recommended adding language to the Plan district text as highlighted in Exhibit E. Mayor Lundberg said one of the incarnations of the Glenwood Refinement Plan included dealing with stormwater runoff in a way that was more of a feature rather than a culvert. This section of the Plan accomplished this same thing, with a more natural way of handling stormwater. Councilor Pishioneri recalled seeing something about a water inlet with a bridge over it. Ms. Markarian said that was a design that could be incorporated by a developer. This section just added language about the width. The fifth issue was Access to the River. Ms Markarian said improving public connections to the river was a key goal that guided staff throughout this process. They felt the proposed street grid, riverfront linear park and riverfront multi-use path would enable public access to the riverfront for a wide range of people of differing ages, abilities and income levels. That included vehicular access to the riverfront. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2012 Page 11 Councilor Ralston said Roaring Rapids property went right up to the river. He asked what would happen if another business wanted to have outdoor seating up to the river. Ms. Markarian said there was a segment in the Plan that included an exception that grandfathered the uses of Roaring Rapids and existing businesses. Councilor Pishioneri asked if there would be more issues for discussion. Mr. Grimaldi said once Council agreed on these issues, they could bring up any others. Councilor Moore asked about the path being continuous if existing businesses were grandfathered. Ms. Markarian said the Plan addressed that in the language. The developer could provide the footprint of their business north of the riverfront street provided that the development complied with all the riparian regulations and multi-use path. Mayor Lundberg opened up the discussion for additional issues. Councilor Pishioneri asked about Subarea D and C and educational facilities. Subarea D was strictly commercial. Ms. Markarian said the citizen advisory committee had discussed educational related facilities in Subarea C, but did not discuss housing as that was provided for in Subarea A and B. They did talk about housing south of Franklin Boulevard and that it would not be appropriate because of the proximity to the transfer station. They didn’t discuss whether or not it was appropriate north of Franklin Boulevard. She asked City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith to discuss this further. Councilor Pishioneri asked if student housing could be allowed in Subarea C. Ms. Smith said it was their understanding that this issue may come forward during this work session. Staff had been coordinating with legal counsel and Lane County about the best way for Council to procedurally evaluate that without subjecting them to an appeal or slow down the process. Currently in Subarea C, residential uses were not allowed except for hotels. To address student housing, they would be changing a use which was significant to a property owner. It was important to remember that the Glenwood Refinement Plan was a jointly adopted plan with Lane County so there were additional procedures that needed to be addressed together. This was an opportunity to evaluate this before they adopted the Plan. She would recommend after talking with City staff and Lane County legal counsel, that the Council reopen the record for the limited purpose of looking at residential uses in Subarea C only. A notice was prepared that could go out tomorrow for a hearing on June 4. During the June 4 hearing, Council could conduct another reading, close the hearing, and close the record. Another reading would need to take place, which could be done June 18. The City could then get information to the County in early June. Lane County was scheduled to look at the Plan again on June 20, and were still deciding whether or not to have another hearing at that time. The County would then need to conduct another reading of the ordinance which could be in mid-July. Doing this would cause a delay of a few weeks. She clarified that they would just be reopening the record for this Subarea C issue regarding housing. Notice would only go to those that appeared at the joint hearing and to property owners in that area. This process was true to what the City had done to date regarding public participation, would help them avoid a LUBA appeal and allow them to look at a new option that could work for Subarea C. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2012 Page 12 Councilor Pishioneri said he felt this was worth the effort and would not halt the process and the work already done. Councilor Ralston asked if doing this would be an issue regarding timing. Mr. Grimaldi said the timing issue was important for people who were ready to develop. With the proposed schedule, this could be done before Council’s summer break. Councilor Moore was not able to identify Subarea C on the map. Mr. Grimaldi said staff could come back with more detail and maps before making a final decision. Tonight they were looking to see if staff could do some work on this and bring back the details to Council. The area they would be considering would be student housing only for schools such as the University of Oregon, Lane Community College or Northwest Christian University. Councilor Pishioneri said that was correct. Ms. Markarian said the designation in this area was currently office mixed-use. Up to 50% could be used for a limited number of other uses such as hotels or fire stations. The Plan didn’t specify student housing. She explained why the uses were originally chosen. If they added residential, it would fall under the restriction of 50% similar to where hotels were identified. Councilor Moore said the location made sense. Mayor Lundberg said student housing made sense in Glenwood and there could be a need. Ms. Markarian clarified this would be for student housing, not general housing. Yes. Mayor Lundberg thanked staff for their work and bringing back alternatives. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder