[0:02] All right. Thank you to the recording
voice.
[0:06] I'm going to call the Springfield City
Council work session to order with roll
[0:08] call.
>> Mayor Van Gordon.
[0:10] » Here.
>> Councilor Weber.
[0:11] » Here.
>> Councilor Moe.
[0:12] » Here.
>> Councilor Roddy.
[0:14] » Here.
>> Councilor Quadros.
[0:15] » Here.
>> Councilor Buck.
[0:16] » Here.
>> And Councilor Stout.
[0:18] » Here. Thank you.
>> And welcome back to the council and the
[0:20] staff. We are meeting for the first time
since June.
[0:25] We have two items this evening. The
first one is the city manager 2026
[0:28] performance evaluation introduction and
criteria setting with Jim Herz.
[0:34] » Good evening, Mayor and Council. Welcome
back.
[0:36] Uh, the purpose of tonight is to
introduce uh Council to Eric Jensen
[0:42] uh and also to kind of outline the
stages of the city manager evaluation
[0:46] process. Uh your packet
uh included some materials from Eric uh
[0:51] and for everybody else uh part of the
city manager's employment contract
[0:56] requires an annual evaluation by City
Council.
[0:59] Uh and that process is facilitated by
Eric Jensen. So, with that I will turn
[1:03] it over to Eric.
[1:11] There. Once it's Okay.
Yeah, technology is not my thing.
[1:15] Um
hi, I'm Eric Jensen. I am the uh
[1:18] principal and founder of Jensen
Strategies.
[1:21] Um we are a management consulting firm
uh
[1:25] that works exclusively with the public
sector and with local and state
[1:29] government. Um it's a pleasure to be
back here again. Um
[1:34] we uh helped uh last year with the
evaluation process and um
[1:39] uh are happy to be here again to see to
see all of you and I know some of you I
[1:43] haven't met yet and looking forward to
talking with you as well.
[1:48] Um I wanted to just uh take a moment and
let you also meet a member of our other
[1:55] of our team that is going to be
assisting me with this process and he
[2:00] assisted last year some of you may have
been interviewed by him, but I'm going
[2:04] to let him do his own introduction and
he's on he's on virtual back there with
[2:08] the blue screen.
>> Thanks Eric and good evening. I'm Aaron
[2:13] Council. My name is Jeff Aprati. Uh, as
Eric mentioned I uh
[2:18] am very happy to be a part of this
process. I did assist with the
[2:22] interviews and the report writing for
the evaluation process last year.
[2:26] Um, just very briefly about me is I
was previously a city manager myself for
[2:32] short time on the Oregon coast number of
years ago too many years ago at this
[2:37] point. And then worked for Jensen
Strategies full-time as a management
[2:41] consultant for about 4 years. And then
over the last 6 years I have served the
[2:45] city of Sandy where I am currently
the deputy city manager, but I still
[2:51] help out Jensen Strategies on projects
from time to time and very happy
[2:55] to be part of this process. So, thank
you very much.
[2:59] » Thank you, Jeff.
Um, so tonight
[3:03] what we're looking for from you is just
to get
[3:07] a little bit of guidance here in terms
of
[3:11] in terms of your general agreement that
we're going down the right path in terms
[3:17] of the criteria that we have proposed to
you that was sent out to you in the
[3:21] packet.
Um, but I'll I'll first tell you a
[3:24] little bit about the process and for
those of you who may not have
[3:29] been through the process last time.
Uh, and then circle back and talk a
[3:34] little bit about the criteria.
So,
[3:39] the way this process works we establish
the criteria up front and
[3:45] following that we then do a series of
interviews. Um, the interviews are
[3:50] confidential interviews that we do by
Zoom.
[3:53] And we will
we will interview all of the council
[3:59] members. We will interview all of the
executive team and any other direct
[4:03] reports to the city manager.
Um as well as
[4:08] the city attorney.
And
[4:11] this year we're also going to be talking
to some community leaders as well.
[4:17] Um so we will uh get through that
process and that usually takes about 3
[4:24] weeks. We would
given the go-ahead we're going to go
[4:28] we'll excuse me. We will start
scheduling next week for the interviews
[4:32] and they will probably run into the
beginning of October. So generally takes
[4:37] about 3 weeks to kind of
to get everybody. At that point
[4:42] we will write up a report of our
findings and the and the report is
[4:46] anonymous from the standpoint of nothing
in our report is should be attributable
[4:52] to any one individual who was
interviewed during the process. And
[4:58] so we will and that report will be and
the interviews and the questions in the
[5:03] interviews will be based upon the
criteria that
[5:06] we are presenting to you tonight.
The
[5:11] following
the writing of the report we will meet
[5:15] with you in executive session
and I will present a draft of the report
[5:21] to you in executive session
so that you have a chance to ask
[5:26] questions
of us in terms of
[5:30] anything that needs some clarity
or anything that you would like to see
[5:39] expounded upon
in the report. But basically just an
[5:43] opportunity that to ask questions with
regard to the report. I will also do the
[5:48] same with your city manager. I will sit
with your city manager one-on-one and,
[5:53] uh, review the report with her as well.
Following that, uh, then we have
[5:58] another, and that, by the way, that, um,
city council executive session is
[6:03] scheduled for October 19th.
Um, so we we plan to be sticking to that
[6:09] schedule. Uh, following that, then we
will have a session with the council and
[6:15] the city manager together where the city
manager has an opportunity to share some
[6:19] perspectives, uh, with regard to what
was in the report, and you have an
[6:23] opportunity for a facilitated discussion
with your city manager, um, with regard
[6:29] to the evaluation and and the report. At
that same, uh, executive session, you
[6:35] will fill out an evaluation form like
you did last year for those of you that
[6:40] were here last year.
Um, and that evaluation form will come
[6:45] back to us. We will summarize it, and
then we will, uh, send it back, uh, to
[6:50] the mayor, the city manager, and the HR
director.
[6:54] Um,
so that's
[6:57] that's the the process. Um, by the way,
I didn't mention the date of that, uh,
[7:02] second executive session, which is on
November 9th.
[7:06] So just, uh, to have on your calendars.
Um,
[7:11] so
Uh, and first of all, any questions
[7:15] about the process before I move on talk
about criteria?
[7:18] » Uh, Council Roddy.
>> I might be jumping the gun cuz you're
[7:22] going to talk about criteria, and my
question is about what, um, I think it
[7:26] said in there that we did 14 last year
and we went down to 12, so I'm curious
[7:30] as to how it's changed cuz I like having
a baseline to build on, but you're
[7:34] probably getting to that part.
>> Yes, I am, Council, but but thank you
[7:37] for asking the question. Uh, gives me a
nice transition into that.
[7:41] » Anybody else that have questions about
timing?
[7:44] All right.
All right.
[7:46] » Okay, so um I also uh brought tonight a
handout. It's a one-page handout that
[7:51] you should have in front of you in
addition to what you have in the packet.
[7:54] And um
that handout is of the ICMA
[8:00] core competencies. And just as a
reminder or if if you weren't around
[8:05] last year, um ICMA is the International
City City Managers Association. It's a
[8:11] professional organization that
um uh for which county and city managers
[8:18] belong and they have a code of ethics
that uh they need to follow uh to be uh
[8:24] part of that. And
um they also go through a training
[8:29] process um
uh at ICMA. Not everybody, it's
[8:33] voluntary, to become uh
an ICMA credentialed manager.
[8:40] In that training, they use 14 core
competencies
[8:47] um in evaluating uh the city managers
for that that credential.
[8:54] And their training touches all 14 of
those points. And that's what you see
[9:00] there in that circle diagram, if you
will, uh
[9:04] are the 14 core competencies
and
[9:08] that really focus in on, you know, what
are the principles that the city manager
[9:14] should be employing,
how should they lead uh those
[9:18] principles, and um
what how do they move forward with the
[9:23] purposes uh of the government, the local
government, and the organization,
[9:28] and what are the skill sets that they
use in doing that. So, that that's what
[9:33] you have in and in this uh document
here. Last year, we used all 14 core
[9:40] competencies as counselor
brought up.
[9:43] And what we have found as we've done
more of these city manager evaluations
[9:50] is that a few of the criteria really are
pretty closely aligned. And so
[10:01] we thought it would be better to
to do some consolidation. And so what
[10:06] you see in the 12 criteria that we sent
to you is really not omitting anything
[10:13] from the 14 core competencies, but
rather bringing in a couple of them
[10:19] together. So we're going to be asking
about the same types of questions, the
[10:23] same issues, and it's going to be based
on the ICMA 14 core competencies
[10:30] with those 12 that we had put in your
packet.
[10:34] Um
Counselor, does that answer your
[10:38] question?
[10:42] Okay, good.
Excellent. Excellent.
[10:47] Um
But let me just briefly walk through
[10:52] these 12 and
this is as a refresher and also to see
[10:59] see 12 instead of 14.
So the first criteria here are is
[11:06] personnel and professional integrity.
Is your city manager being fair, honest,
[11:12] and ethical in all personal and
professional relationships and
[11:14] activities?
Goes to goes to the heart of
[11:19] ethics and fairness, objectivity.
The second is community engagement. And
[11:26] that is has to do with how your city
manager is ensuring that Um, there is
[11:32] uh, community involvement in local
government to support uh, good
[11:35] decision-making.
Um, and is supportive of uh, diverse
[11:39] viewpoints and bringing diverse
viewpoints into the
[11:43] uh,
in into the discussion.
[11:46] Um, uh, equity and inclusion.
Uh, this is just creating an environment
[11:52] of involvement, respect, uh, connection
of diverse ideas and backgrounds,
[11:56] cultures, and talent throughout the
organization.
[12:00] Uh,
and
[12:02] really come and comes down to inclusion,
uh, being
[12:06] a core part of that. So, the fourth one
is staff effectiveness, and this has to
[12:12] do with
is your city manager uh, taking the
[12:17] responsibility to to help uh, develop
uh,
[12:23] and make your employees successful in
their jobs and in their careers uh,
[12:28] moving forward. Um, and do they support
the best management practices
[12:35] uh,
that foster a respectful and a positive
[12:39] work environment, set clear expectation,
delegate and empower staff, and they
[12:43] maintain accountability in their
management style.
[12:47] The fifth
uh, the fifth is uh, personal resiliency
[12:51] and development. This really goes back
to how well is is your city manager
[12:56] taking care of themselves, both
personally and professionally.
[13:00] Um, are they uh, leading a balanced life
that's going to make them a more
[13:05] productive city manager
uh, as any employee would you know,
[13:10] would be uh,
leading a balanced life.
[13:13] Um, but also looking at their
professional development and are they
[13:17] keeping up with their professional
development
[13:20] uh, to increase their capacity on the
job.
[13:24] Six is to strategic leadership and
planning, uh, defining and communicating
[13:29] a vision and leveraging all resources
and tools to achieve it.
[13:33] And
this has to do with our are they taking
[13:37] a strategic approach to the job? Are
they taking a strategic approach to to
[13:44] moving this the city forward in the in
the operations of the city and in the
[13:50] decision-making
of the city moving forward.
[13:54] Are they presenting a unified vision? Is
there a core mission
[13:59] of for the organization
and are
[14:03] and are there proactive approaches that
are being taken
[14:07] to
[14:11] proactive strategic approaches to
complex issues and problems that are
[14:15] coming up.
Seven,
[14:18] policy facilitation and implementation.
This really gets at the heart of
[14:24] your city manager's interactions and
support of you as a council.
[14:30] And
are
[14:33] is your city manager engaging you
and other appointed officials and
[14:38] stakeholders
to create common goals and objectives?
[14:42] Are they providing you with the
information that you need to make solid
[14:46] decisions, solid policy decisions as a
city council moving moving forward. And
[14:55] um
do
[14:57] do they understand the role that they
play with the council?
[15:03] And in terms of being able to
uh
[15:08] you know, respecting the role and the
authority of the council and
[15:12] understanding where they are in
in relation to their relationship with
[15:18] you.
Um and can they effectively
[15:24] move policy into the operational realm?
Do they have the ability to take the
[15:31] policies that you folks come up with and
turn that around and move that into the
[15:37] operational side of the city, which is
the the side of the city that they run?
[15:43] Um,
service delivery, uh, discerning uh,
[15:46] community needs and providing responsive
equitable services. Are they providing
[15:51] of the services that the city provides
to your community?
[15:55] Are they providing responsive and
equitable services, uh, to your
[15:59] community members? Um,
and are they being strategic about it
[16:05] and also thinking about are they being
strategic about it in terms of a
[16:10] multi-disciplinary
uh, a multi-disciplinary department
[16:16] organization?
That
[16:20] your
when you've got issues that cross
[16:23] departments, are they bringing all the
right people, uh,
[16:27] into into play and and moving things
forward?
[16:31] Um, technology literacy, um, this does
not mean that they know how to code.
[16:37] Um, technology literacy is really just
having that understanding of how
[16:43] technology can be used in your
organization
[16:47] in
uh, for for the city to be able to
[16:51] deliver its services, um,
for all for all the different aspects
[16:57] that the city, uh,
engages in. Do they understand
[17:02] how to move technology forward in that
regard and and at least have that, uh,
[17:07] understanding of of uh,
uh,
[17:11] uh, of what those tools are. Um, that
that they can employ.
[17:17] Financial management and budgeting is
pretty straightforward, but are they
[17:21] implementing a long-term financial uh
plan that integrates strategic planning
[17:29] and reflects the community's values in
the budget as well as uh
[17:35] just um
and the council's priorities and as well
[17:40] as
administering the day-to-day of the
[17:43] budget and making sure that the budget
is
[17:47] moving forward effectively.
And then human resources management and
[17:52] workforce engagement
are they ensuring that there are
[17:56] policies and procedures for the
operational side of the organization?
[18:01] Um are they motivating and engaging the
workforce
[18:05] uh to their greatest potential? Uh do
they for do they um
[18:11] foster a work environment that is
a work environment that's attractive
[18:18] attractive to new employees coming in
attractive to retaining your
[18:23] good talent in the organization.
Um and also under that umbrella is also
[18:30] do they understand collective bargaining
as well.
[18:34] And then lastly communication and
information sharing this really has to
[18:39] do with is your is your city manager
making sure that information is flowing
[18:46] where it needs to go.
And that includes making sure the
[18:50] information's getting to the council
that the council needs to have.
[18:54] Um it also means getting information to
the community
[18:59] so that the community is getting the
information that they need as as well.
[19:04] Um and and among staff as well. So it's
that entire flow of information and of
[19:12] making sure that um
that that's moving effectively so that
[19:17] the organization can work at its very
best uh moving forward.
[19:22] Those are the 12 criteria. Um
any questions about those? I'm going to
[19:27] move on here to the goals for a second.
But I counselor Stone.
[19:34] Then let's keep going.
Okay. So the one thing that is different
[19:38] this year than uh last year uh last year
we
[19:43] uh
uh we went through a goal-setting
[19:46] session
um with your uh
[19:49] with your city manager
and you came up with a series of six
[19:53] goals uh that you would like wanted her
to make progress on and or to achieve uh
[20:00] during 2026.
And so since those goals were
[20:04] established, we are also incorporating
them in as part of the criteria in terms
[20:10] of okay, how far have those goals been
moved uh uh
[20:15] and uh
has uh your city manager done what is
[20:20] reasonable
to do to move those goals forward.
[20:25] Um so those are going to be the criteria
that we're going to use overall. Any
[20:29] questions
about that?
[20:35] Not seeing any. Uh okay. Thank you very
much.
[20:39] Um the other uh
the other uh piece I wanted to show you
[20:44] very quickly is also in your packet and
that is the evaluation form. What you
[20:49] have in front of you in that uh is an
evaluation form that just mirrors what I
[20:55] just walked through with you.
And
[20:58] when you get to that point, you will
have the ability to rate your city
[21:03] manager based on each of these criteria
on a scale of one to five with five
[21:09] being far exceeding expectations to one
being far below expectations. And then
[21:15] you've got everything in between
as well.
[21:19] So this is what we would present to you
at that last meeting
[21:23] executive session. Uh
when you fill that out.
[21:28] Um
So what I
[21:31] I would uh
uh
[21:33] like to ask is
I I should also let you know that prior
[21:38] to this meeting this afternoon, I met
with your city manager.
[21:42] And uh I asked her if she was
comfortable with the criteria that I
[21:47] just outlined. And unless anything's
changed in the last hour or two,
[21:53] uh I think
your city manager has agreed that these
[21:56] are criteria that she's comfortable
with, but we want to make sure you're
[22:00] comfortable with them as well.
[22:04] » All right. Uh counselor Stone.
>> Um last year well
[22:09] So this is your second year doing this
process with us and I just wanted to
[22:13] remark on what a pleasure it was to go
through the process to feel like
[22:16] I felt like both sides were heard and we
were able to have a really honest and
[22:20] straightforward conversation and find
even those little dark areas where we we
[22:25] didn't realize we weren't communicating
about certain things. So this is a great
[22:29] process. I'm looking forward to doing it
again. Um so I have one one two small
[22:35] questions. One is
uh what advice do you have for people
[22:38] repeating the form?
And you know this is our second year
[22:42] doing it. And then the second question
is
[22:45] um
Well, in our interview, I don't forget
[22:48] this. In our interview, are you looking
for different questions than the ones
[22:51] you have on the evaluation form or are
you helping us walk through the
[22:54] evaluation form?
>> Uh
[22:58] Thank you. So uh let me go to the the
last question first. And uh, yes, we are
[23:04] going to be looking for you to to
respond to these criteria, and we will
[23:08] be touching base with you on each of
these criteria, but they will not be the
[23:12] only questions that we're going to ask
you. We we're going to ask you some
[23:16] questions about some general impressions
and you know,
[23:21] where you think some of the challenges
are, where where do you think there have
[23:24] been some great achievements, and
um, so it's got not going to be
[23:29] exclusive to the criteria.
Um, in terms of of advice for uh, going
[23:34] through this again, I mean, you've been
through this uh, or most of you have
[23:38] been through this once.
Um,
[23:41] is to
is to look at
[23:46] given your experience and having gone
through this before and having that
[23:52] criteria
uh, in the back of your minds in this
[23:55] last year,
[23:58] with the feedback that you gave us last
year,
[24:02] does that
does that
[24:05] where does that feedback grow?
What changed in the last year, or did
[24:12] anything change in the last year in that
within that criteria?
[24:17] And so, we would be hoping that you
would you would address that uh, during
[24:22] your answers.
>> I mean, anybody else?
[24:29] » All right. Um,
so uh, going forward what uh,
[24:34] we are
Well, first of all, I want to make sure
[24:36] I Are we okay with the criteria
generally speaking?
[24:40] » I think we are okay. And I think we're
okay with the process.
[24:43] Um, the only other piece that I would
ask the council to be is that um, is to
[24:49] note that we're adding community leaders
this next year.
[24:52] Um, so if you have suggestions for who
you might like those be, if you could
[24:56] just get them to Michelle or myself and
we will work with uh, Eric to get them
[24:59] added to the list.
All right.
[25:03] » Okay.
Um in terms of next steps,
[25:07] uh
we once we have all the names,
[25:10] uh
we will be wanting to start scheduling
[25:13] interviews and probably starting next
week, but in advance of that, uh we're
[25:18] going to ask that um probably the mayor
uh send out a communication to everybody
[25:23] that's going to be interviewed uh just
to let them know we'll be calling and
[25:27] that uh it's not a spam call that's
coming from our office.
[25:32] So,
uh
[25:34] so they'll be prepared for that.
>> Great. Do you have anything else?
[25:39] » Uh no, I think that concludes the
presentation unless the council has
[25:43] other questions.
>> I'm not seeing other questions. It It's
[25:47] been was a pretty straightforward
process um and thanks for helping get us
[25:51] through it because we got to a
conversation that was really
[25:53] constructive last year.
>> Great. Thank you.
[25:57] » All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[26:05] » Okay. The uh
the uh next one is city council training
[26:09] with Mary Bridget Smith.
[26:23] » Good evening, Council. Um welcome back.
We are here this evening uh to present
[26:29] an item that we come before you
periodically on for city council
[26:32] training. It involves uh legal um issues
and
[26:37] um
uh
[26:39] regulations that you are subject to that
can either cause you or the city
[26:44] liability.
Uh so, the idea is we come before you
[26:47] periodically to provide some training
and information and then that way
[26:51] expands your knowledge base and your
effectiveness as a counselor.
[26:54] Uh this time we're trying something a
little bit different. There's a memo in
[26:58] your packet which is just a summary of
some of those legal issues, everything
[27:02] from political activities to
cybersecurity to public records and
[27:06] public meetings. Please give a look to
the cybersecurity information in
[27:10] particular. That is something that is
becoming more prevalent and
[27:13] sophisticated and as um local government
officials you have um city emails which
[27:19] is the way that some of those actors can
get into our system.
[27:23] And then for the rest of the uh time
tonight we have a guest named Jeff
[27:27] Sinclair. Jeff is a vice president with
Brown and Brown Northwest. He's been a
[27:31] partner with the city of Springfield for
a long time. He's done uh specializes
[27:36] with local entities and has done this
training before before other bodies, but
[27:40] it's about tort claims and liability and
sort of when you're under the umbrella
[27:44] and when you're not, I guess it's a good
way to think about it. So Jeff is going
[27:47] to be providing the presentation tonight
and then a little time for questions.
[27:52] And um if you have other questions about
some of these legal responsibilities,
[27:57] please feel free to reach out to my
office. It's not a uh public meeting
[28:01] problem if we talk about some of those
questions offline at all. So uh I know a
[28:06] lot of this has a lot of acronyms and
kind of runs together, but more than
[28:09] happy um to chat with you about it.
And without further ado, I'll turn it
[28:13] over to Jeff.
>> Great. Uh thank you very much. Um my
[28:17] name is Jeff Sinclair and I'm the
insurance agent for the city. And it's
[28:20] my pleasure to be here. Um I've given
this this um talk a number of times. I'm
[28:24] kind of a unicorn gives me too much
credit. I'm kind of got some interesting
[28:28] experience because uh now 30 years ago I
started being a claims adjuster uh for
[28:33] public entities within the state of
Oregon having to do with uh special
[28:37] districts, cities and counties, and
school districts all at the same time.
[28:40] And uh for 21 years I did that um
working for a Special Districts
[28:44] Association of Oregon, City-County
Insurance Services Program, and then
[28:47] starting the school pool called PACE,
which your school district is member of
[28:50] today.
Uh about nine years ago I became a
[28:54] broker. And one of the reasons that I
became an agent is that I saw people in
[28:59] your shoes, um people in uh in in cities
and and school districts shoes being
[29:04] surprised by wow, I thought we had that
coverage. I thought I had that coverage.
[29:08] I thought I was covered.
And I was delivering bad news saying,
[29:12] "Hey,
counsel in the buck, uh we got problems
[29:15] here. This may not be This may not might
be what you think it is." And that
[29:18] surprise and that fear in your eyes made
me uncomfortable as cuz I was delivering
[29:22] the bad news as the representative from
the insurance company, let's say, or the
[29:25] risk pool at City County.
And so today's discussion is just about
[29:30] that. It's about the idea of where where
the rules are that we see the coverage,
[29:35] where the the litigation is being seen,
but really it's trying to separate out
[29:39] the political reality of your position
versus the legal reality of your
[29:43] position. Those are very different. And
so, when we talk about that today, that
[29:47] that's my main my main push. I'm not
trying to quell your speech. I'm not
[29:52] trying to tell you to to not do this or
not do that. Quite the opposite. I want
[29:55] you to know where you will be, likely,
if you make certain decisions or certain
[30:00] comments or be sued or otherwise in
certain perspectives. This is really
[30:04] interactive. I This will survive and
thrive based upon your questions. So,
[30:08] you wait, hang on, Jeff. You're telling
me that blah blah blah blah blah. Yes,
[30:11] that's the questions I want from you.
And feel free to interrupt me at any
[30:14] point. Okay?
Great. Let's see if this works here.
[30:18] Well, that picture's about 10 years ago
now.
[30:21] Is that working?
>> They
[30:23] » They always are. Promise.
>> Is it on?
[30:29] Okay, so I think we're on.
>> Oh.
[30:33] » Down arrow?
>> Down arrow.
[30:34] » Oh, down.
>> There we go. Okay, cool. All right.
[30:37] Cool. Um so, once again, I work for a
Brown & Brown. Um City County Insurance
[30:40] Services is the carrier that you belong
to. It's a risk pool. It's not an
[30:44] insurance company. So, the insurance
commissioner does not govern things.
[30:47] That is the risk pool you belong to. You
also have SAFE Corporation for your
[30:51] workers' compensation. Just just a
little little ditty about that. So, all
[30:54] these different entities are there to
support and and provide you either
[30:56] coverage or services. But, it's
important thing to know. Well, so
[30:59] someone calls you and they're part of
these three agencies or these three
[31:02] entities, they are they're here because
you've paid a lot of money to have their
[31:06] their access to their services, okay?
Um, hopefully, you've read or understand
[31:12] what the Oregon Tort Claims Act is. ORS
30.260, 265, and so on and so forth.
[31:18] It's kind of the Bible for public
entities, employees, um, volunteers, um,
[31:22] board members, council people. That is
really important. It's It talks about
[31:25] the ideas of what coverage is you have,
the duties that are owed to you as
[31:29] employees or otherwise. It also talks
about limitations, um, and such. But,
[31:34] what is a tort? A tort is a duty owed, a
breach of duty, and damages. And they
[31:37] have to be connected. You can't have
like like a a broken sidewalk and a
[31:41] person almost trips or almost hurts
themselves, and they sue you. That
[31:45] doesn't work. You have to have a broken
sidewalk, a duty owed that you breached,
[31:49] and damages, an injury. That is what
creates that that that nexus of a tort
[31:53] claim, okay? So, that's what this is
this is really about. Who is covered by
[31:57] the Oregon Tort Claims Act? It's people
like yourselves,
[32:01] it's employees of the city, and
volunteers of the city. It can be
[32:04] others, agents, and otherwise, but truly
it's it's those three main groups that
[32:08] it's trying to get to. And it's not It's
not we we will endeavor to we'd like to.
[32:13] It's no, no. We shall defend and
indemnify you. The city shall defend and
[32:17] indemnify an employee here who's within
the course and scope of their duties
[32:22] under the direction and control of the
city. They shall defend a city council
[32:26] person.
Um, you know, for the same reasons,
[32:28] right? So, so realize that there's no
there's no discussion there. Coverage or
[32:32] not, the city is forced to do that. Once
again, direction and control, course and
[32:36] scope. I'm going to hit you with that
those two terms a lot cuz that's a
[32:39] really big part of what this is.
Um limits of damages,
[32:43] this is why we require and um Jamie
Aboagye is one of my favorite risk
[32:48] managers in the whole state. She's your
risk manager here, of course. She
[32:51] understands the idea that $1.8 million
plus is what you're exposed for when it
[32:56] comes to liability of lawsuits on an
Oregon tort claim. Okay, duty owed,
[32:59] breach of duty, and damages here in
Oregon. $1.8 million in on a on on a per
[33:04] claim basis for for an event. That means
that only requiring $1 million of
[33:08] coverage can be problematic. That's why
we want to push that to be $2 million to
[33:11] cover that. Now, on a per person basis
is 900,000, but on a per claim per
[33:16] occurrence basis, the car has two or
three people in it. The The uh other
[33:20] things have it. It's $1.8 million plus
right now as the current tort caps.
[33:23] Question?
[33:27] You're not agreeing. Sorry.
>> Yeah, yeah, right. Yeah.
[33:30] There you go. And I'm going to try and
keep this from going down a technical
[33:33] road because I'm also a broker, so I
could go down the the wrong road and it
[33:37] would be and Mary cut me off here. Um
but who who sets the
[33:42] Where's the limit? The 1.8? Who's
setting that that is that Is that the
[33:48] legislature?
>> The state of Oregon has as a mechanism.
[33:51] It's not quite the the um it's not tied
to the
[33:55] um to the exact, you know, interest
rates of sorts of you know, and
[33:58] inflation, but it's really close. But
but the state of Oregon has a mechanism
[34:00] within that. And it talks about it in
the Tort Claims Act.
[34:03] » Okay.
>> So it's it's it goes up a few thousand
[34:05] dollars. It's random. It's actually
right now it's like 1.
[34:10] It's 1.805300.
So what 1.8 million 5,300 is
[34:15] is the per per maximum.
>> And the reason that stands out to me is
[34:18] is in
in the in the current landscape, 1.8, I
[34:23] mean we're seeing we're seeing um
decisions come much higher than that.
[34:28] » In actual way.
>> And so 1.8 I I
[34:31] I was a little taken aback like, "Wow,
that that's
[34:34] kind of nice that it's that it's not
like 20 million." And so, the good news
[34:39] is for state torts, that is the cap for
state torts.
[34:42] However, employment practices, sexual
abuse and molestation, those things that
[34:46] are federal claims brought in federal
court, those are not limited. So, the
[34:49] Oregon Tort Claims Act is for that, just
Oregon tort tort tort caps. But, federal
[34:53] lawsuits, so that's why you have $10
million of coverage through city county
[34:57] and not $1.8 million because you could
be sued for well more than than 2
[35:02] million, 10 million, 15 million. We we
have current customers in in in our
[35:06] practice Brown & Brown that are in the
midst of, you know, $20 million
[35:11] settlements, $25 million settlements
right now. Um some are 10, some are
[35:14] eight, some are five. Those are
extremes. But, but but the idea of of
[35:18] one or two million
um my point for this slide is the idea
[35:21] is that your how you treat your vendors
and what you ask of them to to defend
[35:26] and indemnify the city when they come to
you with with work that they want to do
[35:29] for you, requiring things, you know, $1
million is what is what my customers
[35:33] required in 1996 when I started
claims. 1996, it was $1 million. And
[35:39] sometimes it's hard to get two out of
people these days. So, just be aware of
[35:42] that. That's a real challenge and that's
why I brought this up, but that's a
[35:44] that's a really good point. And that's
why you should care. That's that that's
[35:47] a big part of this. Thank you for the
question.
[35:52] So, my my whole thing about this speech
is getting you under the umbrella,
[35:55] understanding where the umbrella is, the
umbrella of coverage that is, the
[35:58] umbrella of defense indemnity based upon
the coverages that that city county
[36:02] provides the city of Springfield. You
being a council counselor with with the
[36:07] city, I want you to be under that
umbrella if you so choose, just so you
[36:10] know where that umbrella is at.
So, who is a member? A member is is what
[36:15] they describe as being being covered
underneath the umbrella. So, a member
[36:18] means that you are officer, employee,
agent, volunteer, once again acting
[36:22] course and scope
under the direction and control of the
[36:24] governmental proprietary function. So,
so when are you a a council person? When
[36:29] are you not? Right now,
the umbrella is over you.
[36:33] You are in a meeting
of the city council.
[36:36] Great.
The gavel goes down and you walk out in
[36:39] the parking lot and you get in the a
verbal discussion, heated, and somebody
[36:43] accuses you of slander. Somebody accuses
you of of physical violence, whatever it
[36:47] might be. You are not under the umbrella
after that gavel goes down and you're
[36:52] walking to her. Now, you're here because
of the meeting, but for the meeting, you
[36:55] wouldn't be here. However, you're only a
council person
[36:59] because of this meeting during the
meeting itself.
[37:02] Now, where that can get expanded is if
the council decides that you're also
[37:06] going to be on the committee for X,
right? You know, you're now on the
[37:11] committee for to do the the review of of
the city manager. Let's say you only
[37:14] have uh three of you or five of you do
that. Some do that. Executive committee
[37:17] what what otherwise. Great. Your powers
have now been extended. Well, in those
[37:21] meetings, in those discussions, now the
umbrella follows you to that.
[37:25] And you know what? And now we've all
decided you're actually now you're going
[37:28] to speak for us at the local Elks Club
and talk about our our challenges, our
[37:32] needs for whatever. You are We've
decided as a group to empower you
[37:38] to do that. If you just do that,
the umbrella is likely not going to
[37:42] follow you.
That's your political needs. I want to
[37:45] be there for people and tell them what
we're doing, all the great things we're
[37:47] doing for the city. I'm deciding that.
That's great to do that, but politically
[37:52] speaking, great, but legally speaking,
the umbrella is not following you
[37:55] necessarily to do that.
Question?
[37:57] » Yeah.
Um
[38:00] I want to go back to the parking lot
analogy or parking lot example
[38:03] » Sounds great.
>> because we all get a a city provided
[38:05] parking pass to park specifically
underneath this building. So, I want to
[38:09] be really specific and I'm specifically
I have reasons behind this question.
[38:13] When exactly does the cover When is our
liability start and stop? Is it just the
[38:19] gavel or do we have any additional
coverage that covers us as councilors
[38:23] walking to our vehicles and exiting the
premises?
[38:28] » So, each individual
event would be separately adjudicated by
[38:33] by your by your carrier and by by your
your attorneys.
[38:36] Um I will say that in my experience over
the last 30 years, it's gavel-to-gavel.
[38:41] Because you could linger. You could
cause issues. You could You could do all
[38:45] kinds of stuff that are not city council
approved. They're not city council
[38:50] authorized. You could get here early, 2
hours early, walk into the to to a
[38:54] someone's desk in in engineering and sit
down there and cause havoc. Just because
[38:59] you're early doesn't mean you're city
council person yet. You're just Jeff
[39:01] Sinclair. You're a nobody until you sit
here and the meeting gavels forward. So,
[39:06] I would say gavel-to-gavel is the safest
place to be. How you get here and how
[39:10] you leave, th- those can be squishy.
There's coming and going rules and that
[39:13] kind of stuff, but but technically
speaking, gavel-to-gavel is is how that
[39:17] that is That's th- that's my impression.
I'm not an attorney. Should have said
[39:21] that at the beginning, okay?
But I'm a practitioner and I've seen
[39:24] this a lot. So, this is This is outside
work comp. Work comp's a different
[39:29] animal, right? This is about liability
issues that people allege you to have
[39:32] done and whether or not the city county
program will cover you or not
[39:36] individually. So, gavel-to-gavel is how
I see this, okay?
[39:41] That's That's a good question.
And And th- There could be different
[39:44] interpretations of that, but just
realize that if you think that way and
[39:48] you Okay, great. Meeting's over. I'm
going to move out and move on and go
[39:52] home and and review the documents there
or what what have you. Those are the
[39:54] things I see.
The The entities that run into trouble
[39:58] with employment practices claims
involving councilmen councilwomen who
[40:02] who linger and who want to micromanage
and get involved in some other people's
[40:06] business sometimes, it's cuz they're
hanging around or or th- they're
[40:09] inserted themselves into the city's
business outside of the meetings,
[40:13] outside of you globally as a group.
Your power individually is only when
[40:18] you're together.
That's it.
[40:21] Or when your togetherness assigns you a
task on the record.
[40:28] That's a really hard thing because
politically you're always on. You're
[40:30] always going.
Right?
[40:32] » Yes.
[40:35] So, I just want I want to poke a little
bit around with the like you're assigned
[40:39] a task on the record. Cuz when you said
on the record, I'm like, well, sometimes
[40:43] like say the mayor might call me like,
I'm stuck in a thing. I can't get to it.
[40:47] Can you cover, right? And so, I might be
an alternate or I might be covering or
[40:52] somebody might be going to a ribbon
cutting or something at the last minute,
[40:55] right? And so, I'm just curious about
that because some of them is like we do
[40:59] have like our assigned committees, but
sometimes we just are like, can you
[41:02] cover for me at this thing? And I'm
wondering what the like
[41:07] there's no real paper trail for that.
>> So, I would recommend, and this is me
[41:11] being conservative, but I want you to be
realistic about it as well cuz that's
[41:15] that's our lives.
Um if you're assigned tasks as a part of
[41:17] your role, the mayor's a great example.
Mayors have certain tasks that are
[41:20] different than yours, let's say. And the
mayor adjudicates, you know, the and
[41:24] says, "Hey, could you please on my
behalf do X, Y, and Z?" I think that
[41:28] that's that makes sense to me. Um make
sure you talk to talk to city council
[41:32] about that, but I would have that in an
email form where it's asked and
[41:35] answered. Sure.
You know, I've I've got this. Um if you
[41:38] can be a phone call, but that way paper
trail to your point is is the mayor, you
[41:42] know, saying, "Hey, can you please take
this over for me?" And make sure you
[41:45] talk about X cuz if if you just go and
you the the hard part about these rules,
[41:50] let me back up a little bit, is that
when a person I hate saying goes rogue,
[41:54] but when a person um is a is a council
councilman uh council person, sorry, um
[41:59] that that says, you know, "I'm just
going to go to this because it's right
[42:02] thing to do." And they start talking and
they say, "I'm Jeff St. Clair, counselor
[42:05] for the city of Springfield." Well,
you're not there because of that, but
[42:08] you you have that flag. Everyone knows
you, right? As as that person. and they
[42:12] talk.
You do not authorize that. That's not
[42:15] yours. So, all these all these speed
bumps and these these be carefuls I'm
[42:18] talking about are because of the bad
actors that might be going outside of
[42:22] what what those those regulations are.
That That's where the challenge.
[42:26] Councilor Buck.
>> So,
[42:29] um
I would I would imagine that also
[42:33] extends to city staff say inviting us to
functions and things like that. We we
[42:38] got emails this this last week about,
"Hey, there's these events coming up. Uh
[42:42] the city has a table, and we'd like you
know, if you want to go, we'd love to
[42:48] we'd love to have you."
Um and and we we attend these events
[42:51] throughout the year. And so,
talk a little bit about how those things
[42:59] Listen, so we have it in email form.
It's, you know, they asked
[43:04] you and we agreed, all of that kind of
stuff. It's
[43:07] I mean, and that is public record. It's
not necessarily directed by the council.
[43:11] It's just something the city is
supporting, having the council do that.
[43:15] Um and then so, up to that point, that
all That's all That all makes sense,
[43:18] right? That's all under the umbrella.
And I And I think that that That seems
[43:23] like a reasonable argument. However,
we're just asked to attend. What happens
[43:28] at that event can be a different can be
a different discussion, right? So, we're
[43:32] not asked to talk. We're not asked to
engage with this person or that person.
[43:36] We're asked to attend. So,
how do you How do you parse out those
[43:40] those those lines?
>> The small details of of those are
[43:43] difficult because it's about your usual
and customary engagements.
[43:47] » Yeah.
>> If you guys regularly invite, you know,
[43:51] you know, city councilors to certain
events, and it's kind of a a like
[43:54] buckshot, like, "If any of you can go,
we have a table at the Elks Lodge. You
[43:58] use that, whatever. At the Elks Lodge,
please go, and you know, and thank you
[44:01] very much, you know, whatever." That's
That's an expected That's normal. That's
[44:05] That's there to everybody. If it all of
a sudden is only going to Commissioner
[44:09] Stout,
and all of a sudden Commissioner Stout
[44:11] is a de facto person that does Well,
it's like we hang a second. Is that now
[44:15] Should we talk about the fact that that
is now his role? And you guys authorize
[44:19] that? Those are things where I want you
to be I want you to be intentional about
[44:23] about the the things that you can be.
There's always going to be the what ifs,
[44:27] and I and I I understand that. I've been
doing this once again for almost 30
[44:30] years, over 30 years now. But you want
to be intentional with those ideas. So,
[44:33] if it's routine that you're doing that,
maybe you have a list of all those
[44:36] expected items on your board packets as
upcoming events of things. And who wants
[44:40] to go? Who's going to be attending this?
And you have that be a running a running
[44:44] clock of sorts of a you know, of items.
Hey, we have these 15 things in the next
[44:47] 3 months that we're going to go to or be
a part of. And then okay, great. I can
[44:51] go. I can go. I can go. What I've seen
happen in one of the one of the stories
[44:54] of my early career that made me the most
concerned was it was an annual
[44:58] conference of of of an organization, and
two people said they could go. They they
[45:03] actually took took s- role. Okay, who
can go to this this conference? The two
[45:06] of us can go. Great.
The third person who couldn't go for a
[45:10] personal reason, that personal reason
fell through. They could go now, and
[45:13] they just showed up out of state
with, you know, and just showed up. Now,
[45:19] I'm like, "Hang on. You were authorized
to go. The budget was there for you two
[45:21] to go. The discussion was there for you
two to go. And a third person just
[45:24] showed up. What if all seven of you
showed up? We had budgeted for two or
[45:28] three." It's that kind of stuff where
unless the the the the city council
[45:32] actually authorizes you to go on these
things, especially they're incurring
[45:35] costs or might be politically difficult,
be really careful. And and you could
[45:39] have a quick, "Hey, hey, I can go now.
Is that okay?" You can have a quick
[45:42] little discussion about what makes the
most sense, reauthorize that if it makes
[45:46] sense, and you're good to go. That could
happen in real time with city council
[45:49] and with the city attorney's help. But
that's the real problem that I I've seen
[45:53] in the past is the Oh, I'll just go to
this. Cuz what if one of you guys
[45:58] got invited to go by by a a let's say.
Now, hey, I'm going to Chicago for this
[46:03] great thing. Come with me to Chicago.
And then the city's going to pay for you
[46:08] to go to Chicago without talking to
anybody about this?
[46:11] Those are the kind of things that that
you're trying to get around of. The
[46:13] collective decides what we're doing to
spend money and authorized vision and
[46:16] authorized voice.
The collective will then reimburse you
[46:20] or or help defend and indemnify you
because of that.
[46:22] » Could we delegate that to make it
explicit in our operating procedures
[46:27] that that I as mayor can ask people to
go or you know, as part of you know,
[46:32] uh agenda setting or council leadership,
we make a more formal ask to go?
[46:37] » I I'm always up for the intentionality
of that. If you have the if you're going
[46:40] to do that, we're going to make that be
a part of our process, I want that role.
[46:44] Can I get granted that role? The city
attorney signs off on that, that sounds
[46:47] reasonable to me.
And and and the coverage should follow
[46:50] that because it's it's the paper trail
sorts that this is our duties and go
[46:53] from there.
>> Yeah, the commentary around community
[46:56] events has always been around. You will
get asked to do a community event to
[47:00] represent the city, right? Like some of
the language is there, we may need to
[47:04] formalize it more. But we've always
talked about going to things like
[47:09] uh the education foundation fundraiser.
Part of your role as a counselor is to
[47:14] represent the city in the public.
>> And so, that's where that's where it
[47:18] gets
you you're doing you're doing good,
[47:21] right? Think of if you weren't. Think of
if
[47:24] I mean and there's a lot of entities
right now that are having those one-offs
[47:28] and really difficult times sometimes,
right? And so, it's like it's going well
[47:32] now because you guys are well
functioning, you're discussing, you're
[47:34] going back and forth, things are well.
What if what if you didn't have that?
[47:38] And so, you want to build in build in
some walls, but also some ability to be
[47:42] to be nimble when necessary to do that.
>> Yeah.
[47:45] » Very good point.
>> Okay.
[47:47] » I think you can talk you guys. Sorry. I
love this stuff.
[47:50] Okay. Okay, I'll be quick.
>> And I won't gavel you off.
[47:53] » I said I will sa- salute and walk away.
Um okay. So, the political versus legal
[47:58] reality stuff, I put this slide on there
cuz this is this reality of what we're
[48:00] talking about here. So,
um, so board members are empowered only
[48:03] during sanctioned board meetings where
quorum is present or, as I mentioned,
[48:07] designated. And that that's a big part.
Otherwise, you're not a member. And so
[48:11] so being mindful of that, and that's
okay, by the way, to not be covered by
[48:14] the umbrella. That's fine. Your role is
to do what you would like to do to to
[48:19] either better your family and or better
the city. Sometimes they are congruent
[48:22] and parallel. Sometimes they're not. And
that's totally fine. And we understand
[48:26] that.
Let's go through some ideas here.
[48:28] So, these are real ideas or things that
really happened, and it's it's going to
[48:32] happen you've had it happen already.
Chain of command. You're approached at
[48:34] Fred Meyer's by a friend demanding help
with the with the storm drain. You know,
[48:39] it's like, "Hey, I uh
this is the problem, and what should you
[48:42] do as a as a as a city counselor?" First
of all, you're helpful people. You have
[48:46] servant's hearts. You wouldn't do what
you do without that. It's not going to
[48:49] say, "Talk to somebody else." No, you're
going to say, "Can I please get your
[48:52] information
and I'll somebody call you?" You take
[48:55] the information down.
You thank them for their time, and you
[48:59] go off into the ether. And you've
directed to the city city council or
[49:03] city manager right away. Tell them to
talk to the person
[49:07] and move on.
Um, the idea of you managing that, being
[49:11] the the the in and out um discussion
communication person, please refrain
[49:15] from doing that as best as best as best
you can. We see a lot of issues with
[49:18] that if you try and stay involved. You
can do a check-in and ask city manager,
[49:22] "Hey, how how's that going?"
You know, that's okay to do that, but
[49:25] don't just get the information, customer
service, servant's heart, and then float
[49:30] off into the ether after you pass it on.
Please please try and do that.
[49:35] » I'm probably not going to be the only
person who's like, "I want to sit with
[49:37] this for a minute." Um
Uh, totally yes. Usually, I'm like,
[49:43] "Neal and Nancy, what do we do about
this thing?" But, there's that closing
[49:46] the loop piece, right? There's the like
person showing up on your doorstep or
[49:51] running into you in Fred Meyer again.
Um and so that's the part that like I I
[49:56] mean maybe I just I'm like I wouldn't
feel comfortable not closing the loop
[50:00] with that person or checking back in and
I just have to take the risk on that.
[50:03] Because I think there's a piece it's
like just just a human relationship
[50:08] piece. It's like I have taken
responsibility for this and I want to
[50:11] make sure that it is
um that you've gotten what you need or
[50:14] whatever.
>> So the I do close the loop to me makes
[50:17] makes sense. Um but you don't want to be
in any part of the back and forth.
[50:22] And there could be major back and forth.
It could be likely a storm drain is no
[50:26] liability by the city. It's a
declination. It's going to the to the
[50:29] the insurance company. They're
investigating it. It rained.
[50:32] There was issues we were just out there
a little while ago. I mean there's no
[50:35] issues. Declined. Denied. And now you're
going to go back and say, "Oh, sorry we
[50:39] denied your claim." And that's going to
come up with a lot more a lot more
[50:43] questions than answers. A lot more
problems than than than things. You hire
[50:46] people to to do a lot of things for you.
So I would be careful of that.
[50:49] » Should you reach back out or ask the
city manager to, "Hey, just make sure
[50:52] that you know, let me know if anything I
can do. I'd like to know what happens so
[50:55] I can be you know, be aware of it." That
makes sense to me. But but if you're in
[50:59] the back and forth of that, it can it
can become problematic.
[51:04] » I'm going to follow up again and then
other folks can jump in. I'm going to
[51:06] I'm going to assume that I'm not the
only city councilor that has people like
[51:10] show up on their doorstep, right? That
Um like the stop sign fell down or I
[51:15] knew you'd be I saw you came home and I
want to come talk to you about a thing.
[51:18] » Yep.
>> I'm
[51:22] Where does that fit? Like that's that's
that's not Fred Meyer, that's not a
[51:26] public space, that's not somebody sent
me an email. That's like somebody is
[51:30] like stopped me in my yard and or come
on to my
[51:34] you know,
>> So So once again, you're not you're not
[51:37] a The umbrella's not over you at your
house.
[51:40] It's just not.
Unless all of a sudden your job
[51:43] description changes, which you know, I'm
being facetious. It's You have no you
[51:47] have no power and no protection likely
at your home.
[51:51] Anywhere else besides those things I
just described.
[51:54] Um
Now, could that be extended somehow?
[51:57] Possibly. I I
That would just be extremely
[51:59] far-fetched, extremely difficult. So, I
don't want to go down that road. But,
[52:02] that's why you want to be as a political
as as helpful and and stop that I will
[52:08] turn this in and someone will get back
to you as soon as possible. I'll I will
[52:12] deliver it via email to the city manager
tonight.
[52:16] And then they'll contact you. It's best
you can do that. Please try that. I know
[52:21] it may not be reasonable. But, also
you're training them to to to do that in
[52:25] a way as best you can.
People come to my house as well for It's
[52:29] part of my job, so I understand this.
Um Mayor?
[52:33] » No, I'm just looking around to see if
any
[52:36] I think we're good. Keep going.
>> Thank you for that question. Um online
[52:40] um Facebook warrior online warrior
stuff, this is a real problem. More and
[52:45] more often with schools, to be honest.
Um but can have cities and counties as
[52:48] well. But, um you know the truth.
You know the truth. You are making
[52:53] decisions. You have all the data. You
have all the and you're doing that.
[52:57] It is not your job as a city council
person to be on Facebook and write the
[53:01] rights and and decline the wrongs. You
can do that. But, the coverage is likely
[53:07] not going to follow you if someone
alleges that you slandered them or that
[53:10] you libeled them in this case in
writing. Okay? It's okay to do that.
[53:14] Once again, but just realize that when
you're doing that it's 11:00 on a
[53:18] Thursday night.
Be careful. We're we're we're we're
[53:21] seeing that. Okay? So, that's just my
please. Um you can do it. It's your
[53:25] first amendment right. But, the umbrella
is going to be
[53:29] not there.
Um the press call you at home. Have you
[53:32] guys been contacted by the press at your
house? Um I mean I'm sure of it. Um of
[53:37] course. That's up to you what to do
that. Um or you have a protocol with
[53:40] with with the city that you're going to
you're going to have all those questions
[53:43] go to a certain person at the city and
then from there they may have a
[53:46] controlled interview where you come in
and discuss it or otherwise, but control
[53:50] that narrative if you can. Otherwise,
when you're making comments, you're not
[53:54] a board member officially when you're
making those comments legally. You're
[53:57] not.
That's your personal opinion about what
[54:00] the board's doing and what the council's
doing.
[54:02] But that's not your role with the
umbrella over you at the time. That's
[54:06] really hard because you know what the
truth and you have an opinion and you
[54:09] might be running for re-election. You
you know the answers you want to form
[54:12] the form the the agenda, form the idea
of of of the truth because that's what
[54:16] you know is only the truth is there.
This could be a problem for that.
[54:20] But try to do that. That is that is a a
real issue. Then elections um had this
[54:24] happened during elections one a
commissioner took the signs of another
[54:28] and burned them. It was a long story.
Just you know, don't do that stuff.
[54:31] That's just kind of interesting one. Um
auto vehicle damage.
[54:35] Okay, this is weird but this this
happens as well. When it comes to your
[54:38] vehicle, okay? Let's say you're going to
go to the city county conference that's
[54:42] going to be next February. And you know,
you've been authorized that the council
[54:46] said, yep, you can go you can go you can
go. Great. Three of you guys are going
[54:48] to go. You're going to drive there in
your personal vehicles and and you get
[54:51] in an auto accident on the way to or on
the way back from the conference.
[54:56] You do have auto liability coverage with
the city.
[54:59] Yours is primary cuz it's your personal
vehicle, but this will be an excess over
[55:04] you.
Okay? So your deductible's on you.
[55:07] They're paying you mileage and your
coverage is first. Anything above that
[55:10] is on the city. Think of it that way,
okay? So but remember that is with
[55:14] that's outside of this. Coming to this
meeting does not count.
[55:18] This is expected. This is as as if
you're going to your job. You don't get
[55:20] you don't get get get get covered by
work comp to go back and forth from your
[55:23] job. But if your job sends you to a
conference somewhere, a job sends you to
[55:27] a job somewhere else or a training or
whatever somewhere else, that's
[55:30] different. That's specific and that's
where the liability of the work comp and
[55:34] liability of the risk pool would likely
follow you.
[55:38] Yes, Commissioner Buck?
>> Just to clarify, that's specific to
[55:41] liability.
>> Right.
[55:43] » And so,
you know, I know that that often gets
[55:46] confused.
The the property side of that, the
[55:48] liability side of that, people people
don't always know where the line is.
[55:52] We're talking about liability here. So,
we're not talking about damage to your
[55:56] vehicle and those kind of things.
>> Correct. Yeah, there is no coverage for
[55:59] your personal vehicle um that you're
driving on on city business. That is
[56:03] what the mileage is supposed to entail
is the to cover your insurance costs,
[56:07] your gas costs, your that guy that kind
of So, the personal the vehicle damage
[56:11] that you incur cuz you hit somebody or
otherwise, your vehicle is not covered
[56:15] by the city. That's personal.
The liability that you incur on behalf
[56:19] of the city, direction and control,
course and scope, that is within the
[56:23] policy. Great great clarification.
Okay? All right.
[56:28] This is amazing stuff, right? Okay,
here's the good news, ish.
[56:32] You you do have coverage in fact Oh,
this is an older slide. I know, sorry.
[56:35] Um
the you do have coverage uh with city
[56:38] county for ethics violations, okay? Um
there could be things that that you
[56:42] could be accused of doing. This is a
personal allegation. Let's say that you
[56:46] you went into a you gave a session the
wrong way, or you might have a perceived
[56:49] um
um issue where you have uh
[56:52] you know, your your brother is a is a
contractor and there's a conflict of
[56:55] interest. You name it. The OGEC, Oregon
Government Ethics um commission, comes
[56:59] in and says, you know,
Commissioner Stout, I keep picking on
[57:02] you, sorry. Commissioner Stout, we we
believe that you did X improperly, and
[57:06] we're here to find you $1,000.
Okay? And that happens. That happens not
[57:11] because of you, I'm just kidding y'all.
But um but it could happen any time.
[57:14] City-county and all the other risk pools
as well have a a defense cost coverage
[57:19] for the ethic ethics complaint of board
members
[57:22] going against them. They've increased
that to $25,000 recently, okay, per per
[57:26] member and per um
uh per entity. But, the biggest part of
[57:31] that is you have to tell them right
away, "Hey, I got this complaint and I
[57:34] want to hire my my attorney, Jeff." And
they go, "Okay, you can hire Jeff."
[57:39] They will only reimburse you for that
damage if you prevail. You have to win.
[57:43] You can't be actually guilty of it. If
that's the case, then they're not paying
[57:47] for that. This was brought up and I love
it because a lot of times we'll be um
[57:52] we'll see lawsuits or complaints that
are trying to get you to stop doing what
[57:56] you're doing as a city. And they'll use
it as a weapon to personally attack you
[58:00] and try and get you to quit.
This is to try and stop that. We have
[58:04] nothing to do with with this ethics
complaint. It's about the vote we're
[58:06] about to take on parking meters or about
whatever it might be. It could be
[58:09] something environmental. It could be
something otherwise. Who knows? But when
[58:12] when they mobilize and they weaponize
the system, this is there to protect you
[58:16] up to $25,000 of defense costs if you
prevail.
[58:20] The biggest biggest take home for this
is if this happens to you, you get an
[58:23] OGEC complaint, tell the city manager
right away, and then Jamie and I will
[58:27] help give you in the right direction and
get you whatever um opportunities you
[58:30] can or or may choose to do. But just
don't wait, do it right away, and we'll
[58:34] go from there, okay?
Thank you.
[58:38] Um volunteer um just a quick little
thing about volunteers um two minutes.
[58:42] Uh volunteers are just unpaid employees.
They are they are just as exposed, just
[58:47] as difficult, just as dangerous
sometimes. They're just not paid. So, be
[58:50] aware of of volunteers. They're
approved. What what they do matters. And
[58:54] so, um it's great that we have
volunteers. We love volunteers. We need
[58:56] volunteers. But their liability is
yours. It's just unpaid employees.
[59:01] Same thing. Um if this person's driving
home from work, strikes a pedestrian on
[59:05] the sidewalk, the employee driving home,
that would not be covered. The employee
[59:09] coming back from a conference, that
would be covered the same way we talked
[59:12] about that with Commissioner Buck for
liability cases.
[59:16] Okay. Hey, one last thing here. So,
really um
[59:19] just make sure that you're deliberate
about about the ideas that you do, okay?
[59:23] So, course and scope direction control.
Before you do things um that are that
[59:27] are you believe on behalf of the city,
make sure am I authorized to do that?
[59:31] How do how we talked about that? Is this
part of the committee or not? If it is,
[59:34] great. Do your best. If it's not, either
accept that or ask the council to be a
[59:39] little more deliberate and make sure
that you are under the umbrella. Okay, I
[59:41] want no surprises. I I love what you
guys do for the community. It matters.
[59:45] It really does. And I don't want to have
surprises for you guys. So, ask those
[59:48] questions. Please let us know if you
have any of those and thank you very
[59:51] much. Any questions for me?
>> Are there Are there any more questions?
[59:57] I think this was helpful. Um I saw Mayor
Bridget taking some notes about places
[1:00:00] we might be able to clean up our
process, right? Like there's a lot of
[1:00:03] focus on getting the stuff right right
now and so thanks for help helping us to
[1:00:08] think through. And MB, um I'm also
thinking about the planning
[1:00:11] commissioners, too, right? Those are
people that, you know, have a lot more
[1:00:14] exposure. If we have language that that
can make it into their bylaws to help
[1:00:19] clarify when they're acting in role.
>> Okay.
[1:00:22] » I would be supportive of that, too.
>> I'll follow up and then I'll be back
[1:00:25] before you on September 28th to talk
about your operating policies so we can
[1:00:28] continue that then.
>> Great. Thank you so much.
[1:00:30] » Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
[1:00:34] What's that?
[1:00:37] We We are adjourned from our work
session and then we will reconvene at
[1:00:41] 7:05.
Right?
[1:00:44] Thank you for your patience, everybody.
I'm going to call the Springfield City
[1:00:48] Council regular session to order with
roll call.
[1:00:50] » Mayor Van Gordon. Here.
>> Councilor Weber.
[1:00:52] » Here.
>> Councilor Moe.
[1:00:54] » Here.
>> Councilor Bilyeu.
[1:00:55] » Here.
>> Councilor Quadros.
[1:00:56] » Here.
>> Councilor Beck.
[1:00:57] » Here.
>> And Councilor Stout.
[1:00:58] » Here. Thank you.
>> Please join me with the pledge of
[1:01:00] allegiance.
[1:01:06] » Pledge of allegiance.
>> I pledge
[1:01:08] » allegiance
>> to the United States of America.
[1:01:10] » To the Republic for which it stands,
>> one nation
[1:01:13] » under God,
>> indivisible,
[1:01:15] » with liberty and justice for all.
[1:01:27] » There is one designated time for public
testimony this evening under business
[1:01:30] from the audience. If you're attending
in person, please complete the request
[1:01:34] to speak card located at the front of
the council chambers and turn them into
[1:01:37] the city recorder.
If you're joining us online with a
[1:01:40] tablet, smartphone, or computer and wish
to speak during business from the
[1:01:44] audience, please raise your hand use the
raise your hand feature in Zoom.
[1:01:48] The order for public testimony is as
follows. Anyone in person in the council
[1:01:52] chambers and then anybody who has raised
their virtual hand.
[1:01:56] First item, please.
>> Mayor, the first item is the consent
[1:01:58] calendar.
[1:02:01] » I move approval of the consent calendar.
>> Second.
[1:02:05] » All right. Does anybody want have a
discussion for the consent calendar? All
[1:02:08] right. Neil, could you call the vote,
please?
[1:02:10] » Yes, Counselor Weber.
>> Yes.
[1:02:11] » Counselor Moe.
>> Yes.
[1:02:12] » Counselor Rodley.
>> Yes.
[1:02:14] » Counselor Quadros.
>> Yes.
[1:02:15] » Counselor Buck.
>> Yes.
[1:02:17] » And Counselor Stout.
>> Yes, thank you.
[1:02:19] » All right. Motion passes six yeses, zero
noes. Next item, please.
[1:02:22] » Next item is business from the audience.
>> All right. I have three cards. I'm going
[1:02:27] to call you up and state your name and
location from city for the record and
[1:02:31] then you will have 3 minutes. Uh David
Willis.
[1:02:47] » David Willis, resident resident uh 2276
36 Court.
[1:02:53] And tonight I'm representing the
uh
[1:02:56] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints as a Springfield Stake
[1:02:59] Communications Director
volunteer.
[1:03:02] And uh I brought some things. Uh we
wanted to say we appreciate the very the
[1:03:07] many volunteer hours that you spend in
terms of
[1:03:11] helping to make our community a
wonderful and a safe place to live.
[1:03:15] Uh the pears were 100% harvested by
volunteers with professional oversight.
[1:03:21] They're grown in Southern Oregon on one
of our church's humanitarian farms.
[1:03:26] These farms throughout the country are
run by skilled farmers and volunteers
[1:03:29] who give of their time and talents to
help others.
[1:03:32] From this particular farm, pears will be
distributed to community food banks
[1:03:36] throughout Oregon, including Food for
Lane County here in our own community.
[1:03:40] Most of the pears will be canned and
then distributed throughout the world
[1:03:44] through our church's humanitarian food
system.
[1:03:47] We hope the information provided will
help you understand the production and
[1:03:51] distribution process a little better and
see how many lives are benefited through
[1:03:55] the volunteer work and care of others
without placing any demands of
[1:03:58] government.
We especially want to thank
[1:04:02] the mayor,
the city council, and all of the staff
[1:04:05] of the city of Springfield for your work
in bringing to pass the construction and
[1:04:09] dedication of the Willamette Valley
Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of
[1:04:13] Latter-day Saints this past June.
The open house during 3 weeks hosted
[1:04:18] 38,000 people.
Um,
[1:04:21] I'm just happy if someone talks to me,
so that that it was really nice.
[1:04:26] And everything from security, parking,
hosting, and so forth was conducted by
[1:04:30] volunteers with a little professional
oversight.
[1:04:33] Having attended city council the past 3
years, I feel it is important to
[1:04:36] acknowledge that most of the citizens of
all persuasions and service clubs
[1:04:41] quietly go about helping others and the
community without being demanding or
[1:04:45] demonstrative.
These pears can be representative of
[1:04:48] that type of citizenship.
Uh, the the harvest was impacted by a
[1:04:53] late frost, so they're not quite as
large, but I'm told they're just as
[1:04:56] sweet. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And
[1:05:02] the next uh,
next person is Chris Blankenship.
[1:05:15] » All right. Uh yeah, I'd like to talk
about um
[1:05:18] a beautification plan restoration plans
>> Sir, could you please could you state
[1:05:22] your name and address for the record?
>> I'm sorry. Curtis Blankenship, uh Ward
[1:05:26] 4. Is that enough?
So, I wanted to talk about doing a
[1:05:30] restoration beautification project for
um
[1:05:33] Glenwood.
Uh similar to what is done uh it's
[1:05:37] called Seattle Restored .com. I sent you
guys a a link to that email in a in a
[1:05:43] general email. But, while I know you
have a a redevelopment plan, but I
[1:05:48] wanted to just beautify
There's a 30% vacancy rate in all cities
[1:05:54] of commercial property because you're
buying stuff online. So, there isn't as
[1:05:58] much big uh brick and mortar. And so, I
you guys are waiting for a big box store
[1:06:03] to redevelop uh Glenwood the Glenwood
area. And I mean I that's all very good.
[1:06:09] I just want to do some beautification
while we wait for that. And it would
[1:06:13] increase our tax base. I own property
here. I'd like my property values to go
[1:06:17] up which would increase your tax base.
And um
[1:06:21] it would be a better use of your
development funds to to do this to
[1:06:26] increase the tax base
rather than
[1:06:30] uh
spending a huge amount of money hoping
[1:06:32] for big box retail. Where and and I know
you're using uh incremental tax funding
[1:06:38] to finance the redevelopment plan. So,
again, you can wait longer and wait for
[1:06:42] those tax funds to to pay for your
bigger development plan. So, um
[1:06:50] You know, the other way to So, the what
you will find on Seattle Restored is a
[1:06:54] way it's the insurance. It's it's uh
ironic that you guys are talking about
[1:06:57] insurance cuz it's the insurance is the
problem with uh
[1:07:00] with doing this uh restoration cuz I I
would like to see, you know, an art uh
[1:07:05] community garden art space and some
homeless services put into into there.
[1:07:10] So, the insurance is the issue. You
know, like I say, you can use your
[1:07:13] development funds for that. Uh, but you
know, there's abusive There's abusive
[1:07:17] land uh,
owners in this town that you could tax
[1:07:21] abusive land owners. And you know, um,
Walmart removed their trash cans,
[1:07:26] Walmart Springfield, from their parking
lot. And you know, they produce
[1:07:31] uh, the packaging. They sell products
with packaging. They should be
[1:07:34] responsible for that packaging. So,
there's a tax There's an plenty of
[1:07:38] opportunity to tax these corporations,
these abusive land owners, and
[1:07:42] corporations. And I don't want my tax
dollars going to pay for Target uh,
[1:07:47] shoplifting for my for the police to
uh,
[1:07:50] use use their time to protect um, Target
and big box stores from shoplifting. I'd
[1:07:55] much rather that money be used to
restore and beautify uh, Glenwood while
[1:08:00] we're waiting for the funds for your
redevelopment plan. And I'd like to talk
[1:08:04] to the um, economic director if I could
on that. I've I've emailed them several
[1:08:08] times. Thank you for your time and your
service.
[1:08:10] » Thank you.
Uh,
[1:08:12] the last card is Miguel Rivas.
[1:08:26] » Uh, hello. Hope can I get closer?
Uh, yep. My name is Miguel Rivas. I'm in
[1:08:32] Ward 2 of Springfield.
And I'm mostly here to talk about data
[1:08:38] centers. Uh, currently there is no
rumors. There's nothing that I've heard
[1:08:44] of data centers happening in
Springfield. But that's why I think like
[1:08:47] it's a great time. It's way better to
for me to be talking about this before
[1:08:52] there's any development plans, before
there's things that you guys have all
[1:08:55] signed off on, and like can't take back.
So, I think this is a a time to be
[1:09:00] talking about data centers. They're a
national issue going on, so it's good to
[1:09:06] be preemptive about this.
Um
[1:09:09] I don't think and I feel like a lot of
people don't really see data centers as
[1:09:13] like a Raising Cane's or a Chick-fil-A.
It's not just like another
[1:09:19] business place. I feel like a lot of the
public is going to see data centers as a
[1:09:23] very
government-based
[1:09:26] uh government-associated
thing even if legally it is it isn't.
[1:09:31] Even if it's on private property or not
on public land, I feel like it is
[1:09:36] something important to be discussing
uh from our local city.
[1:09:42] Um I do know that
Springfield is historically very
[1:09:46] friendly to corporations. Um it's very
much
[1:09:50] focused on developing the economy of
Springfield
[1:09:54] and I see value in that.
Um I see
[1:09:57] I do see how
that could
[1:10:02] become a point of issue. If data centers
did come in, then maybe the enormous
[1:10:08] like tax exemptions given to
corporations or the amount of money and
[1:10:14] support that corporations are given,
I feel like the public would very much
[1:10:19] finally be
looking at these policies as these
[1:10:23] corporate-friendly policies that
Springfield has had as something that
[1:10:28] isn't for them. If data centers came
because I feel a lot of the public will
[1:10:34] disagree with data centers in general.
Springfield doesn't want data centers
[1:10:39] and we really don't want them to be
given any kind of red carpet treatment
[1:10:42] where they're given like a ton of tax
exemptions and all of that just to be
[1:10:46] built in here.
Thank you.
[1:10:50] » Thank you. That was the last card I had.
Neil, do you have anybody online?
[1:10:54] » Okay, so we have no hands online.
>> Okay. does anybody have council
[1:10:57] response? Council Roddy?
>> Thank you. Um and I just want to
[1:11:02] um thank David and Chris and Miguel for
coming out tonight. It's our first time
[1:11:06] back, so I love that y'all were
tracking. Um I am also interested in us
[1:11:10] having a conversation, particularly
around data centers, and I it's starting
[1:11:14] to be a bubbling conversation. I will
say that earlier in the year, nobody was
[1:11:19] talking about in Springfield cuz we
really like you said, don't have the
[1:11:22] land for it. But more and more um and I
think it it would be helpful to have it
[1:11:27] as a city. And also know that we're
trying to have this conversation as a
[1:11:30] state, which could sort of preempt
whatever we do. But I think more and
[1:11:34] more folks are interested in let's let's
start to have a conversation about where
[1:11:38] we're at and and what are our processes
and land use and all of that. So, I
[1:11:43] think we're at the beginning of that,
but I am someone who's also fairly
[1:11:46] interested in us digging into that. So,
thank you.
[1:11:50] » Councilor Buck.
>> Yeah. I I also I also appreciate you
[1:11:54] bringing bringing up the conversation. I
think that the focus for the council is
[1:12:00] um
is is bringing value to to Springfield
[1:12:03] in a lot of different ways. And by
supporting businesses that that do
[1:12:07] employ our people here and and do
provide something. You you cited Raising
[1:12:12] Cane's or Chick-fil-A.
That's a place where where people can
[1:12:16] spend their money, they can work, they
can
[1:12:18] that that creates real value on multiple
levels. And I think that's what we're
[1:12:22] looking for. And and I'm very interested
in in furthering that conversation.
[1:12:26] Because I don't know
what was specific to data centers, I
[1:12:29] don't know what value that would really
look like. And so, I think that that's a
[1:12:33] great conversation to bring up. So,
thank you for that.
[1:12:37] » Uh Councilor Stone.
>> Um
[1:12:39] agreed with my fellow councilors there.
The other thing I would ask is if Mr.
[1:12:44] Blankenship, can you share I was looking
through my emails and I could not find
[1:12:48] the links. I don't know if they just got
missed through the city. If you could
[1:12:51] resubmit any of those links, I'd be very
interested in your project, especially
[1:12:55] as the one of the things, uh, that I
also sit on is the Springfield Economic
[1:12:59] Development Area with, which is all the
TIF financing that you were speaking
[1:13:02] about. And I certainly think, um,
I I think that's a very involved
[1:13:06] conversation and, um, I think you might
we might find we have many things in in
[1:13:11] common on the route that you're thinking
there. Uh, but along the way, yes, the
[1:13:14] beautiful cal can we beautify things
along the way is a really important
[1:13:16] conversation. So, um, if you could re-
resubmit those, I would be very happy to
[1:13:21] look at those. Thank you.
>> All right. Anybody else?
[1:13:26] All right. Thank you so much.
Next item, please.
[1:13:30] » Uh, next item under ordinances is the
International Way annexation. This is an
[1:13:33] ordinance annexing certain territory
identified as Assessor's Map
[1:13:37] 17-03-15-00,
[1:13:41] tax lot 5400, and Map 17-03-15-30,
[1:13:47] tax lot 400, to the City of Springfield
and the Willamalane Park and Recreation
[1:13:51] District, adopting a severability
clause, and providing an effective date.
[1:13:56] This is the fourth reading, and Kristina
Kraaz is here for this item.
[1:14:02] » Thank you, Mayor and Council. You know,
we write those ordinances to be long
[1:14:05] titled, so we have time to walk up here.
[1:14:09] So, this evening, um,
we are here for the International Way
[1:14:15] annexation.
And as a reminder,
[1:14:20] there we go. I just want to make sure I
I always click the wrong direction on
[1:14:23] this. So, um, bear with me if I go the
wrong way on the slides. As a reminder,
[1:14:28] this is a quasi-judicial annexation
process.
[1:14:31] Um, application by PeaceHealth and Lane
County for 17.99 acres on International
[1:14:36] Way, shown in the map above, and the
application number is 81126,
[1:14:42] 00004,
type four.
[1:14:46] Um, I'm going to pause for a moment if
any city councilors have any ex parte
[1:14:50] contacts that you wish to declare or any
um conflicts of interest in this matter.
[1:14:57] » All right, we'll start with uh counselor
Mao and if you could declare any ex
[1:15:01] parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
>> I had no ex parte contact with anybody.
[1:15:09] » You go ahead.
Wait, hang on counselor Mao. Could you
[1:15:13] clarify? Do you have any contacts uh
conflicts of interest?
[1:15:19] » I think it's what I was sort of saying.
I have no conflict of interest.
[1:15:25] » Uh I have no conflicts of interest and
I've had no ex parte contact.
[1:15:31] » I have no new ex parte contact um and
I'll just restate I have a potential
[1:15:36] conflict of interest as a property owner
in the Gateway area.
[1:15:40] » I had no ex parte contact and I have a
potential conflict of interest. My
[1:15:45] employer is in the health care industry
and may do business with PeaceHealth.
[1:15:51] » I have no conflicts of interest. Um I
will say on August 1st I attended a
[1:15:55] Drifters game and while there Kelly
Richardson shared high-level concerns
[1:15:59] with me regarding the draft annexation
agreement. I made it clear to him that I
[1:16:03] could not share my opinions or any
thoughts on the matter.
[1:16:06] Um
the concerns that he mentioned to me
[1:16:09] informally that evening are now
reflected in detail in the letter
[1:16:12] submitted on August 6th by Richardson
Sports attorney ensuring they are part
[1:16:16] of the official record.
>> No ex parte con- contacts and no
[1:16:21] conflicts of interest.
[1:16:24] » I have no ex parte but it was noted in
the packet that the site is currently
[1:16:29] within the Eugene School District 4J's
boundary.
[1:16:32] Uh 4J appears as only a service
provider.
[1:16:35] Um according to the packet there is no
residential population generated by the
[1:16:39] project. There is no financial interest
nor ethics conflict. However, I felt it
[1:16:44] prudent to mention that I am employed by
Eugene 4J School District.
[1:16:51] » We're going to get good at this by the
time this is over.
[1:16:55] » Thank you for that. Um because there
were no ex parte contacts that were
[1:16:59] disclosed that include information not
already provided to the applicants to
[1:17:03] respond to, um there's no need for the
council to reopen the record or or
[1:17:07] provide more opportunity for a hearing.
To give a quick overview for my plan for
[1:17:14] guiding helping guide you through some
discussion this evening, we're going to
[1:17:18] start with a brief process up update to,
you know, just this is your first
[1:17:22] meeting back from a well-deserved break
and I want to reground with where we're
[1:17:26] at. We'll review the criteria of
approval. We'll touch on House Bill
[1:17:30] 2005, which has now been codified in
state law.
[1:17:34] Um we'll focus on comprehensive plan
consistency and finally next steps.
[1:17:40] As a process update, you last met on
this topic on June 22nd. At that
[1:17:44] meeting, you closed the record for new
evidence
[1:17:47] and the parties have submitted their
final arguments, which are in your
[1:17:51] packet.
Um I we have a staff prepared updated
[1:17:55] findings because council has not given
direction on whether you want to
[1:17:59] further examine approving or denying.
There is a draft um ordinance that
[1:18:04] you've now on your fourth reading of
a annexation agreement that was
[1:18:09] negotiated they negotiated by city staff
with the express understanding that city
[1:18:14] council needs to review and weigh in.
And there are findings both for uh if
[1:18:19] you were to take a direction to approve
to give feedback on or if you were to
[1:18:22] take to direction to deny an order that
could be used to do that with proposed
[1:18:27] findings there.
I want to note some um errors in the
[1:18:31] just really quickly some errors in the
staff report that goes with the
[1:18:35] ordinance. Um I had drafted a finding
regarding a mistaken version of an IGA
[1:18:41] with ODOT that was submitted by Mr.
Gelardi. The error was not attributable
[1:18:45] to Mr. Gelardi in any way. He pointed
out that the version he submitted to our
[1:18:50] packet um, for your consideration is
what ODOT has published. So, there's
[1:18:53] apparently an incorrect version of um,
the executed IGA on ODOT's website. And
[1:19:00] so, we will I will work with city staff
to try to follow up to correct that. Um,
[1:19:04] and I want to apologize for Mr. Gelardi
if in any way implied that there was
[1:19:07] intentional misrepresentation of facts.
That wasn't my intent in the finding.
[1:19:12] Um, and it isn't It certainly isn't what
happened.
[1:19:14] And they also made a couple errors in
regards to, um, directions. I referenced
[1:19:19] some locations being west of the subject
site that are actually east of the
[1:19:24] subject site. Mr. Limbert pointed that
out to me, um, and that will be
[1:19:27] corrected in the,
um, if that staff report moves forward.
[1:19:32] And then very briefly again, there was a
record objection to some information in
[1:19:36] the applicant's final written testimony.
That is addressed in the staff report. I
[1:19:41] recommend the council through your
adopted findings just reject that
[1:19:45] information that was, um, objected to as
being outside the record. And just that
[1:19:49] you adopt a finding that says you're
excluding that from your consideration.
[1:19:53] Any questions on those sort of really
brief procedural Okay.
[1:19:58] Then,
not seeing any questions,
[1:20:02] I want to remind the council that we're
going to focus on
[1:20:06] criteria of approval tonight. This is
quasi-judicial.
[1:20:10] Quasi-judicial,
um,
[1:20:13] decisions are site-specific,
um, decisions. This
[1:20:20] decision is not about the value that the
applicant's proposed use of this
[1:20:26] property has for the community. This
council is not asked to weigh the
[1:20:30] relative importance of crisis
stabilization services or behavioral
[1:20:34] health facilities for the community. I
understand that that's a very important
[1:20:39] issue to the community, but that's not
the city council's role in a quasi
[1:20:43] quasi-judicial annexation process.
The council has to follow your criteria
[1:20:49] of approval, and that's a requirement of
state law. It's a requirement that is
[1:20:53] grounded in long-standing legal
framework for this type of site-specific
[1:20:58] decision-making,
and the purpose is to ensure that your
[1:21:01] decisions are based on a fair and
consistent process,
[1:21:04] and that
that your the rules that apply to that
[1:21:07] process are knowable to all parties in
advance.
[1:21:12] The criteria for annexation are in
Springfield Development Code 5.7140.
[1:21:17] Two criteria are clearly met with this
application, and there's no there's been
[1:21:21] no dispute at any point that these two
are not met, and that is that the
[1:21:24] property is inside the urban growth
boundary, and it is contiguous to city
[1:21:27] limits.
The other three criteria are more
[1:21:30] substantive and are in dispute between
the applicants and and some public
[1:21:34] testimony that you've received. The
first criteria is what I want to focus
[1:21:38] this session tonight on, and that is
consistency with the comprehensive plan.
[1:21:43] The city's comprehensive plan is a
long-term
[1:21:46] planning document that guides how the
city how the city council, with input
[1:21:52] from the community, intends for the city
to develop in the next approximately 20
[1:21:56] years for meeting our need for
employment land,
[1:21:59] for housing, and then for other public
facilities and services designed to
[1:22:03] support those various uses. So, that's
what um we're going to focus on tonight.
[1:22:08] I recognize there are significant issues
and a lot of public comment on
[1:22:13] the ability to provide this property and
these proposed uses with key urban
[1:22:18] facilities and services, infrastructure,
and as well as some concerns with the
[1:22:22] staff annexation agreement.
We've talked about um previously I
[1:22:27] talked about with you that the criteria
for annexation follow a hierarchy.
[1:22:32] So, really the council needs to make a
decision, and not necessarily final
[1:22:37] decision, but needs to give some
direction on if you think this
[1:22:39] annexation is consistent with the
comprehensive plan policies about the
[1:22:44] proposed uses, um, or it could be
consistent with the right
[1:22:47] infrastructure, or if you think that it
is just not consistent with the
[1:22:52] comprehensive plan policies around
campus industrial designation. Because
[1:22:56] your decision on that point will govern
whether it's necessary for you to make
[1:23:01] decisions about infrastructure and the
annexation agreement.
[1:23:06] So, I'm hoping we can stick to that
middle one, and we'll get to what with
[1:23:10] the next two when we get to next steps
at the end of the session.
[1:23:15] Before we get into the comprehensive
plan, I want to touch base again on
[1:23:19] House Bill 2005.
There's been a lot of discussion about
[1:23:22] the superseding bill, as it's called,
um, and how it relates to this
[1:23:26] annexation. I want to be clear that the
statute, now codified at ORS 197A.386,
[1:23:35] does not apply to your annexation
decision. It's relevant to the
[1:23:39] annexation because it governs, or not
doesn't govern, it is relevant to what
[1:23:44] the applicants intend to do with the
property and how they want to move
[1:23:48] forward after annexation. So, it's a
reason
[1:23:52] for assuming certain uses may be
developed on the site, but it does not
[1:23:56] bind or apply as law to your decision at
annexation.
[1:24:00] And the reason for that is because there
is no pending development application
[1:24:05] for either of the proposed future uses.
[1:24:11] And then, there's this also, in
addition, there's a second part of the
[1:24:14] statute that is up here. The House Bill
2005, Section 60, does not apply on land
[1:24:20] where the local government, that's you,
determines the facility cannot be
[1:24:24] adequately served by those services that
the city provides, water, sewer,
[1:24:28] stormwater, drainage, or streets. Even
if there were concurrently submitted
[1:24:33] development applications with the
annexation,
[1:24:36] the city council would still have the
role and authority to determine if the
[1:24:40] facility can be provided adequate
adequately with those services, which is
[1:24:45] also going to depend on your
comprehensive plan and the policies that
[1:24:49] you've set for this property.
[1:24:53] But, to be clear, at this time, the
state law does not apply. So, I want to
[1:24:57] get that out of the way and I answer any
questions that you have about that
[1:24:59] before we move forward.
>> All right. Any questions?
[1:25:03] Is that disputed at all in the record?
Are Are does everybody agree that state
[1:25:07] law is not applying in this the
superseding appeal is not applying in
[1:25:10] this situation?
>> The applicants have acknowledged that
[1:25:13] the superseding bill does not apply.
However, they've also made the argument
[1:25:17] that it does still apply because you
can't apply policies. That would mean
[1:25:22] they have to change the comp plan before
it can be annexed. I don't know how both
[1:25:25] of those things can be true. I'm not
sure what the legal theory is there that
[1:25:29] it doesn't apply, but you also have to
use it.
[1:25:31] Um and so, my recommendation is just
that it doesn't apply, and I don't think
[1:25:35] there's any serious legal dispute that
it governs your decision.
[1:25:39] » Okay, thank you.
[1:25:46] » Okay. So, getting into the comprehensive
plan
[1:25:49] criteria. I'm going to walk my my plan
for this section is to sort of walk you
[1:25:53] through the decision-making framework
that I recommend.
[1:25:57] Um and then we'll get to a point where,
once we have kind of gone through the
[1:26:04] way this criteria plays out with the
what I feel is the the
[1:26:10] most important first policy to
address around planned urban uses, um
[1:26:16] then there'll be time that either the
city council can begin your discussion
[1:26:19] if you're ready or we I can give some
examples of two different paths you
[1:26:23] could take and we can talk about that
further.
[1:26:26] So, the comprehensive plan consistency
criteria says the proposed annexation,
[1:26:30] so this is the requirement to approve
it, if it is consistent with applicable
[1:26:34] policies in the Springfield
comprehensive plan, metro plan, and any
[1:26:38] applicable refinement plans or plan
districts.
[1:26:41] As some background here, the Springfield
comprehensive plan is the city's own
[1:26:45] specific long-range urban development
plan that um, replaces the metro plan in
[1:26:52] several key areas. The metro plan is the
prior long-standing Eugene-Springfield
[1:26:57] total area plan. Since 2007, Springfield
and Eugene have been working on our own
[1:27:02] independent metro independent plans that
will eventually replace the metro plan.
[1:27:07] For um, the housing element, for
economic um,
[1:27:13] the economic element, so that's
employment opportunities, for land use
[1:27:16] specific policies, and for urbanization,
which is the process of annex annexing
[1:27:21] and developing urban uses, the
Springfield comprehensive plan controls
[1:27:26] the metro plan. The metro plan still
applies in Springfield for issues around
[1:27:30] topics like natural hazards, natural
resources, public facilities and
[1:27:35] services.
And then this area is in the Gateway
[1:27:37] refinement plan, there is no plan
district that applies.
[1:27:44] Getting into the urbanization element,
the number one policy, the very first
[1:27:48] policy in the element is the one that I
think is most important for you to
[1:27:51] consider first. And that is that
urbanizable lands within the 2030 UGB,
[1:27:56] that's the Springfield UGB, shall be
converted to urban uses as shown in the
[1:28:00] Springfield comprehensive plan map, and
more particularly described in
[1:28:04] neighborhood refinement plans and the
policies of this plan.
[1:28:08] I also included a little bit of text
from urbanization element policy 30 that
[1:28:13] I think um
calls back to policy one and reinforces
[1:28:17] the importance of policy one. And that's
And the part the relevant part of that
[1:28:22] policy is that unincorporated land in
the Springfield UGB may be developed
[1:28:26] with permitted uses at maximum density
only upon annexation to the city when
[1:28:30] it's found that key urban facilities and
services can be provided to the area to
[1:28:33] be annexed in an orderly and efficient
manner.
[1:28:39] So, how do you interpret what that
policy means and it whether this
[1:28:43] annexation complies?
First, we have to know what some terms
[1:28:46] mean. Urbanizable land is land that is
in the Springfield UGB but not yet
[1:28:50] annexed. That clearly applies here.
Urban uses
[1:28:54] I recommend are uses described in the
applicable plan based on the
[1:28:58] comprehensive plan map designation. And
that's looking at the definition of
[1:29:02] urban uses in the context of the
statewide planning goals that that
[1:29:06] policy language comes from, which are
statewide planning goal 14 and 11.
[1:29:11] The comprehensive plan map designation
for this property is campus industrial.
[1:29:15] The land use element is one part of the
Springfield comprehensive plan that
[1:29:19] gives an explanation of each of the
city's designations. And then the
[1:29:23] Gateway refinement plan also has policy
language describing the campus
[1:29:26] industrial plan designation.
[1:29:30] The Gateway refinement plan refers to
this property as part of the Gateway SLI
[1:29:34] site. SLI means special light
industrial.
[1:29:38] And states that it's intended to
implement the Metro plan's special light
[1:29:41] industrial designation.
When the land use element for
[1:29:45] Springfield was adopted, that SLI
designation is superseded and replaced
[1:29:49] with the campus industrial designation.
So, instead of special light industrial,
[1:29:53] it's referred to as campus industrial in
Springfield and that better matches the
[1:29:57] name of the zone.
Um otherwise, the purpose and
[1:30:00] description of those two designations
were um
[1:30:03] essentially equivalent.
The land use element then gives a long
[1:30:07] description of the purpose of the campus
industrial designation, and that's in
[1:30:11] the staff report and findings, but I'm
also putting it up on the slides.
[1:30:15] And the council we can come back to this
as many times as we need to, so I'm not
[1:30:20] going to read it all out loud, but some
key
[1:30:23] I think parts of this
uh policy language is that the primary
[1:30:27] objective of the designation is to
provide opportunities for
[1:30:30] diversification of the local economy
through siting of light industrial firms
[1:30:34] in a campus-like setting.
The activities of such firms must be
[1:30:37] obscure from public view and have
external impacts less than or equal to
[1:30:41] office uses, such as noise pollution and
vibration.
[1:30:44] Then there's more explanation around
large-scale large-scale light industrial
[1:30:49] uses are the primary focus of the
designation, but provision should also
[1:30:54] be made for small and medium-scale
industrial uses within the context of
[1:30:57] industrial and business parks, which
will maintain a campus-like setting. It
[1:31:01] describes some complimentary uses like
corporate office headquarters and
[1:31:04] supporting commercial establishments
serving primary may also be cited on a
[1:31:08] limited basis.
And then the description also has
[1:31:12] requirements for conceptual like this is
site-specific requirements now.
[1:31:16] Conceptual development planning
performance standards or site review
[1:31:18] processes to be applied to ensure some
goals of that campus um industrial
[1:31:24] district. Adequate circulation
functional coordination among uses on
[1:31:27] each site, high-quality environmental
setting and compatibility with adjacent
[1:31:30] areas. There's a 50 minimum minimum lot
size
[1:31:34] um
to protect undeveloped sites from
[1:31:36] piecemeal development until site plan
development plans been approved. That's
[1:31:40] doesn't apply to this application
because this application's not seeking
[1:31:43] to divide anything. So, it's really the
first part of this policy um
[1:31:48] that is going to
govern the how the city council wants to
[1:31:53] interpret whether this annexation is
consistent. So, this is a big this is I
[1:31:57] think this is the main crux of the
question in front of council tonight is
[1:32:01] do you
um
[1:32:04] support interpreting this policy
language that the proposed annexation
[1:32:09] for proposed future uses is consistent
with this policy language or do you
[1:32:14] believe that it's inconsistent? Um and
this is a good point for me to ask if
[1:32:19] you have any questions.
If you want to begin deliberations after
[1:32:24] we've asked answered questions, we can
do that, but we also have I also have a
[1:32:28] framework if you're struggling can walk
through some options of what
[1:32:31] interpretations are I think legally
permissible.
[1:32:36] » All right, Council Redly.
>> All right, I'm just going to dive in. Is
[1:32:39] there a land use designation that is
specific to medical or that sort of use?
[1:32:45] Do we have a land use or do we often
tuck this into other things?
[1:32:50] » I that's a really great question and I
could take a moment to look at the
[1:32:54] commercial um description in the land
use element.
[1:32:58] The medical services district is one
that is a zoning district that's
[1:33:03] intended for medical uses and it
implements the commercial designation.
[1:33:07] So typically um when medical uses are
intended to be a very important or
[1:33:12] primary part of a development, the
medical services district can be
[1:33:16] appropriate and that implements a
commercial designation. But medical uses
[1:33:20] are also um service oriented uses or um
sort of
[1:33:25] that those public service oriented types
that are talked about generally in a
[1:33:30] commercial or a mixed use with a
commercial element to it.
[1:33:36] And I can do a really quick search to
see if medical specifically discussed in
[1:33:39] the
>> Well, and you're getting to what I was
[1:33:41] trying to get to is if there is another
land use designation that we often find
[1:33:45] and that's the mixed use and such. But
the zoning is a different layer, right?
[1:33:50] » Correct and that's a good point. I want
to I would I should clarify one of the
[1:33:54] comments that was made um by both the
applicants and the opponents was to call
[1:33:59] back to the council's EWEB annexation
decision
[1:34:03] um
that you previously made. And um if
[1:34:06] you'll recall on the same night you held
your first public hearing in this
[1:34:09] matter, you also adopted the ordinance
on um EWEB's proposed code amendments.
[1:34:14] So,
uh applicants have said in the EWEB
[1:34:17] annexation, you knew that the EWEB was
going to use the property for something
[1:34:21] not allowed in the code, and you didn't
apply the comprehensive plan to prevent
[1:34:25] that annexation. The um opponents have
said, "Well, that's a completely
[1:34:30] different context, and it's not It
doesn't govern your decision here." Um
[1:34:35] and what I would say is it's D, none of
the or C, none of the above. In the EWEB
[1:34:39] annexation, the council considered the
proposed future uses, but the council
[1:34:43] did not make a finding that those
proposed future uses were inconsistent
[1:34:47] with the comprehensive plan
for that property.
[1:34:51] And in fact, the council
on in May amended the development code
[1:34:56] to say that those proposed uses were
allowed, which required a finding of
[1:34:59] consistency with a comprehensive plan.
So, I will acknowledge that the findings
[1:35:04] are not necessarily very clear in that
EWEB annexation decision that's
[1:35:06] mentioned in the record, but um it does
reinforce when you read through all the
[1:35:11] findings that the proposed uses were
part of the city council's decision
[1:35:15] making. Um and so yes, I would say that
what the zoning allows doesn't govern.
[1:35:20] Something can be not allowed under the
development code other than zoning, but
[1:35:23] still consistent with the comprehensive
plan if it just hasn't been added to the
[1:35:26] code because the code can't cover every
conceivable circumstance. But also, the
[1:35:31] fact that something is not allowed in
the code may be persuasive evidence that
[1:35:36] it's inconsistent with the designation.
>> Uh Counselor Weber.
[1:35:42] » Thank you, Kristina. I don't have any
questions. Um if other councilors do, um
[1:35:47] I think we should hear those, but
if if not, I'm ready to just make a
[1:35:51] statement.
>> you want.
[1:35:53] Okay.
Uh so I wrote this out just so I don't
[1:35:57] kind of get lost in my thoughts here.
The decision we make today isn't about
[1:36:02] whether the need for a behavioral health
facility exists. I think we all agree
[1:36:06] it's a really serious issue and it's one
that needs to be addressed. Today's
[1:36:09] decision at its core is a land use
decision that requires this council to
[1:36:14] fairly and consistently apply annexation
criteria.
[1:36:18] House Bill 2005 does not take effect
until an annexation agreement is
[1:36:22] approved. That means the bill's
provisions are not active today and they
[1:36:26] cannot be used to justify annexation
before the agreement itself is
[1:36:31] finalized.
We are still required to make our
[1:36:34] findings under the comprehensive plan,
the urbanization element, and the
[1:36:38] gateway refinement plan.
I do not believe this application meets
[1:36:42] the criteria established in these plans
and I am uncomfortable approving a
[1:36:46] one-off annexation agreement that would
effectively set a precedent for future
[1:36:50] one-offs.
Springfield has worked hard to maintain
[1:36:53] consistency and predictability in our
land use decisions and I do not believe
[1:36:57] it serves the community to make
exceptions that later become
[1:37:01] expectations.
Instead, I think the responsible path is
[1:37:05] to take a holistic look at our zoning
requirements, particularly in areas
[1:37:09] where we may want to support econom-
economic development, and determine
[1:37:14] whether a broader rezoning approach is
appropriate.
[1:37:17] If the council believes certain types of
uses are important for Springfield's
[1:37:20] long-term long-term economic future,
then we should evaluate that through a
[1:37:25] comprehensive, transparent process that
includes community input.
[1:37:29] My interest is in what best serves
Springfield's future development needs
[1:37:33] and not in creating isolated exceptions
that bypass the larger policy
[1:37:37] conversation.
For that reason, I am not prepared to
[1:37:40] support this annexation request.
[1:37:45] » All right.
Other folks, do you guys have questions?
[1:37:51] Um could you take a second
Oh, good, Counselor Stone.
[1:37:55] » So, I think I'm a little bit confused
about the exact status of the annexation
[1:37:58] agreements. Uh
I see the I see an agreement here, but
[1:38:04] I I'm just confused. Are Are we trying
to discern whether or not this is a
[1:38:09] valid one? Can you just Can you walk me
through this, please?
[1:38:12] » Yeah, I'm going to go back up to the
slide that has the criteria of approval.
[1:38:20] » And I think one of the point, I mean,
one of the criteria is that we have an
[1:38:24] annexation agreement with signed with
the city, and it was not there in any of
[1:38:27] the previous meetings that we've had.
>> Correct. After the the um
[1:38:32] my understanding of the direction from
Council in June 22nd was we're not sure
[1:38:36] if we will if we are prepared to approve
or deny this, but one of the concerns
[1:38:40] would be if there's an annexation
agreement that moves forward, if that's
[1:38:44] not included in the record, then that
might be grounds for a procedural
[1:38:48] challenge later on. So, knowing that the
Council may want to approve this
[1:38:51] application, um we felt as staff it was
important to develop um
[1:38:57] an annexation agreement that staff could
support um
[1:39:01] and negotiate that with the applicant so
that it could be put in the record,
[1:39:04] um and there could be response to it for
Council's consideration if you want to
[1:39:08] move that forward. We're on step what I
would say step three of applying the
[1:39:12] criteria, and the annexation agreement's
at step five.
[1:39:16] So, I think that um
an annexation agreement or some other
[1:39:20] form of mitigating fiscal impact, sorry,
would be appropriate, but you can't get
[1:39:24] to that step unless you decide whether
it's consistent with a comprehensive
[1:39:29] plan at a higher level because
um
[1:39:33] I mean, if if the annexation is not
consistent with the comprehensive plan,
[1:39:38] we can't determine if the minimum level
of key urban facilities and services can
[1:39:42] be provided to a use that's the council
finds is inconsistent with a
[1:39:46] comprehensive plan.
Um
[1:39:50] » Are you done, Councillor Stout?
>> Yep. Yeah, that's
[1:39:52] » Uh Councillor Rodli.
[1:39:56] » You'll see what I do. Um
Thank you.
[1:39:59] So, I I feel a little differently about
this or I'm thinking a little
[1:40:03] differently about this than Councillor
Webber. Um I I'm really First of all, I
[1:40:09] appreciate that we have reined it in cuz
I think that's part of it felt like like
[1:40:13] we do annexation conversations all the
time. And this particular one got taken
[1:40:18] to a whole other place that was not at
all what we're all used to doing, which
[1:40:22] I think caused a little bit of friction
as we're like trying to say, "Look, we
[1:40:26] don't usually talk about these things.
We we know how to do annexation
[1:40:29] agreements."
I think for me um exactly where we're at
[1:40:33] right now is the conversation that I
wanted to have, whether or not this
[1:40:36] fits. And the fact that it's still a
little wiggly, I'm not convinced that it
[1:40:40] doesn't fit. So, I'm more interested in
um
[1:40:45] to Councillor Webber's point of wanting
to have a process, like is is this is
[1:40:50] this a means to that process? To have
this conversation, and this is you know,
[1:40:54] we had a about a year or so ago, we had
another business that came in and wanted
[1:40:58] to do something that folks some folks
felt outside of the um the business use.
[1:41:04] It wasn't an annexation conversation,
but it was like, "Can we do this
[1:41:07] business in the gateway area?" And we
had to have that conversation to make
[1:41:10] that decision. So, I am I am interested
in
[1:41:15] how do we
how do we, if we can, get to yes on
[1:41:19] this? And if we can't, where can this
facility go? So, that's where I'm at.
[1:41:24] I'm I'm not convinced that it doesn't
fit the comprehensive plan. That's why I
[1:41:28] was asking like, "Do we have other
designations?" And if we don't, where
[1:41:31] would we ordinarily fit this? And the
fact that um we have so many other
[1:41:36] medical uses in that area also sort of
pulls me in the direction of is there a
[1:41:42] way to get there? I'm also not convinced
that there's a way to get there based on
[1:41:46] just the simple
annexation criteria, but I'm not ready
[1:41:50] to shut the conversation down in terms
of trying to figure out does it fit or
[1:41:54] seeing how my fellow my fellow
counselors feel about whether or not it
[1:41:57] could or couldn't fit.
>> Uh Council Buck.
[1:42:04] » Uh I I I appreciate some of the
articulation, you know, um
[1:42:08] I am extremely supportive of of Peace
Health in the and and and
[1:42:13] the project that they're they're wanting
to put in our community.
[1:42:16] Uh
you know, I spent 5 years as the crisis
[1:42:19] worker that was in the ER that had the
conversations that said, "Are you going
[1:42:24] to go to a secure facility or can we
create a plan to support you to go
[1:42:28] home?"
So,
[1:42:30] you know,
I I need no convincing about the value
[1:42:34] of what Peace Health brings. Like none
whatsoever. And I feel it's extremely
[1:42:39] important that we find a way
to make sure that this facility has a
[1:42:43] home in Springfield. I think
that
[1:42:49] a couple of the places that I'm still
unsure about the fit on on this
[1:42:55] and and and and largely the
I don't want us to get into a place that
[1:43:00] is if if if we're make if the criteria
fits then it fits and great, but if
[1:43:04] we're if we're having to kind of
you know, make adjustments or exceptions
[1:43:10] or amendments to to to make it fit, then
I then I think that needs to get looked
[1:43:16] at because
as I look at the the Gateway refinement
[1:43:19] plan,
um and this may be just how I'm looking
[1:43:22] at it.
I'm looking at
[1:43:26] as somebody who works in that area,
like there's a lot of refining that
[1:43:29] needs to happen, right? I mean, it's not
uh you know, I I don't think there is a
[1:43:33] plan that anybody says, "Hey, this is
the direction we're going." I think it's
[1:43:37] still very much a work in progress and
figuring out how it all fits
[1:43:42] um with a clear process
that that creates a long-term vision.
[1:43:47] I I think it's is is important. Um
sitting sitting here today
[1:43:53] I think that
the question still remains for me
[1:43:58] does this does does this actually fit
inside um our
[1:44:03] our criteria?
I don't know that it does. I don't know
[1:44:07] that it doesn't, kind of like
Councilor Rodli said, but
[1:44:11] I also very agree very much agree with
Councilor Webber that
[1:44:14] we have to stick to something that's
consistent. We have to stick to
[1:44:18] something that makes sense because this
will not be the last time this comes up
[1:44:22] and it's going to have far-reaching
impacts over what we do because we know
[1:44:26] that that changes need to be made in
that area of the city. So
[1:44:30] I'm really hesitant to approve something
not really clear about
[1:44:36] what that ramification is. However, I am
very interested to keep the conversation
[1:44:41] going about how we can make this work.
So, I got two conflicting things there.
[1:44:46] You know, and so I'm not sure that the
land use applies
[1:44:49] but I'm not sure that it doesn't,
either.
[1:44:52] » I
If I can take a minute, I think um I'm
[1:44:56] hearing
I want to recap and make sure that I'm
[1:44:59] understanding. I'm hearing some interest
from
[1:45:03] Councilor Rodli and Councilor Duck to
maybe look at larger legislative actions
[1:45:07] in the future that might clarify things.
Um
[1:45:11] I'm I'm not sure what the questions are
in relation to the annexation the state.
[1:45:15] So, maybe help me understand a little
bit better what additional information
[1:45:19] or guidance
that you know, we we can walk through
[1:45:22] tonight. I do have slides that show two
different ways to interpret the campus
[1:45:26] industrial designation um as it relates
to the application and there probably
[1:45:31] are other ways, but these were the two
that um
[1:45:34] you know, I think are legally
defensible. Um and then how some of the
[1:45:38] facts relate to those proposed
interpretations and then what the
[1:45:42] consequence would be to this annexation
if you went either of those ways.
[1:45:46] Um but then also, you know, it's all the
council does always have an option to
[1:45:51] begin a legislative process to change
the gateway refinement plan or to
[1:45:56] redesignate and rezone, you know,
multiple part parcels or areas of a
[1:46:00] city, but that can't be within a
quasi-judicial process and you have to
[1:46:04] make a quasi-judicial decision based on
the plan and and plan provisions that
[1:46:10] existed when the application was filed.
So, it we can't you couldn't pause the
[1:46:14] annexation, pick up legislative
amendments to do something, you know,
[1:46:18] more policy-based and then resume the
annexation. So, I just want to be clear
[1:46:21] on that.
>> And I think you're hearing us kind of
[1:46:23] struggle with different avenues here,
right? Like one of them is very
[1:46:26] distinctly
um there needs to be a conversation out
[1:46:30] in in North Gateway about what our
vision is, what our zoning is, how do we
[1:46:34] balance between, you know, our tourism
uh sector, our campus industrial sector,
[1:46:40] and a growing medical sector that people
are not aligned on, right? So,
[1:46:44] as we as I'm thinking about it, we have
this conversation about this annexation
[1:46:47] and this piece of property that we're
dealing with, but underneath that,
[1:46:51] you're hearing a lot of questions about,
you know, the future gateway, how do we
[1:46:56] deal with the transportation, and I
would expect that some of those things
[1:46:59] are going to sort of spin off into
additional work after whatever we do
[1:47:02] with this this uh annexation.
And then I think
[1:47:08] I'm hearing you tell us we can't work
those problems, we got to work the
[1:47:11] annexation. That's the thing that's
right That's the thing that's right in
[1:47:14] front of us.
Um my question,
[1:47:18] and if this is in your slides, uh Uh, we
can we can definitely go down we could
[1:47:22] definitely go down that road. As I'm
thinking about, you know, the work we
[1:47:26] did around the Haas property, right? We
basically had a clinic go into, you
[1:47:30] know, 555 International. Um, we've had
another Haas, but like, what are those
[1:47:35] zonings? Cuz the map you showed does
have a,
[1:47:38] uh, does have, I think still has them as
campus industrial.
[1:47:42] » Correct. And the the Haas Office Park,
which was the applicant for those
[1:47:46] development code changes,
>> Right.
[1:47:47] » um, is zoned campus industrial and
continues to be. The findings in that
[1:47:51] decision were based around what's
allowable in business parks, which
[1:47:54] you'll notice, um, provision should also
be made for small and medium-scale
[1:47:58] industrial uses within the context of
industrial and business parks, which
[1:48:01] will maintain a campus-like setting with
minimal environmental impacts.
[1:48:05] While I don't have that ordinance
directly in front of me, I, um, I could
[1:48:08] certainly follow up with the council
with more information, but my
[1:48:11] recollection from that process is that
the findings were around those medical
[1:48:15] uses would be limited to business parks.
Um, and so they're, and also would have
[1:48:20] sort of the same type of external
impacts because of their status in
[1:48:23] business parks, and then also because
business parks have to go through, on
[1:48:27] the second slide, um, those performance,
those campus industrial site performance
[1:48:32] standards and site review process, um,
and impacts to surrounding properties
[1:48:38] needed to be reviewed as part of that,
um,
[1:48:42] those changes. There were also changes
made for more, um,
[1:48:46] more just more public-facing services in
general. Medical services weren't the
[1:48:50] only ones, um, based on some public
testimony and opposition to stand-alone
[1:48:54] medical uses, and public testimony based
on incompatibility with sort of at all
[1:49:00] hours types of medical services or
urgent cares, the council included a
[1:49:04] provision that said, we, you know,
urgent cares or emergency services are
[1:49:09] not permitted because of the impacts
that those would have that the council
[1:49:13] at that time thought would be, um,
not necessarily compatible with the
[1:49:18] campus industrial setting. That doesn't
necessarily mean that you couldn't make
[1:49:22] a different like you couldn't apply the
purpose of this district and make a
[1:49:26] different decision for the applicants
for annexation for the applicants
[1:49:30] proposed uses looking at the um,
the
[1:49:35] policy link, sorry, the
this policy language. Um, but that was
[1:49:39] the decision the council made at that
time around business parks specifically,
[1:49:43] which are called out in the policy
differently than stand-alone
[1:49:46] developments.
>> And what about um, what about the where
[1:49:49] the clinic is at 555 International?
That's the Pacific Source building.
[1:49:55] » Um, which sorry, specify which clinic?
>> I think they opened a clinic that is uh,
[1:50:02] it's Pace maybe?
>> Okay. Um, the my understanding is that
[1:50:07] the Pace clinic was approved as a
secondary or accessory use to the
[1:50:12] overall campus industrial use.
[1:50:17] » Okay.
[1:50:21] I think and I'll I'll turn it over to
folks if they've got more questions. I
[1:50:24] mean, I think it would be helpful to go
through the slides, right? Because where
[1:50:28] where I'm thinking about about it is I
still have questions around does it fit
[1:50:34] in the campus industrial? It
uh, when I think about the annexation,
[1:50:38] um, it you know, it feels like we can
generally serve it. I think
[1:50:42] Councilmember brings up a good good uh,
good point that we have a lot of work in
[1:50:47] front of us, right? Until we have the
final final annexation agreement, until
[1:50:51] we have the transportation questions,
the wheels can kind of come off the bus
[1:50:54] on this thing a couple of a couple of
different ways.
[1:50:57] And I feel like it
it meets the employment standards, but
[1:51:01] where I want to
see a little bit more is around this
[1:51:04] question of okay, how does it fit in
this campus industrial framework?
[1:51:08] » Okay. Um, so
>> Before we get
[1:51:11] off track, I know there's some people
that haven't asked questions. I'm just
[1:51:14] going to give
folks a chance to
[1:51:17] Okay, I don't think we have no
questions. So maybe your two your two
[1:51:20] slides about two competing frameworks
would help us?
[1:51:23] » Yes, but I want to back up briefly to
this slide really quickly
[1:51:28] with the urbanization element
um just to make sure I touch on this
[1:51:33] well.
So urbanizable lands in the 2030 UGB
[1:51:36] shall be converted to urban uses. It
does say as shown on the Springfield
[1:51:40] Comprehensive Plan Map. Um and the plan
map is what provides those designations.
[1:51:46] So I just want to reinforce that that is
the reason that we're talk that's one of
[1:51:49] the reasons we're talking about the
anticipated future uses um because I
[1:51:54] know that that's been a point of
contention. There's an argument that the
[1:51:57] city has to look at annexation in a
vacuum and not consider how the property
[1:52:01] would be used in the future. And I don't
recommend that that's consistent with
[1:52:04] the way that the um comprehensive plan
is written. So before we get to into how
[1:52:09] to interpret that campus industrial
language, I want to make sure the
[1:52:11] council understands and doesn't have
questions about sort of that fundamental
[1:52:15] interpretation because that's different
than what the applicants have asked you
[1:52:18] to to do with this policy.
>> So you're asking us whether or not we're
[1:52:23] clear on
can we interpret the annexation in a
[1:52:26] vacuum versus understand their proposed
use in the absence of I guess a
[1:52:31] development application?
>> Yeah. You're not looking at whether
[1:52:33] their proposed use is specifically
approvable and meets specific criteria
[1:52:38] for development, but whether the
anticipated future uses are My
[1:52:41] recommendation is that you look at
whether their anticipated future uses
[1:52:45] fall within the description of urban
uses as shown in the Springfield
[1:52:49] Comprehensive Plan Map, which means that
you would look to the Comprehensive Plan
[1:52:52] designation policies that are either in
the assignment plan or the land use
[1:52:56] element or both. And I just want to make
sure that that that's a fundamental
[1:52:59] framework that applies to both ways I'm
recommending you could interpret the
[1:53:03] campus industrial designation. So if you
had an issue with that approach, I would
[1:53:07] need to back it up again a level.
>> Okay, but uh
[1:53:11] » pedance
>> I'm seeing some pedance, but we expect
[1:53:14] land use certificates by the time this
is done.
[1:53:16] » think he'll have earned more than
certificates. I think like bull bull and
[1:53:19] diplomas with some tassels to turn. Um
Okay. So,
[1:53:25] sorry, skipping ahead. I'm jumping
around a whole bunch, sorry.
[1:53:29] So, again, there there may be more than
two ways to interpret it, but I think
[1:53:33] there are sort of two general approaches
that you can take when you look at this
[1:53:36] policy language. And I also want to be
clear the city council has discretion to
[1:53:41] interpret your comprehensive plan
policies. The land use board of appeals
[1:53:45] will give you leeway. They can think you
didn't make the best interpretation.
[1:53:50] They would have liked the other
interpretation better, as long as your
[1:53:53] interpretation is plausible and doesn't
clearly contradict sort of the overall
[1:53:58] legal framework and purpose for your
policies, then they will give you
[1:54:02] discretion on the interpretation that
you make. So, I my
[1:54:05] um purpose I think is to bring to you
those options that you have for
[1:54:08] interpreting that.
So, with that said, I think there's kind
[1:54:10] of two ways you could look at this. One
is you could look at, well, what types
[1:54:14] of other employment uses are generally
compatible with a campus industrial
[1:54:18] area, um
based on the sort of broader language in
[1:54:24] that policy. So, other employment kind
of way to summarize this, other
[1:54:28] employment uses may be allowed when
their characteristics are compatible
[1:54:32] with the CI designation and the area
remains primarily focused on light
[1:54:35] industrial uses. So, when the
campus industrial district district as a
[1:54:39] whole, looking at it in as an entire
area,
[1:54:42] maintains its campus industrial
primarily for light industrial uses,
[1:54:47] then you can have sites that develop for
different uses that aren't those
[1:54:50] described in the um designation, as long
as they're have they have some level of
[1:54:55] compatibility.
The other way that you could interpret
[1:54:58] that policy is maybe more not more
limited, but more specific.
[1:55:02] Other employment uses, so not light
industrial firms. There's no dispute, I
[1:55:06] will say, that what the that the planned
future uses of the property is light
[1:55:10] industrial. I don't think anyone is
arguing to you that it fits in that
[1:55:13] primary purpose of the campus industrial
district. So, other employment uses, um
[1:55:18] another way to relate to this is other
employment uses must primarily serve,
[1:55:22] support, or relate to industrial uses,
or be secondary to industrial uses.
[1:55:27] Um I think either of these
interpretations are consistent with the
[1:55:30] code changes you made in the Haas um
application because it either way you
[1:55:35] look at it, in one the other medical or
retail or food service type uses, um
[1:55:44] still ensure the area remains primarily
for campus industrial, light employment,
[1:55:48] or light industrial types type of uses,
and the area um and those business park
[1:55:52] uses are compatible with the surrounding
CI district. On the other industrial
[1:55:57] related uses, those other retail uses
are still within a business park, which
[1:56:02] is approved as itself a campus
industrial use, and is intended to
[1:56:06] accommodate light industrial uses. And
so, those other sort of public-facing
[1:56:10] uses would be secondary to industrial
uses within that business park as a
[1:56:15] whole.
Um so, I want to be clear, I think both
[1:56:18] of these ways kind of keep consistency
with other ways you've applied this this
[1:56:22] designation in the past.
If you took those approaches, then some
[1:56:26] of the facts you might consider to be
relevant, I should change it on here and
[1:56:30] on my own computer because you can't see
my own computer. Um so, looking at
[1:56:34] compatibility with employment uses
generally. So, the the site is about 18
[1:56:39] acres out of uh 280-acre SLI site in the
Gateway Refinement Plan. So, using that
[1:56:45] like sort of area-wide metric,
allowing
[1:56:48] isolated sort of medical type uses on
this site does not primarily change the
[1:56:53] campus industrial area as a whole.
And anticipated uses could be found to
[1:57:00] be like light industrial uses in that
they also diversify diversify local
[1:57:04] economy. They provide jobs.
They would be
[1:57:08] set in a campus-like environment. That's
the way the applicant has proposed it.
[1:57:11] It would be a campus of these two
facilities together. Um the primary
[1:57:16] activities on the site are obscured from
public view. Usually we think of
[1:57:20] obscuring primary activities to mean
like we don't do outdoor storage of
[1:57:23] heavy machinery. We're not doing,
you know, um vehicle repair out in the
[1:57:29] open. We're not uh it's not a lumber
mill type situation where you have store
[1:57:33] like storage of bulk um commodities, uh
you know, open to the public or visible
[1:57:39] to public. And then limits external
impacts um noise pollution and
[1:57:43] vibrations similar to office uses. So I
think medical facilities do have
[1:57:48] generally noise pollution and vibration
similar to off- office uses. I think on
[1:57:53] this compatible employment uses you
could adopt this interpretation but find
[1:57:56] other facts to be more important and
still conclude that the annexations for
[1:58:00] these proposed uses is inconsistent and
isn't compatible with employment uses,
[1:58:04] but I think there are a lot of facts in
the record that could lead to you
[1:58:07] concluding it is consistent.
On the side of industrial-related uses,
[1:58:12] um the site's surrounded by light
industrial uses and property owners um
[1:58:16] have given you public comment that
they're concerned about specific
[1:58:19] compatibility of this site to their
light industrial uses. There's no link
[1:58:24] between the anticipated uses and light
industrial employment or light
[1:58:27] industrial uses. So this is not like
medical services for people visiting a
[1:58:31] light industrial user. This is not um
in the example of the PeaceHealth and
[1:58:37] Pace program, this is not an example of
um a program being operated in the
[1:58:42] context of a larger light industrial
use. Um and the anticipated uses aren't
[1:58:47] accessory or complimentary to light
industrial uses. They're not you know,
[1:58:52] being carried out in the same sort of
common development or as part of a
[1:58:57] related light industrial use.
[1:59:02] So, generally
um with these two two interpretations,
[1:59:07] if you find that it's sort of more about
compatibility and overall area
[1:59:13] um then criterion B is um met for campus
industrial designation. Again, you could
[1:59:18] apply different facts on the record to
come to the opposite conclusion, I think
[1:59:21] on this one, but reading where a lot of
the facts are, I think it you know, it's
[1:59:26] likely met. Um but for two, if you took
this approach, I think criterion B is
[1:59:31] not met for campus industrial
designation. I don't think there are the
[1:59:34] set of facts um that you could find to
be more important under the second
[1:59:38] interpretation that also allows you to
approve the annexation. So, I want to be
[1:59:43] clear. I think the first way
you can make a decision
[1:59:47] still either way, you'd have to get into
the facts more and find, you know, way
[1:59:50] compatibility. Um but the second way, I
think it would be clearly not met if you
[1:59:55] prioritize sort of the very specific
wording of that um comp plan designation
[1:59:59] description for each sort of each side
as as it's proposed to develop.
[2:00:04] I can talk through either of those
interpretations more, answer questions.
[2:00:07] I know this is this really is like
very
[2:00:11] nuanced um and specifically land use
decision-making.
[2:00:16] » Do other folks have questions?
So, uh
[2:00:20] I would assume what you're kind of
setting us up is if we wanted to choose
[2:00:25] going down one path or the other, that's
going to help us get to the final
[2:00:29] decision on what we what we're talking
about from these sort of this planning
[2:00:34] consistency question.
>> Correct.
[2:00:36] » Understanding that we probably do have
transportation that is not sort of
[2:00:40] solved at all.
>> Yes.
[2:00:41] » And this question around the annexation
agreement, which we haven't even
[2:00:44] touched.
>> Correct. This is not to say if you take
[2:00:46] number one, you have to approve the
annexation. If you take number two, you
[2:00:49] don't. If you take number one, you still
have a lot of decision-making left to do
[2:00:54] if you take an interpretation like
number one.
[2:00:57] Um
but I think that that could lead you to
[2:01:01] approving the annexation. If you take
the approach of number two, that is more
[2:01:06] spec- that is more tied into the
specific text. Um but I don't think it's
[2:01:11] necessarily any more legally defensible.
I think both approaches to interpreting
[2:01:15] it is allowed, but under number two, I
think the comprehensive plan consistency
[2:01:19] would not be met. And so then I would
recommend that we don't even get into
[2:01:22] discussions of infrastructure and the
annexation agreement because I don't
[2:01:26] think there's any benefit. Um
it's legally valid. You only need one
[2:01:31] reason to deny an application. You have
to show all criteria are met to approve
[2:01:35] it. So it's generally not
um
[2:01:39] I don't know that it's helpful to the
council to spend a lot of time
[2:01:42] deliberating over whether other criteria
are met if you can't get past the comp
[2:01:47] plan and campus industrial designation.
Um but you will have a lot more
[2:01:51] deliberation to do if you if you decide
that this um that it could be a
[2:01:55] compatible employment use and the
area-wide approach.
[2:01:58] » Great. Councilor Stout.
>> Uh just real quick, I'm wondering if
[2:02:02] you can foresee any unintended
consequences of sort of the interpretive
[2:02:06] leap that I see of the compatible
employment uses path of the first path.
[2:02:11] I see it as a bit of an interpretive
leap.
[2:02:13] What I mean, it's been alleged that the
EWEB decision may have had some, you
[2:02:17] know, consequences for how we are to
apply things consistently. So I'm
[2:02:21] curious to you and you don't have to
have an answer right now for this, but
[2:02:25] can we talk through like, okay, what are
some of the unintended consequences that
[2:02:28] are going to happen on a development
level
[2:02:31] um for future applications that come
down the pike?
[2:02:34] » Yeah, that's a great question. So I
think the first answer I would say is
[2:02:38] that the comprehensive plan is typically
not a criteria of approval for a
[2:02:41] development application. So, typically
the comprehensive plan gets applied to a
[2:02:45] very limited scope of decisions that the
council makes. One of those is
[2:02:49] annexation.
Another type of decision is a plan
[2:02:52] amendment and zone change.
Typically in that case you would be
[2:02:56] looking at whether the zoning that's
proposed fits with the description of
[2:03:01] the comprehensive plan designation. And
so on in that way
[2:03:05] somebody may make the argument that a
zone that is not campus industrial still
[2:03:09] fits within the campus industrial
designation based on it being a very
[2:03:13] small site. I think that would be
different enough that the council's
[2:03:17] decision in this annexation would not
bind that other decision.
[2:03:22] Um
I also think that, you know, it would
[2:03:25] apply to other annexations in the campus
industrial district. What is unique
[2:03:28] about this one that I don't see applying
elsewhere is that um
[2:03:33] we would not enter an agreement with the
applicants that said this annexation is
[2:03:37] approved but you have to do a plan
amendment zone change.
[2:03:40] And anyone else wanting to annex in the
campus industrial district for a use
[2:03:44] that isn't allowed in the campus
industrial district
[2:03:47] I think would typically understand,
absent a state superseding law, that
[2:03:50] they would need to do a plan amendment
zone change
[2:03:53] um and would be understanding of an
annexation agreement that contemplated
[2:03:57] that or or that made findings stating
that would be required.
[2:04:00] Um
So, I I don't think either of these
[2:04:04] binds the council in a way that would be
problematic or would prevent or limit
[2:04:07] council's decision making. Um
while I don't in
[2:04:12] I would never in give you an
interpretation as plausible that I would
[2:04:17] expect you to reverse later, but the law
does allow councils, you know, a future
[2:04:21] council that views things differently
can change their mind as long as they
[2:04:25] give notice of a different
interpretation
[2:04:28] um and allow the applicants in that case
to respond to a different interpretation
[2:04:31] and and um give input.
But I I think it's likely that the
[2:04:36] council does will do some work to maybe
look at this in more depth. Um, and
[2:04:40] you'll be continuing to do comprehensive
planning. So, the likelihood that the
[2:04:43] exact facts arise again,
um,
[2:04:46] it seems pretty unlikely.
>> Uh, Councilmember Buck.
[2:04:53] So, I I I think
what I'm struggling to kind of
[2:04:58] really wrap my
my my my head around here is
[2:05:03] when we look at that criteria one,
right? Like that that that first path.
[2:05:08] Um,
[2:05:10] and I kind of step back and I'm like,
yes, but it is we're talking campus
[2:05:13] industrial. So, so path two, I see how
that applies.
[2:05:18] Um,
and and I and I absolutely
[2:05:23] hear you and you're saying, you know,
legally it's defensible and all of tho-
[2:05:26] those kind of things.
I just
[2:05:31] when I look at the criteria here and I
look at the
[2:05:34] this and as much as I want to
see this project move forward,
[2:05:40] I'm just looking at this and seeing like
I don't see I don't see
[2:05:44] I'm struggling with how that applies
that that criteria one. So, maybe if you
[2:05:48] could just restate it again because
I I see it as trying
[2:05:53] to interpret like some piece of this,
but at the but but at the
[2:05:58] the base of this is does it meet campus
industrial?
[2:06:03] Um,
and and the agreement, I mean, there's
[2:06:07] no argument that this is not necessarily
that. So,
[2:06:12] how we can justify using a different
interpretation, I'm
[2:06:16] I'm unsure.
>> So, that
[2:06:20] » and again, I would love to see the
conversation continue. I'd love to see a
[2:06:23] path forward on here, but we have to do
it in a way that's consistent and and
[2:06:27] can be defensible and and repeatable.
Like if somebody else came in
[2:06:31] and this
>> I think it's absolutely defensible for
[2:06:34] the council to say that um the types of
uses that are consistent the types of
[2:06:40] urban uses that are consistent with
campus industrial are light
[2:06:44] industrial firms
that um that are like large-scale ones
[2:06:49] and then small and medium ones
industrial and business parks and then
[2:06:55] limited complimentary uses um on
um that support
[2:07:00] established sort of primary uses. Um I
also think the council could decide we
[2:07:05] want to be broader.
And so I think so I think like that's
[2:07:08] where you're headed. I think that is a
100% um a defensible interpretation of
[2:07:13] that district. If that's how the council
views that district and what this
[2:07:17] language that's on the monitor right now
means to you. It is your plan.
[2:07:22] Um you also could say we think
comprehensive plans are a little higher
[2:07:26] level. We think it ought to be a little
bit more flexible. And so we're going to
[2:07:29] read this language that that's the
primary objective of the designation
[2:07:33] does not mean the exclusive objective or
the objective, you know, not and not
[2:07:39] other employment things. So if you took
that broader view
[2:07:43] um which is not I will not say is
necessarily something the city's done in
[2:07:47] a lot of cases. Um I don't know that
you've taken a broader view of other it
[2:07:52] it's not binding on your decision, but I
don't know that the council has ever
[2:07:55] taken like a much broader view of what
the low-density residential designation
[2:08:00] is for, for example. Um state laws
required us to adopt code amendments
[2:08:05] that do that, but I don't know that the
council has ever made that call itself.
[2:08:09] Um that's probably not
relevant information to the record. So I
[2:08:12] guess I should counsel you to ignore
what I said, but um
[2:08:17] I I think like that's
you can take a broader view even if you
[2:08:20] haven't done that in the past is what
I'm trying to say. Um and so if you're
[2:08:23] taking a broader view, you would say,
"Well, sure. The primary objective is to
[2:08:28] provide for light industrial firms. And
there are about 200 some acres
[2:08:33] designated for light industrial firms
that will remain for those uses. So,
[2:08:38] this one specific site doesn't conflict
with the primary objective of the campus
[2:08:43] industrial designation. So, then the
council looks at, "Well, is it somehow
[2:08:47] going to detract from or take away from
or prevent that primary objective from
[2:08:53] moving forward?" So, then you would look
at compatibility. Um and the
[2:08:56] compatibility factors that this calls
out specifically are noise, pollution,
[2:09:00] and vibration, but you could look at
others. Oh, and and and being in a
[2:09:04] campus-like setting. You could look at
other impacts, as well. So, kind of two
[2:09:08] ways to approach it.
>> All right, Council Weber.
[2:09:16] » I really appreciate that that we want to
find a path forward here,
[2:09:21] but I I'm sitting here and I'm listening
to all of this, and we've we've spent so
[2:09:25] many hours, staff have spent so many
hours going through all of this
[2:09:29] material,
giving us, you know, trying to educate
[2:09:32] us around all of these different things.
And I'm just I'm I'm listening to this
[2:09:37] thinking to myself, yes, this is such an
important thing, and nobody wants to say
[2:09:42] no.
But at the same time, if we have to
[2:09:44] stretch this far
to determine whether this is compatible
[2:09:49] in a in a
in a zone or a
[2:09:53] plan or any of these things that this
council has put in place,
[2:09:59] this just for me is not the this isn't
the decision we should be making today.
[2:10:04] We should be making this around a more
holistic approach.
[2:10:07] Do we want to change the zoning? What do
we want the zoning to be?
[2:10:11] We just keep putting ourselves on this
slippery path of one-off decisions, and
[2:10:16] I I'm really struggling to to to be
supportive of that.
[2:10:21] » Hi, Council Quadros.
>> So, we've talked this through, I think,
[2:10:25] three or four times. We've acknowledged,
um, the difficulty of this conversation,
[2:10:29] and I do really appreciate it,
Christina, that, um, that you've stated
[2:10:34] it as well, um, because of the needs in
this community for a project like this.
[2:10:39] Um, but ultimately, that's not the
question that you're asking us. Um, and
[2:10:45] Councilor Weber, you used the word
stretch, and I have that written like
[2:10:49] four times on my paper.
Um, that this comprehensive plan, um,
[2:10:55] with the designation of the comp- campus
industrial, we're being asked to fit
[2:10:59] this comp plan for annexation purposes,
but path one, I believe, is a stretch.
[2:11:05] Taking it at a higher level, I believe,
is also a stretch. Path two, fairly
[2:11:10] obvious.
Um, it's just not it's not it's not
[2:11:15] fitting, um, in my opinion, for that
consistency that we're looking for.
[2:11:25] » You ready to get in here, Steve?
[2:11:28] » Everything we're talking about, plans
and goals and everything for this area,
[2:11:32] is irrelevant.
We need to annex it to the city first.
[2:11:36] It's going to be annexed eventually.
Let's get that done, and then we go on
[2:11:40] with the rest of the stuff.
[2:11:44] » And I think, um,
between the between the two issues, I
[2:11:49] actually see one as less of a stretch. I
mean, if I kind of play this, uh, North
[2:11:53] Gateway area out, and I kind of imagine
it filled out with the way it's
[2:11:57] developed the last 20 years, I don't
feel like any one of these is inherently
[2:12:01] incompatible, and our goal as a city has
always been specifically to diversify
[2:12:05] our employment up there. Now, that
doesn't get me all the way,
[2:12:09] but I I agree that if we go if we choose
to go down path two, this thing's
[2:12:14] essentially done, right? Because I don't
think it meets the rules for for path
[2:12:18] two, but I do think that
having the conversation at this level
[2:12:23] around that it
there are it is an employment use,
[2:12:27] and it does look and feel and talk like
a like a campus-like environment, and
[2:12:32] it's got some of those some of these
other elements. I think we keep talk I
[2:12:35] think we keep talking about it unless
folks want to try voting on which
[2:12:39] direction they want to go.
>> Councilor Bock.
[2:12:47] So,
is it fair to say the understanding of
[2:12:51] um if if we go down uh
route one, that we're acknowledging like
[2:12:58] this still has some
some real obstacles that that that could
[2:13:04] kill us down the road. We
This is
[2:13:07] we're not we're not saying that we can
get through all of that. We're just
[2:13:10] saying that we want to keep working on
it because we think that, you know, it's
[2:13:14] important and there's value here, but
that there's still some real barriers.
[2:13:19] Is that Is that what I'm
Is that what I'm understanding we could
[2:13:23] be saying with with adopting route one?
>> I think if we chose route one, that does
[2:13:29] not mean this thing that we're not going
to find another issue that essentially
[2:13:33] causes us to deny it, but it would also
mean that effective
[2:13:38] » Keep this conversation going.
>> And in route Yeah, and go ahead,
[2:13:41] Councilor Nu.
>> I want to clarify because
[2:13:43] I want to be really specific. Um there's
if you're talking about a a
[2:13:47] conversation, then that conversation
could be
[2:13:51] siting mental health services in
Springfield, which is not the annexation
[2:13:55] decision. Um and so when and I've heard
the council use that like keep the
[2:13:59] conversation or keep this issue moving
forward as like a broader discussion
[2:14:03] around siting a a facility like this
versus applying the annexation criteria
[2:14:09] to the application and how many more
meetings the council continues to
[2:14:13] deliberate on the specific annexation
criteria. So, um the what I will say is
[2:14:19] that the city's annexation decision does
not stop any public
[2:14:24] discussion or city efforts to you know,
help identify land or like any
[2:14:30] discussion on this facility. Um and and
this need for this kind of service in
[2:14:35] Springfield. It does not stop
development from happening in the future
[2:14:39] on this land. It simply denies the
application based on the
[2:14:43] the annexation based on the application
you have in front of you. There could be
[2:14:48] a different application. There could be
a different set of facts. There could be
[2:14:51] different plan designation
um or an agreement
[2:14:56] you know, to seek a plan you know, there
could be some other set of facts in a
[2:14:59] different application that the council
might reach a different decision. So, I
[2:15:03] I'm just wanting to be really clear when
you talk What do you What do you mean
[2:15:06] when you talk about the conversation
moving forward?
[2:15:09] » So, to be clear, I mean talking about
this piece of property applying the
[2:15:13] annexation criteria, not necessarily the
broader the broader policy issue around
[2:15:18] around mental health.
Go ahead, Council.
[2:15:20] » Agreed. That's what I'm talking about as
well.
[2:15:23] Acknowledging that we could we could
apply the annexation
[2:15:27] um
criteria and do that and as we after
[2:15:31] that happens, there could be a whole lot
of other things. We might not get to
[2:15:34] agreement about other pieces of it.
>> All right.
[2:15:39] All right. So, I think we got to decide
how we want to move forward here. Do we
[2:15:42] want to just take a a brief straw poll
about which one of these versions you
[2:15:46] see it as? Um looking at Christina to
make sure that
[2:15:50] » You can certainly do this. The record
and the hearing are closed. There's no
[2:15:54] issue of bias. You are allowed to start
coming to a decision. Um I will say your
[2:15:58] straw poll on how you would interpret
the comp plan does not bind you in any
[2:16:02] way to any future vote. It's just to
sort of help you narrow down where
[2:16:05] you're at, where you might have a
majority for a vote um in the future.
[2:16:10] » Okay, so do do folks
want to talk about it more, have more
[2:16:13] questions, or just take an initial cuz
we've got we still have other items to
[2:16:17] get to.
Um
[2:16:19] so want to take an initial kind of count
about kind of what they're thinking.
[2:16:24] » Um
>> Go ahead.
[2:16:25] » Mr. Mayor, this is this is one of the
first opportunities where we've actually
[2:16:29] had to speak about this topic that we've
heard quite a bit about at time.
[2:16:33] I would actually be in favor of and I
know you love hearing this, of moving
[2:16:37] this to a following meeting so that we
have an opportunity to digest the final
[2:16:42] information that's presented to us here.
And if that's not okay, I understand
[2:16:45] that, but I'm just saying there's a
tremendous amount riding on this. I'd
[2:16:48] like to be able to
think through it and take a little bit
[2:16:52] more time with it.
>> I I think that is a I think that is a
[2:16:54] reasonable I think that is a reasonable
approach too. If people aren't ready to
[2:16:57] start making some decisions to to take a
little bit more time to think about it.
[2:17:02] I'm going to look over to this side and
see what
[2:17:10] All right, you guys are going to have to
jump in here because no matter what we
[2:17:15] our obligation is to keep moving this
moving this thing forward, but we get to
[2:17:18] move it forward at the pace that we
want. If you want more time, we can take
[2:17:21] some more time cuz I know it's on the
agenda for next week to deliberate more
[2:17:26] further.
>> Yeah, my intent was to deliberate on the
[2:17:29] infrastructure issues that the council
gave that direction. Um I'm not sure
[2:17:32] what you would like me to do if you're
still not resolved on this matter
[2:17:36] because that I I don't know how to
prepare for that work session without
[2:17:39] direction on the
sort of
[2:17:42] condition precedent.
>> Okay, so let's do this. Hang on to that
[2:17:46] thought. Let's see where everybody if
people are ready to either start
[2:17:49] deciding uh
kind of path one or path two or if they
[2:17:54] want a little bit more time to think
about it.
[2:17:57] You want a little bit more time? Council
Quadros, are you are you ready to kind
[2:18:01] of pick a path or do you want more time?
[2:18:06] » I think that I'm ready to pick a path.
>> Okay. So, why don't why don't we try why
[2:18:12] don't we try that? So, Councilwoman
Quadros, what are you thinking about a
[2:18:14] path?
[2:18:17] » I am more landing in the path two at
this point.
[2:18:22] » All right. We'll we'll let Councilman
Stout have a little bit more time
[2:18:26] because he asked for it. Councilman
Webber?
[2:18:30] » I'm in neither path.
[2:18:37] » Okay. So,
>> Okay.
[2:18:39] » You have to interpret your comp plan in
order to make a decision. And so, is
[2:18:42] there a different interpretation? So, to
be clear comp the the
[2:18:47] There are other interpretations, but my
recommendation is that these are the two
[2:18:50] that are
obvious to me. Um interpretation one is
[2:18:54] broader, may allow the annexation.
Interpretation two does not allow the
[2:18:59] annexation.
>> So, let me propose an alternative here.
[2:19:05] Do folks want to go to the next week
work session and work the other issues
[2:19:09] and then come back to this one?
[2:19:13] Oh, we can do whatever we want here.
Well, I shouldn't say that. We got to we
[2:19:17] got to You guys know.
>> I need to have a framework under which
[2:19:21] the council wants me to discuss
infrastructure issues, which is going to
[2:19:24] depend on
what do you see this comprehensive plan
[2:19:27] policy meaning meaning? Um And so, I'm
not sure how to present meaningful
[2:19:32] deliberations to you and relevant
information without one of two
[2:19:36] approaches.
>> Okay. So, Councilman
[2:19:38] » I I got it. Yes. Thank you for for
adding additional clarification for me.
[2:19:43] Um path two.
>> Okay. Councilwoman Rodli?
[2:19:47] » Path one.
>> Councilman Buck?
[2:19:54] » I
[2:19:56] path
path two. I mean, I could get to path
[2:19:59] one, but I'm I'm path two right now.
>> Okay.
[2:20:04] Councilor Moe?
>> Well, I'm path one, but again,
[2:20:07] annexation is a big bright criteria
right now.
[2:20:11] » Path two.
So, that Okay. So, that would
[2:20:15] effectively direct you to deny it. Uh
for the record, I would be path one. I
[2:20:18] think talking about this thing is and
continuing to work the other issues, but
[2:20:22] if we go down path two, then then we
should just make a motion now to deny
[2:20:26] it.
>> I I don't believe you need to make a
[2:20:29] motion now. One option is the council
could bring it back with an order to
[2:20:33] deny based on an interpretation under
path two, um for review at your next
[2:20:37] regular meeting on October 5th. You
could use the work session to review
[2:20:41] that staff report um and reasoning um an
order in more detail at a work session.
[2:20:48] Um
Those are both options. Um I I don't
[2:20:52] recommend the council needs to vote
tonight unless the majority of the
[2:20:56] council was feeling like the order in
the packet with the findings there were
[2:21:00] they were very confident about that
being the right set of findings for an
[2:21:03] order to deny based on this
interpretation.
[2:21:05] » No, let's let's This is a big enough and
complicated enough thing that us
[2:21:09] continuing to work the order a little
bit more a little bit further is going
[2:21:14] to you know, would probably help
everybody.
[2:21:16] » Okay.
>> Um so, I think we let's bring it back
[2:21:19] next week when we have the work session.
>> Okay.
[2:21:21] » And then we can work that and then we
can work that piece.
[2:21:23] » Okay.
>> Um and then and then I get and then can
[2:21:27] you give us other options for what what
might happen next, right? Because we're
[2:21:31] denying this application a different set
of facts may change it.
[2:21:35] » Correct. Um I think that, you know, I
one thing I think I want to
[2:21:40] caution the council on is that I'm
expecting you'll receive new ex parte
[2:21:44] contacts um as a result of the meeting
tonight. And so, um it is not
[2:21:51] So, if you want to factor in new
information you learn that's outside the
[2:21:55] record into your decision-making, you
have to reopen the record in hearing. Um
[2:21:59] and the council can decide to do that at
a later regular session if you get ex
[2:22:04] parte contacts and it or things
submitted into the record that are too
[2:22:08] late, which is what, you know, they
might not be they might be in business
[2:22:11] from the audience at a future regular
session, for example.
[2:22:14] Um
so you'll have that option. I would
[2:22:16] still caution you to respond that you
can't discuss it. Um that it's still an
[2:22:21] ongoing process in the same way that I
believe councilors have been responding.
[2:22:25] Um and I
um
[2:22:28] you know, provide any communications you
do receive to planning staff um and to
[2:22:33] city manager's office and city
attorney's office so that we can keep
[2:22:35] track of things
um and the council can make decisions in
[2:22:38] the future on if you want to reopen the
record um for additional information.
[2:22:41] You can also just vote to um be clear
that you're excluding later submitted
[2:22:46] information into the record, later
submitted information from your
[2:22:50] consideration. So, you don't have to
consider things that people tell you um
[2:22:54] going forward. And I think no matter
what direction I got from council
[2:22:56] tonight, you were going to hear from
people after this meeting um probably
[2:23:00] regardless. So, that's just some some
caution. And um yes, I can have um
[2:23:05] options available for you or just
information to consider at the work
[2:23:08] session.
>> Well, and I
[2:23:09] » to be a tight turnaround, so I probably
won't have a lot there, but we can
[2:23:12] definitely discuss.
>> Well, if we need more time, we got to
[2:23:14] take more you know, we we got to take
more time, so that gives us
[2:23:17] » a decision in the work session anyway,
so it'll be time for Yeah.
[2:23:21] » And I think the other question is what
we just did what we just talked through
[2:23:24] right now is non-binding, right?
>> Correct. It is absolutely non-binding.
[2:23:28] It's just It's just a way for you to
gauge where you're at currently so that
[2:23:32] we can figure out where it's most
beneficial to council to spend more time
[2:23:36] um discussing and and what document
staff should bring forward for further
[2:23:40] consideration.
>> Okay. Are there any other questions?
[2:23:44] All right. Thank you, Christina.
Next item, please.
[2:23:50] » Uh the next item is under resolutions.
This is a resolution of necessity of
[2:23:54] walking and biking network improvements,
project number P21196.
[2:24:00] And Jeremy Shear is here for this item.
[2:24:14] » Good evening, Mayor, counselors.
Um this subject is uh no less weightier
[2:24:20] than the last, but hopefully less
complicated.
[2:24:24] Um City of Springfield um approved
walking and biking,
[2:24:29] which is a project intended to improve
pedestrian and bicycle
[2:24:34] uh
um
[2:24:35] connectivity.
This project is our first federal aid
[2:24:40] project as a certified city, federal
certified city.
[2:24:46] So, this is our test.
[2:24:51] The city must acquire various permanent
and temporary
[2:24:55] uh construction easements
and uh utility easements from affected
[2:25:01] properties along the project corridors.
Adoption
[2:25:06] authorizes the city to negotiate with
affected property owners, and if
[2:25:11] necessary,
proceed with condemnation
[2:25:15] proceedings pursuant Oregon law.
The right-of-way acquisition phase is a
[2:25:20] critical path
for a successful project.
[2:25:25] And it will help maintain the project
schedule and allow
[2:25:28] construction activities to proceed in a
timely manner.
[2:25:32] And that's all I have. I'll take any
questions.
[2:25:36] » Does anybody have questions?
[2:25:40] All right. I think we're ready for a
motion.
[2:25:42] » I do. What what?
>> The term actually I power of eminent
[2:25:46] domain I don't see that very often. I
see that hidden back in some documents,
[2:25:51] but this is very prominent here. How
does that apply?
[2:25:54] » The power of eminent domain
it is the power that the Yeah, well,
[2:25:59] it's the powers that you have um to
uh enter into um con- condemnation
[2:26:07] proceedings. And and really
condemnation is a process. So, it begins
[2:26:13] through negotiations and so on and so
forth.
[2:26:16] Uh and that is your your power of
eminent domain is
[2:26:22] is the process of condemnation.
If that kind of makes sense, I'm not
[2:26:27] sure if it does, but
[2:26:36] I'm I'm sorry. I can't
>> Are there particular properties that are
[2:26:38] impacted right now?
>> So, there there's um essentially there's
[2:26:44] uh five properties in this packet here.
Um one of them happens to be Odot
[2:26:49] property, which they're going to uh
relinquish to us. So, we're really not
[2:26:54] going to condemn on them.
>> I think we should.
[2:26:57] » Okay. Um
and then the other is um McKenzie
[2:27:02] Willamette, and they've already agreed,
you know,
[2:27:06] that they they want to um play. So, the
rest of them are just pri- private um
[2:27:11] » Yeah, I I I imagine most people will do
go through that, but I just haven't seen
[2:27:16] it that prominent before.
>> Yeah, the the these are these would be
[2:27:20] considered strip takings. They're very
minimal. Um so, uh and um
[2:27:27] mostly um
temporary construction easements to
[2:27:30] allow us to do the work. So, they're
they're not uh we're not taking up a lot
[2:27:35] of property, let's just say.
>> Yeah. Or property rights.
[2:27:39] » Thank you very much.
>> Councilor Quadros.
[2:27:42] » If you were to incite the eminent
domain, uh would that come before us
[2:27:46] again?
>> Um I don't think it would be necessary,
[2:27:50] but I think we would do it as a
courtesy. You can talk to our council,
[2:27:54] but this this this would I'm let me just
state this. Um that is the last resort.
[2:28:01] So, there's other processes we can go
through arbitration. There's a lot of
[2:28:05] other
things that we can do through negotiate
[2:28:08] to negotiation process before it even
gets there. So, um if we did go had to
[2:28:15] go to condemnation and it was something
that was um that we well, I think we
[2:28:21] would we would just come. I would make
that recommendation. We'd come and let
[2:28:24] you know, but this order, the way I
understand it, already gives us the
[2:28:30] authority to to initiate the um
condemnation proceedings.
[2:28:36] » Uh Councilor Bucknum.
>> It it just to clarify, I think this is
[2:28:41] what you just said, but
[2:28:46] the the approach forward is to engage
with property owners, have
[2:28:50] conversations,
see if we can't come to some sort of
[2:28:55] arrangement so that it really has
minimal to no impact on their property,
[2:29:00] the property value, all of those things,
and then we're doing all of all of what
[2:29:05] can be done to ensure that we're
maintaining, you know, private the
[2:29:10] integrity of the private property. So,
so the the home owners are going to or
[2:29:15] property owners or whoever it is is
going to be able to have conversations
[2:29:20] around, okay, these would be my
concerns, how can we work through that?
[2:29:23] So, the with consideration to um privacy
and safety and property values and all
[2:29:31] that, like that's all baked into the
process that we try to get to an
[2:29:35] agreement um long before we start
talking about eminent domain.
[2:29:41] » That That That's correct. So,
uh the the the the law says the greatest
[2:29:47] public good for the least private
injury. So, when the engineers are
[2:29:51] designing this, they're considering
what's the least amount of impact for
[2:29:56] the greatest public good.
And so, part of what uh we do prior to
[2:30:03] negotiations is right away is involved
with this process to make sure that uh
[2:30:09] the impacts are minimized as much as
possible. And a lot of these things have
[2:30:14] to do with uh design and and engineering
and what's what needs to happen in order
[2:30:20] for the project to be successful. So, we
have our input and usually they'll give
[2:30:26] it to me and I'll say, "Okay, do we
really need that much? Can we do a
[2:30:29] little bit more?" So, there's We We have
There's some internal negotiations that
[2:30:33] occur as well through the process.
>> Okay.
[2:30:38] I think we're ready for a motion.
[2:30:42] » I move to adopt a resolution exercising
the power of eminent domain and
[2:30:46] authorizing a resolution
pursuant to ORS 223.005,
[2:30:52] ORS 223.105,
and ORS 35.600-625
[2:30:59] concerning acquisition of right-of-way
necessary for walking and biking network
[2:31:03] improvements, Project P21196.
>> And I will second that.
[2:31:09] » Any other discussion to the motion? All
right, Neil, call the vote, please.
[2:31:12] » Councilor Weber.
>> Yes.
[2:31:14] » Councilor Moe.
>> Yes.
[2:31:16] » Councilor Rodley.
>> Yes.
[2:31:17] » Councilor Quadros.
>> Yes.
[2:31:19] » Councilor Buck.
>> Yes.
[2:31:22] » And Councilor Stout.
>> Yes, thank you.
[2:31:23] » Motion passes six yeses, zero noes.
Thank you, Jeremy.
[2:31:27] Next item, please.
>> Any business from the city council?
[2:31:30] » Councilor Stout. I just want to bring up
with my fellow councilors. I know that
[2:31:34] our police chief does a great job
looking at e-bikes and also the speed
[2:31:38] and where they are operating.
Um but I I just want us all to be aware
[2:31:43] about how it is a bit more pernicious
than we might think. And that it is is
[2:31:48] causing upsets to many of our neighbors,
many of our friends, and a lot of people
[2:31:52] have very justly raised safety concerns
about e-bikes. So, I just want us as a
[2:31:56] council to do what we can in small ways
and certainly in coordination with our
[2:32:01] excellent police force,
uh consider ways we might um if
[2:32:05] strengthen our policy on e-bikes uh even
to make it more restrictive than uh the
[2:32:11] Oregon state law might have on there. Um
and I'm doing I want to make that
[2:32:16] suggestion primarily out of the respect
for public safety and also the overall
[2:32:21] livability of our neighborhoods.
Countless bikers telling me how they are
[2:32:25] very concerned about getting run off the
road uh by e-bikes or just regular uh
[2:32:30] folks. So, I just think it's an
important conversation to have
[2:32:33] um even more publicly
um even though I know we certainly have
[2:32:38] the state laws that apply um but I think
there's more to say on that. Thank you.
[2:32:44] Councilor Buck.
>> Uh I just want to comment. I I
[2:32:48] appreciate you bringing this up uh
Councilor Stout and um one of the things
[2:32:52] that I appreciate about the experience
that
[2:32:55] that we have on our council is is
Councilor Quintero actually has
[2:32:58] quite a bit of history with this um
and
[2:33:02] and has watched other communities go
through exactly what we're going through
[2:33:07] with e-bikes specifically and how um
those and and
[2:33:13] it's kind of the routes around safety
and all of those things kind of
[2:33:18] kind of impact each other. So, I'm
really excited to have those
[2:33:21] conversations. I wholeheartedly with
you. I'm really excited that we have the
[2:33:25] experience and
an expertise on on Council to to speak
[2:33:30] to
what other communities
[2:33:33] um
comparable in Oregon comparable to ours
[2:33:37] um have experienced and gone through
with this particular subject.
[2:33:43] » All right, thank you. Anybody else?
Council Quadrus.
[2:33:47] » Does anyone have any more conversation
about e-bikes or
[2:33:50] a different topic or two?
>> Go ahead.
[2:33:53] » Okay. So, um I'd like to talk library
for a moment um and I'm interested in
[2:33:58] circling back on the library discussion
from our budget process.
[2:34:02] Um during those conversations, there
were several clear questions that were
[2:34:06] raised about library services,
priorities, and how we make the best use
[2:34:10] of the resources that we had of have
available. And I don't think we
[2:34:15] necessarily have
uh those answers
[2:34:18] uh from those questions yet. Um I also
know there was a survey conducted this
[2:34:22] summer that specifically sought input
from library users.
[2:34:27] Um I'd like to understand what we
learned from that survey, how that
[2:34:30] information is being evaluated alongside
the questions that Council raised during
[2:34:35] the budget process, and what next steps
staff are considering.
[2:34:40] Um I'd like to make sure that we can get
some follow-up on the questions that
[2:34:43] were left outstanding and understand
what we can expect will come back to
[2:34:47] Council this fall.
[2:34:53] » Uh thank you uh Council Quadrus.
Next week we have uh our library
[2:34:59] director scheduled to give a
presentation to Council. And um part of
[2:35:03] that would um I've she and I have talked
about this presentation because the
[2:35:07] library does do a lot of things in the
community and there's a lot to report
[2:35:11] on. So, you know, in the um interest of
prior excuse me, prioritizing time, Um I
[2:35:18] requested that uh
we first address that some of the
[2:35:21] questions that may still be outstanding
from the budget process and then also um
[2:35:26] talk about the survey and um what some
of the results were and it was um not
[2:35:33] necessarily a conventional survey in the
scientific sense, but but rather more of
[2:35:37] a customer satisfaction and awareness
type of survey. And um you know, talking
[2:35:43] about both the library and uh to a
lesser extent the museum. So, um more to
[2:35:48] come on that and I I I think we should
have some continued discussions as we um
[2:35:53] move through the year. Thank you.
[2:35:58] » Go ahead. I think you had one more.
>> Perfect. Thank you. I do want that back
[2:36:01] um in front of us. Um and then uh after
a crash at 35th and Oregon Streets in
[2:36:08] Ward 4 this summer, uh staff, council,
and the mayor spent time in conversation
[2:36:12] with neighbors about their concerns. And
I'd also like to get um to hear from
[2:36:17] staff about the outcome of that work and
whether there are any further
[2:36:20] considerations or next steps that we're
going to make.
[2:36:26] » Councilor again, I think I'm I would
uh say that first of all, I appreciate
[2:36:31] the rapid response of yourself and other
members of the council,
[2:36:35] um our public works crew, and our law
enforcement community. Um I'm going to
[2:36:40] have Neil Andadi give a little bit more
specificity. There were some things that
[2:36:43] we did right away to uh address this and
then uh there are some some things that
[2:36:49] were still in in the pipe. So, Neil.
>> Yeah, thank you, Nancy, and thank you,
[2:36:53] Councilor, for the question and for your
time out there that evening. So, we, as
[2:36:58] you remember, put together a list of
interested parties that were at that
[2:37:03] meeting and two in particular uh
residents in a leadership role to help
[2:37:08] us work through the problems and then
report back to the community.
[2:37:12] Uh, initially we went out the next that
very week and re installed the kind of
[2:37:19] stop bars they're called. It's the thick
white line that's in the street. And
[2:37:23] also there was a stop stencil in that
street that had worn out. So we ordered
[2:37:29] those stencils and those will go back
in. We also trimmed trees around the
[2:37:34] stop sign to give better clearance.
Um, and over the last I think week and a
[2:37:39] half we've had cameras in the area that
are counting traffic and looking at
[2:37:43] speeds and really getting that data so
we can answer the questions properly.
[2:37:48] Um, and continued discussions are
happening with our staff and the two
[2:37:53] neighbors who've
um, been assigned to keep in touch with
[2:37:57] us. So that's ongoing. Once we have that
data put together, we'll have a more
[2:38:01] broad broader picture of what can be
done in that area.
[2:38:06] » Thank you. That's great.
I appreciate that.
[2:38:09] » And one note, we also forwarded the
concerns related to Willamette Lane to
[2:38:13] Willamette Lane that came out of that
meeting.
[2:38:17] » Thank you. Anybody else?
Next item, please.
[2:38:21] » Uh, next item under business from the
city manager is the Springfield Police
[2:38:24] Association or SPA 2026 through 2029
collective bargaining agreement CBA.
[2:38:31] Chaim Hertz is here for this item.
[2:38:43] » Good evening again, Council. Mayor,
Chaim Hertz, HR Director here at the
[2:38:46] City of Springfield. I will be
reasonably brief. I know it's been a
[2:38:50] long night. I am here seeking a motion
to authorize or not authorize the city
[2:38:55] manager to sign a 3-year successor
agreement with Springfield Police
[2:38:59] Association. The details of that
agreement are outlined in the packet and
[2:39:03] I'll pause if there's any questions.
>> Any questions? I thought we just did
[2:39:08] this.
>> Was it 3 years ago?
[2:39:10] » It was 3 years ago.
>> Go ahead.
[2:39:13] Go ahead, counselor Stout.
>> Um and this is different than the
[2:39:16] sergeants
um
[2:39:17] » That's correct. Yeah, the police
sergeants negotiations are ongoing.
[2:39:26] » I move to authorize the city manager to
execute the successor collective
[2:39:29] bargaining agreement between the city of
Springfield and the SPA for the term
[2:39:34] July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029.
>> I'll second that.
[2:39:39] » Is there any discussion to this?
All right.
[2:39:42] Neil, could you call the vote?
>> Yes, Counselor Weber.
[2:39:45] » Yes.
>> Counselor Moe.
[2:39:46] » Yes.
>> Counselor Rodley.
[2:39:47] » Yes.
>> Counselor Quadros.
[2:39:49] » Yes.
>> Counselor Buck.
[2:39:50] » Yes.
>> And Counselor Stout.
[2:39:52] » Yes, thank you.
>> Motion passes, six yeses, zero noes.
[2:39:55] Next item, please.
>> Any other business from the city
[2:39:56] manager?
>> Just quickly, I want to thank Jane for
[2:40:00] your efforts in getting this contract
completed and as well the leadership of
[2:40:05] the Springfield Police Association. No
further business for me.
[2:40:10] » Any business from the city attorney?
>> No, no business, thank you.
[2:40:13] » All right, thank you everybody. We're
adjourned.