Springfield City Council — June 20, 2023

0:04 I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. Mayor Vin Gordon. Here. Councilor Slever. Here. Moe. Here. Rodney. Here. Blackwell. Doyle. Here. Fishery. Here. And uh Councilor Blackwell is excused for the evening. We have one item. It is the planning fee study draft planning fee report. It's a mouthful with Mark Ross. Thank you, Mayor. Give me just a second here. I'll introduce our guest. Thank you again. We have a guest online, I think, that will be joining us as well. She's on. Okay.

0:50 Great. So, good evening, Mayor and Councilors. I'm Mark Ross, and with me tonight are two our two consultants with Portland State University. I'll introduce Riva Feldman, who's online with us. And MJ Johnson. Um we're here to present to you the work we've been doing on the planning fee study. We've been under contract with PSU since March of this year. I think we presented back in May. And so, tonight before you is the draft report. Um we'll go into some details about that, and then be available to answer any questions or discuss anything further. I do want to give Riva and MJ both a chance to introduce themselves though, and then also give you a brief synopsis of the work they did. Is that all right? So, with that, I think I'll turn it over to Riva. And then MJ from there.

1:37 Thank you, Mark. Uh good evening. Um I apologize that I'm not able to join you in person. Unfortunately, I'm in California right now, uh but we are fortunate to have MJ Johnson uh with you tonight, and he'll be able to go over everything. Uh my name is Riva Feldman. I'm a senior fellow at Portland State University. Um I've spent my entire career in public service and I'm a retired city manager from uh Malibu, California. Um, I came up through finance and administration and have done many fee studies throughout my career and so this was something near and dear to my heart and something I've done quite a bit with. Um, our project team was myself and NJ who is a graduate student um at Portland State um and he did a lot of the work that you'll see in

2:24 the report before you. Um, so I'm going to turn it over to NJ who's going to introduce himself and explain the methodology that we used um in approaching this project and I am here to answer questions, give you any more information. You have a lot of information in front of you and I don't want to go over and repeat everything that you have in writing. So I'm happy to answer questions as they come up and I'll turn it to NJ now. Thank you. Thanks, Reva. I appreciate that. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is NJ Johnson. I am currently a graduate student studying public administration at uh Portland State University. I also work as an associate planner for the city of Scappoose and I'm doing this project as part of my 509 organizational

3:10 experience project which really encourages MPA students to get out in the field and do some real work and um you know, with my background in planning being a planner for the city of Scappoose and then I've also taken some relevant finance coursework and so this project really seemed like the perfect marriage between development and finance for me to um just get my hands in and uh really learn and hopefully help the city. So um do you want to walk through some of the methodology then and the points of kind of what the study how the study progressed? Yeah, so this is this the purpose of this study is really to um bring a a common understanding of for every single

3:56 type of development application for the city of Springfield. What is the process What is the cost of service for the Springfield Planning Department? And I say Planning Department because this study only takes into scope the time of the planners, the planning manager, and the administrative specialist to for the Planning Department. This fee study is not intended to capture the cost of service for other staff members for the city such as the assistant city attorney and other staff who would be attending Planning Commission and being referred applications such as engineering, building, and other departments that would just be involved at any step in

4:41 the process. So, with that we surveyed all of the four current planners and the planning manager and the administrative specialist for the Planning Department to get a sense of how many hours that each application takes them to process at every single step. So, we're mainly looking at staff report and attending Planning Commission meetings for the types of applications that require Planning Commission or City Council approval and that allows us to figure out how much time planners are spending on average and we were able to cross-reference that with not just, you know, their estimates in a survey, but additionally we had some

5:28 data from I believe it was Accela software, right? That we were able to cross-reference and kind of ground truth just to make sure the information that the planners were providing was accurate and gave the closest estimate possible to the amount of time and staff burden these applications are actually taking. So, that allowed us to kind of true up the numbers and sure enough in most instances, the planners did have a pretty good idea of how often, or excuse me, how much time they were spending on every type of application. And then what we did is Mark and I met for about 90 minutes with Reva as well to go through every application type and look at the responses just again as another layer of ground truthing just to make sure that

6:14 the numbers made sense. And then with the hours, we multiplied that by the full cost of that employee. So, I believe it's called fully loaded cost here in the city's finance department and that includes base salary and then other benefits and administrative overhead for that employee. So, it's, you know, not just their their pay and salary, but really like the full package that they're compensated with to calculate for the full cost of service. So, can you just clarify or did you count occupancy and tech in that or did you just count employee costs, direct employee costs? It was just direct employee costs, yeah. So, it would be just direct employee costs such as health care, retirement benefits, workers comp, all of the

6:59 things um that you have to have in order to have that employee there. Right. Yeah, and so then for every single type of application, what we did is we we worked with Mark and we had a meeting with the whole entire planning staff to figure out which uh planning position, so senior planner or planner one for instance, are the most likely to process certain types of applications. Then what we did was we took the position and their mid-step compensation rate for this current fiscal year and multiplied it by the amount of hours they're spending to get that full cost of service. And then what you see on the table is the full cost of service at 100%

7:45 and then there are also further out there's a 90% cost of service recovery rate, 80% and so on. And that allows you all as a council and that's really going to be a policy decision on your ends of how much you want to recover for the planning department's true cost of service. And if I could just jump in on that Good. Sorry, I muted myself. When you look through this chart, you'll see that there's quite a bit of discrepancy in terms of the recovery rate and I just want to remind the council that it's up to your discretion of how you do that. You can do a across the board the same percentage for all fees or you can look through and say well this is something

8:31 we only do once in a while so maybe it would behoove us to pull that one out and set that at a different percentage of recovery. So I just want to remind that if that was something you wanted to do. You sound like a former city manager. Sorry. Guilty. Yes. Sorry about that. So I think with that I'm prepared to go through some of these in detail and jump through a couple of points I'd like to touch on. We do have specific questions in the council briefing memo tonight to for you to kind of respond to as well. We're hoping to get some specific feedback on. But however you'd like to structure it.

9:16 I don't know if there's questions at this point and then I can go into more Does anybody have questions at this point before we let go ahead? Go ahead. Sorry. First of all I don't know why we would even be discussing less than 100% cost recovery so maybe somebody can explain that to me. Um So you're talking about the report that you did and the numbers that you ran for the city of Springfield were on planning costs only, but yet you're doing a comparison with other municipalities. Did you check with them to see if their cost is cost recovery or if it includes all of that? Because that's that's not comparing apples to apples. Right. And then, you know, there are there are quite a bit of elements that would differ one planning department from another. So, some planning departments are trying to like for Scappoose, for instance, where I work,

10:02 we you know, we we have so many people touching applications through the land use process that we are trying to incorporate engineering and building and all of the different departments, not just planning. And so, there you know, the the comparables are really designed mostly to give us a baseline um rather than, you know, saying that this this is exactly apples to apples. It's just not designed to do that. Right, but I mean, wouldn't it have just taken a simple call to those municipalities and say, "Hey, just curious, are you using cost recovery or are you using a some other method?" Not asking them for the full method, but knowing that we're comparing apples to apples closer, at least apples to I don't know, whatever, something close to that. Yeah, and and I'll just chime in a

10:47 little bit, and that is so, we specifically asked for them to focus on just the current planning staff part of it to break that slice of the pie out so we knew what component of the overall fee was directly attributable to the planning. I spoke with city of Eugene specifically about their fees. Um and even just looking through the comparison fees, I pointed out or I could point out I I noticed a number of places where what we would consider an engineering fee is in the planning fee resolution for some of the other cities. So, it it would be very difficult to compare actual apples to apples, and so that's some of why we're sparsing it apart and figuring out cuz then we can add in our engineering costs on top of

11:32 it Ultimately, when we get to that point. Thank you. Okay, so Mark, why don't you go through the couple points you had and then we'll get into the, you know, the the five or six questions. Great. Thank you. I'm going to share the screen here. AJ's kindly set this up for me. But these are the attachments that are already in your packet. Um, the attachment, let me just make sure I get the attachment numbers correct. The attachment three, the cost of service analysis, is the one I'll probably focus the most on, but also attachment four, the fee comparison table. One of these is really hard to see. That's this one. So I'm going to go with attachment three first, the cost of service. And so it will jump out at you, I'm sure it

12:18 already has, that many of these fees for just again the planning component are drastically lower than our existing fees. So, some of those I want to express why that may be um, or some specifics about them. But also some of the fees are also proposed to go up, and some of those are significantly proposed to go larger. Um, there may be reason for that as well. I do want to point out that the what there is the line in here for annexations, the comprehensive planning fee. We the council did already already vote and directed to suspend that fee in the um, as of July 1st moving forward. So that is no longer under consideration. But the other base annexation fee is one

13:04 that's proposed to increase. Um, it's only in proposed to increase for what I'll call the the single lot residential properties. This This is um, entitled and I don't know if this is on your attachments as well if you can't see the screen, but the single detached or R1 property. What these are is really the most common ones we see that are due to a septic failure where there's already a house on it and we need to connect to city sewer so they have to annex and able to do that. This fee is pretty close um to the actual cost of service that we've calculated. Um but so we would if we raise it to what the 100% cost recovery would be, it would be going up slightly. But in comparison than this tiered

13:51 approach for anything else would be land that could potentially be developed and so they want to annex it to actually do some development. Um those fees are tiered by acreage and would be a significant reduction going to the calculated 100% cost recovery. Um what we found through doing this analysis is really it's the same process for us planners to process an annexation whether it's a half acre house um lot with the house already on it or a 20 acre property that's vacant that somebody wants to develop. We run it through the same process. There um isn't really the increase based on acreage size that would be indicated by the existing fees.

14:36 So anyway, the the red number of 113% is only reflective of an increase based on those R1 already developed lots. It would be a vast reduction for all the others. That's just what I wanted to point out. Um I think the determination non-conforming use is one that increases that getting it more towards an actual cost of service. I think that's a pretty fair calculation. The these two for historic districts are very large increases. Talking with folks that have been around a while, um my sense is that those were kept artificially low at a at a policy um direction for the historic district to incentivize people in the historic district coming in and seeking approval

15:21 for the annexations. I don't remember what year the historic district was created, but um not knowing exactly how that conversation went, but that would be one that you may want to choose to leave artificially low, maybe only increase it to a certain lower percentage rather than 100%, but again, that's um part of this conversation. Those are pretty drastic, so I definitely wanted to point those out. And then um just another one to kind of highlight here. It's on page two of this attachment. It's the the manufactured dwellings after a disaster and kind of combined with that, manufactured for emergency medical hardship. Those two

16:07 um the recommendation from the consultant is for the manufactured dwellings after disaster is that the current fee of 483 probably wouldn't really be uh any kind of cost recovery as it is now, but that we may want to consider you may want to consider not having a fee for that at all. I have many of us lived through the fires that we had that impacted Springfield, but if a disaster happened within Springfield, um we may not want to charge those folks to do a an emergency disaster kind of manufactured home. We could have a fee for it and then the council could decide to waive it through a disaster declaration. I think that's a point for conversation. And then similarly with the emergency medical hardship,

16:52 that has kind of morphed over time in that we're allowing more RVs to be lived in um in kind of this interim period until the council decides otherwise. That would be a fairly significant increase from what it is today to to get to full cost recovery, so that one I just also wanted to point out. So with that, um there are a number of these that are proposed to go to what I talked about before. Under state law, we can collect fees in two ways, either average cost of service or actual cost of service. We don't do any actual cost of service fees now, but we're proposing pretty much for every file or application type that would go to a public hearing, um that it would

17:39 become an actual cost of service. The other part of that is some of these application types we get so few of, we maybe get one every 10 years. It would be almost impossible to calculate in a true average based on so few data points. So, um doing going to the actual cost of service would be a recommendation for those types. And then lastly, before I'll open it up for questions again, I do want to just point out kind of what I would call our most common application types that we get now, kind of our bread and butter that we see on a most um consistent basis. We do a lot of site plan applications. That would be for any new basically commercial development, anything from a

18:25 coffee kiosk in a parking lot to a a new Safeway or big box or any kind of development like that, commercial development. So, towards the bottom of page one is the site plan application fees. This is another one that's currently tiered um based on how many square feet it is. This is a new fee, the the lowest tier, the $1,616 for 500 square feet or less of new or replace impervious surface. That was something we put in place last year with the development code update process to replace what we formerly had as kind of a modification of a site plan. So, that kind of replaced that, but then the

19:11 other two tiers, again based on square footage size. And the thing we found again is um it's kind of like annexations. We run it through the same process regardless of how really large the facility is. Although the bigger the development, the more complex often they are, so they can take a little bit more staff time. But I just want to point out that that tiered approach may be something that we would want to stick with. It may not be the same fee, but the 100% cost recovery recommended for the base fee is really based on this the lowest level, the 1616. Um the other ones we could still figure out if there should be a tiered approach, too. And then the second most common application type that we see a lot of

19:58 are the um I'm sorry, I was actually Let's see, was I talking No, I was talking site plan. The second one is subdivision. So we see a lot of subdivisions. Um and again, similarly, this is a theme, we don't really see a lot of time difference in processing uh three lot parti- Well, I won't use partition, but say a a a 10 lot subdivision compared to a 100 lot subdivision. It really goes through the same process. There is some element of time um consideration with the more complex ones, but I don't think one that justifies this drastically different level of tiers. And so again, I just want to point out this $1289 100% cost recovery base fee

20:43 is kind of what would be the low end of if we do establish tiers and then build from that potentially. The other thing, if you read the um consultant's recommendation memo, it does talk about the per lot fee. I think it still does make sense to include a per lot fee, but this tiered approach that it's like we're double dipping or double penalizing the larger it is that the the fact that that lot fee is also tiered to me does makes no sense. If you compare it to the other jurisdictions that we compared it to, um the comparison per lot fee in other jurisdictions is either $25 per lot or $50 per lot. And our lowest is 309. So,

21:28 anyway, I think that would be the other area where we we would see a drastically reduced fee for those types of applications. So, let me just double-check my notes. I think there are definitely other points um I want to touch on like kind of the customer service element and the admin/tech fee kind of components of the memo, but I think it's a good place to pause and see. So, so maybe we can take general questions now and then we can kind of dive into dive into those broader questions that Mark needs guidance from us on. So, does anybody have any sort of general questions or we start diving into these five on the on the back of the uh pre-memo? Corey, go ahead. I really just have a process question. Um as we move through this, there will be when it gets to like whatever we do,

22:14 when it gets to adoption, there's going to be public hearings, a couple of public hearings, so an opportunity for people to come and share. That's correct. So, similar to how you just adopted the master fees and charges schedule um maybe a month or so ago. That we envision going through that specific for the planning fees again in the fall. Great. And uh I I guess I'll give my broad comment here is before we get to a point that we're having a public hearing, right? I know there's no financial model associated to this, right? So, I would like whatever the proposed fees are compared with our total work, I would really want to see a kind of before and after financial impact because I want to know what we're agreeing to. It's easier to tweak this right now than find out that, you know, it our decision's going to cost $25 million. It's not going to

23:01 be that, but you know what I mean. And we if I could just respond really quick, we asked our finance department I think they will be working on that is to take last year's numbers and apply this new fee structure to last year's so we compare what the actual was from last fiscal year 22 to what it would have been if we had had these fees in place and get that comparison if that sounds something like it would be reasonable. Yeah, I think it would I think people would find that really both interesting and kind of set us up to make that decision. Victoria first and then Rebecca Michelle. It's okay if she just goes first. So we're talking about planning fees today um and there are other areas that are involved in this process. So at what point do we consider

23:47 cost of recovery for those for that staff time as well and then part of the process. I think that's a critical part of this conversation and I think we're looking for direction from you tonight on that. I think working with Jeff, you know, I have kind of authority over current planning. I specifically don't have authority over engineering or land surveying, but Jeff does. So I think we're we're seeking that direction and over the summer we could work on kind of a similar process that we went through with this. Maybe not necessarily with consultant help, but they've set us up with a tool now from this process to use to take and we could plug it into the engineering side and the survey side and transportation side and get kind of some

24:32 rough idea of numbers for at least a handful of these to kind of get a gauge and maybe some of those are also actual cost of service for ones that are one-offs for them, but I think then we could incorporate that into the rest of this to bring back to the fall if that was your direction. as part of that master like this is what we're going to charge you for this type of of application. Yeah. I wanted to just jump in and and echo what Mark had said, which is that we want to make sure we left you and your staff with a tool that you could manipulate, so you didn't have to ever come back to us, you know, to make minor changes like that. Thank you. Victoria? Um I also think the comparison is fine with last year,

25:18 but we may also want to consider that there how many people how many times did somebody come in to do a partition or small subdivision and they were turned away because it was too cost prohibitive. And so we may in fact see a change in the number of applications in you know, the reduction of fees because it's more it's easier for people to do it now, too. So it's just something to keep in mind. And it's actually it's a great point and by July 1st, we'll have fiscal year 23 numbers to do and that would make sense for the reason you mentioned because when we changed the code last year, we made a lot of our processes easier. We talked about this before. It's actually become more affordable to do many types of development just based

26:05 on the code changes, not even touching fees. But so use the most recent fiscal year of fiscal year 23 to do these comparison calculations. But and then finance may have some other ideas about how to do this financial model and and do some kind of maybe projection or you know, anticipation on what it might look like. Well, the middle housing land divisions fall under partition? Cuz I don't see those Is there There is a specific middle housing land division. It would just be the same fee. As a partition? Yeah. Really the middle housing land division laws just expedite the process. We're required to do it faster. So how do I call it? Partition? Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thanks. Okay. Other general questions? All All

26:50 let's see if we can't figure out the The the two really I mean there's five questions in there. One of them is just kind of your general guidance, but a couple that I want to really focus on or throw out um to get your specific feedback on. And um just check my notes. So, just a quick discussion about the customer service element. If you'll in in my memo in this council briefing memo that we prepared for you, we do talk about the state law that requires us to provide customer service under goal one of the citywide planning program. So, we have what we call a planner on duty that's available for walk-in customers to just meet with them in general, provide information, answer phones and emails, all that kind

27:36 of stuff. If you look at the budget numbers from last year, essentially our application fees supported the current planning program other than supporting that the planner on duty, the customer service position. Um that's the position that essentially was funded or supported by the general fund. And so, part of the question is should that component of the planning program that we're mandated to do also somehow be calculated in or um considered as part of the overall development application fees or not. And so, kind of tied with that question is also this broader question about we currently have a technology fee. Um and there's discussion in the memo we could go into more, but should that fee

28:23 be transitioned to more in this in looking at the comparison jurisdictions as well. But, most of them have just more general administrative fee that could be used to also cover potentially that customer service element as well. So, those are kind of two questions in one, but I think it's an important area for um you to for us to get your feedback on. I know the tech fee is everybody's favorite topic. Um Anybody want to jump in here? I have my answers to the five questions, if that's okay. Yeah, that would be great. So, uh I I believe the 100% cost recovery is the one that makes sense unless somebody else can tell me otherwise. Well, let's let's go let's go to the tech fee question first, right? No, I thought that's number five. That's That's one of the fees.

29:08 Yeah, he got us off track already. Yeah, he got us off off track already. And then we'll work our way back up to the top. Yeah, I 100% agree with the admin fee. I think that it makes more sense. I think that we see that Eugene does a 9% admin fee that's just on the And I don't know what that fee would look like. I know ours is only 4% for a tech fee a tech fee. So, if there's somewhere in the middle of that, um that would cover that that would help cover the general one. That makes complete sense to me and I think for most of us our brains think that. We see admin fee and we know what that is. We see tech fee and we're like, "Or So." Yeah. And I think finance could help us with that, you know, figuring out what the right number might be or do some modeling for us to help the council make the decision around where that number may land. I don't want to put Nate on the spot too

29:54 much. You can bring him to something, but can sign Nate and Jeff up for anything you want while you're here. Um before we get too far into the tech fee conversation, the there will be a work session in the fall that is just going to go through what we spent and programmed against that tech fee. I know a lot of people have that same question. So, you know, one of people are like, "What did we spend on the tech fee on now?" It's it's coming up in the fall. Joe. Yeah, I I think we created the tech fee so that people that are coming in to buy permits and get the process done that they can be direct directly benef- benefited by those monies collected. I don't feel that there should just be a blank check. Admin fee is is something that Well, certainly not why we created

30:40 a a tech fee. Again, the tech fee is something that where we wanted to have uh computer software, the ability to put in for a permit remotely. All these different things that we envisioned for the tech fee was the reason for having it. Otherwise, we didn't want that extra fee. So, of course the how it went, where it went, where it's at is a different time, but I think it's I think it's a it's the the validity behind that program is I still support. Um if there is costs I mean, I can't see if we're if we're looking at 100% cost recovery and then turn around and charge an admin admin fee, well,

31:27 that's not 100% recovery. It's at There's 100% recovery plus. So, we're either going to do admin 100% recovery that includes what it costs us, which should be the admin costs. And a tech fee that's there that again, the developers or the people who are paying for the permits should be directly bene- benefited by that. I think at one point there was a extra large printer that was purchased at one time to help with getting that those projects done with much less cost to the people that were putting in the permits and the staff. That's a perfect example of making it easier and less expensive and more efficient for the people that are buying those permits or having those

32:12 reviews done. So, as far as 100% We're We're talking about the 100% recovery. So, So, could I just restate what I think I heard and that is you feel so the 100% cost recovery should include any of that admin just within the fee to have the 100% cost recovery covered for the whole program, the current planning program? Well, I'm looking at Okay, so you talk You're talking about staff costs. That's that's cost for sure, but there is other costs and those, you know, I'm I'm okay with looking at recovering those, but the problem with that is it just like goes back to your counselor Baloo, which was a few days ago. It's been a minute. Yeah. Um she was the one We didn't We didn't have

32:57 a cost recovery uh percentage at the time. It was just kind of hit or miss and guessing and that kind of thing. So, we went with She was man, you know, adamant about 100% cost recovery, which we saw a huge So, they went for it and we saw a huge increase in costs. And then we saw also a huge kick pushback from developers immediately. And so, we know there's a sweet spot, but I don't necessarily believe that that 100% cost recovery may be best for everything, simply because I don't want to be part of scaring away developers that are looking to improve the city and to improve our tax returns, so to speak,

33:43 you know, for the sake of cost recovery. It's to me some of our work should be an investment to help folks invest in our city, so our returns on investment comes back in the ways of increased valuation for the city. There's a balance. You can't you know, that's how cities run. So, All right. So, um here's just here's my thought about the about the tech fee, right? Like when I when I saw it, I can like the the one thing I'm I'm concerned about going to an administrative fee and we can solve this problem, so but is that at least the tech fee is dedicated dollars that help maintain the investment in the sort of technology and workflow and things that historically we will

34:28 struggle long term to have. So, like whenever we talk about what comes back, right? What I'm what I'm really interested in seeing is this, you know, a sense of like we're sort of moving some sort of dollars setting aside so that we're not consuming them all in sort of payroll that we're constantly making the investments into the workflow systems that really deliver the efficiencies that we're we're really looking for. Um I could be okay going to an administrative fee, but I think that's the question that that I ultimately have. And I think if I back up more broadly, right? Um I think that the administrative fee is probably a kind of a a how, right? Like so, if you think about the two costs you brought up, which is you have all the sort of peripheral costs between, you know, other departments that we have to account for. And um

35:14 uh and you know, in the in the planner on duty costs, to me it's really important to kind of compare the you have the tactical costs of like what is one permit cost compared to the other, right? And the other the other piece of information that would be nice to sort of compare it to is what's the actual cost to run the whole program, not just the current planning program, but the, you know, the sort of peripheral programs, right? So that we can kind of gauge those gauge those accordingly. That's where I think an administrative fee may help us pull pull that pull that lever, right? Cuz once we put the full cost into the mix, um then then then we can kind of decide on the on on the cost recovery piece. And understand, I realize that the more costs we sort of shove into the pie, the bigger that pie gets, right? So that's going to put

35:59 upward pressure on fees. I'm okay with us looking at that and going, "Okay, you know, when we look at the everything, we are only going to, you know, we're going to only shoot for 80% of cost recovery or 90% of cost recovery." Or sort of use that other tool that's kind of slide down to find an appropriate way to sort of charge people to make sure that we're competitive. Does that make sense? Yeah. So, I I think the key really is, right? Maybe some of the other questions that that that come around it. And more importantly, with whatever we decide, protect the investment in the workflow systems that are going to keep us competitive long term. Or Thanks. So, um I and I'm listening to all of the things that folks are saying and I just have a just a slightly different spin. Um I'm

36:44 thinking about what whatever we do, what's going to be the sort of the storytelling and the public relations around that. So, I don't have a sophisticated enough opinion about whether it's a tech fee or whether it's an administrative fee. It's just any changes that we make and especially for making these wholesale changes, figure out how we're going to talk about that, how we're going to message that, and how we're going to, you know, instill confidence in folks that we're making changes for the better. Um and then just I know we're going to kind of get to this, but since you went there, I'm going to kind of go there. I was going to use it as a transition. You want to go I do. I just wanted to sort of talk about the overall philosophy. I also am like uh like I just want to do a little more a little more work about whether or not it's 100%

37:31 or it's 80% um because some of my cuz it's when I love like the idea of like how do we incentivize folks for bigger developments and I don't want it to look like um there's a there's a higher percentage of full cost for an individual with a piece of property as opposed to like, oh, if you're a developer, you're going to get a big deal. Even though we we want people to build developments, but I don't want it to whether it's whether it's real or not, and it probably is a little bit real, I don't want it to look like there's like a a a bigger burden on individual with property that's trying to do things than it is for a developer. So, if we're looking at that 80% or whatever, I want to look at some sort of balance where it's not all looks like it's all sliding to folks who are bigger developers or doing bigger projects, that there's some

38:17 sort of balance in there. I don't it's not I don't it's not something to figure that out. It's just I'm just thinking about the like how does this roll out in terms of sort of fairness and how does this roll out in terms of making a big change and making it digestible for folks. Yeah, that some of the certain points and then as we dive into question one we'll come back to Victoria here. And I think the point is like I'm not necessarily worried about the sort of 80% I'm just acknowledging that that is a lever once we understand all the costs we can kind of adjust to make sure that we're we're dialed in about what we you know what we want. Do you want to I know you had opinions about question one so you want to I think we're ready for that. I don't think anybody jumping into that has anything else to say about the tech fee. So if you want to share your notes about

39:03 question one and then we'll kind of go back around. Yeah, and I'm I apologize I'm extremely tired today. Um So I'm listening to the the conversation about the the cost recovery and that's interesting that 80% 90%. My goal is that we we simplify this. You know, and that was one of my biggest complaints when I when I reviewed different municipalities compared to ours is we look at ours and it's got this per lot per acre but and it's got this big long calculation when everyone else has here's our fee. So I don't care if it's an 80% cost recovery and a 5% admin and tech fee but it's all a fee just a fee so they don't have this and this and this and this cuz then it's hard to tell the story. Like how do I explain all these different layers? And so I do love

39:48 the fact that on a lot of these like the annexation you're talking about keeping it simple for the people that are already built and their sewer your septic goes bad and they need to move in compared to somebody coming in with new development that totally makes sense. Still not sold on the whole per acre thing. Um So on number one I it seems like I think we we already talked about that the cost recovery. So I'm going to withhold my what I think about the 100% or 80% cuz it sounds like there's a a of variables in that. Um, I don't really have a a number two though, my it seemed like it's going to make things more complex. And that and that's where I was saying that maybe it should sort of simplify understanding the fees and make it easier and easier explanation to the payers. Actually, the notes that I wrote, um,

40:33 number three, uh, um, I feel like providing customer service is a cost of doing business. Um, I can't really read my notes on that one. I'm sorry. Um, and I still have a hangup about the tech fee and I'd like to see some sort of numbers on how much we have in that and what we've spent it on to know that we're collecting the correct amount cuz it still isn't people are like, "Tech fee, what what am I getting from that?" You know? I think everybody's got that same exact question on the the football here. But then the big the big thing for me was number five, which is the, the inside the UGB, outside the UGB. And my question on that is that for a lot of things like a partition or maybe even, I don't know about a subdivision, but on a partition

41:19 I would think that a lot of the planning and review then goes to the county. So, we're not reviewing stormwater. We're not reviewing necessarily access connection standards because it's a county road or it's the, you know, and so I'm trying to understand why it's so significantly more on that and if we could maybe find an average and have one fee. So, whether you're inside the city or in the UGB could there be a fee that's somewhere in the middle? So, you're going to make a little bit more on the ones that are inside the city and maybe not as much, but somewhere that balances out so that we don't have these tiers and layers. So, let's respond to that one really quick and that is So, for the most part you couldn't do a actual subdivision over a three-lot

42:04 partition in the UGB. You have to annex to do that. So, but you can do partitions. Um, the the IGA, I think it's the 190 agreement that has given from the county gives us the land use authority for property between the Eugene and city limits. So, even though it's technically county jurisdiction cuz it's not annexed, the 190 agreement has transferred the land use jurisdiction to the city. So, we are the ones that do the review. It's it's the same in Eugene. You could find the one reviewing it on the county No, it's by our code. It's subject to our code. And and so, where the coordinate where the increased cost for coordination comes into play is so, then for that partition, we're doing the review. We are doing the storm water review. We're doing and you know, checking the

42:50 property um sizes and all the things that go in. Our surveyor is doing the review for you know, all the survey monuments, all that kind of stuff. But, you mentioned county roads, but so we don't have jurisdiction over the county road in front of that property. So, we do have to coordinate with the county on making sure the jurisdiction they're going to give them a driveway access permit for the new second lot or whatever it might be and those kind of things. So, it does for a property in the city, there are county roads that are our jurisdiction either sometimes in the city. So, we do sometimes have to deal with that dynamic even for properties in the city if they're fronting on a county road. But, the other big one is septic. Septic causes a lot of

43:35 need for coordination with the county because again, if they're not annexed to the city, it's our land use jurisdiction, but the county is the sanitarian and regulates any um septic system. So, that and so, getting pre-approval where a septic system can be for a partition on the new lot and that kind of stuff, making sure they're not impacting the reserve area for the existing septic system if there's a house they're partitioning off, all that kind of component comes into play. Yeah. I would just like to see I just wish that there was somebody like when you look at a partition and it's 6,300 right now in the city and 11,000 for the UGB that we could find something in the middle. So the the factor the idea of a factor just here's the fee there's one fee but if you're in the UGB it's 1.5 or some

44:20 other factor number just because you're in the UGB to give us that. Okay, so if it was 6,000 then the the 1.5 would be the calculation for that. Oh, okay. what's being proposed. Okay, I see them. Only really so we have one fee and then if you're not in the city Got it. that would be times 1.5 or whatever the conversion That's a reasonable thing. Okay, thank you. Okay, Steve is first. Does does the county compensate the city for the services that the city provides that the county doesn't? No, not at all. In fact, there's well, yeah, I'll just leave it at that. Corey So that I think that if I was cuz I was listening closely cuz this was one I had a question about with this 1.5. Um I just my concern was I just wanted to

45:06 make sure that there wasn't a situation where a person might be paying two different places for the same sort of service. So if I'm understanding correctly that it becomes annexed into the city. So there's no chance that they're going to be like I am now paying whatever to the city of Springfield for this septic hookup and I also have to turn around and do get some sort of fee from the county for anything. So where that does that kind of dynamic does come into play is for much larger actual projects. So for instance, um I'll just use one that I think most of us are aware of or should be in the Jasper neighborhood area. It's all south of um Bob Straub Parkway. It's all outside the city now. It's planned it's or um yeah, it's inside the urban growth boundary

45:52 but not annexed yet. So there there's been a group of folks for years and years now working on a plan development for that area. They want to do a master plan similar to Marco and Leda. It would be like Marco and Leda's times three, like on that scale, much larger, three times the size. But if they did that master plan before they annexed that 300 acres, it would be a dual process. They would pay us um we could look at the fee, it's 15, 17,000 dollars, whatever it is, and they would pay a county a fee because it would have to go through both the city planning commission and the Lane County planning commission as a joint approval process. So in a situation like that, and there's some other situations, if um I can't think of

46:38 a great one, but there are other situations like that where they would be paying twice if they didn't want to annex in order to do it just in the city process. But they would be a That would be a choice that they were making that they were informed of, like, here's what would happen if you didn't do this. Okay, thank you. Sure. So, just for my clarification, please. So, they're folks in the UGB and let's say they have a single-family house, their lot, regular lot, their septic's failing, and they need to hook up to our sewer. So, they really need to annex. The cost of them coming in or any work that they are that we're touching with them because they're in the UGB would be at a

47:23 1.5 factor. Is that what you're proposing? Well, um in an annexation case, there's only I'm going to have to double-check it. There's only one fee. And so, we don't have that dual fee structure for an annexation. So, in that case, if if they wanted to um partition their lot before they annexed, they would get charged the 1.5 fee. But if they're just annexing because their sewer fails, they don't get charged 1.5 to annex, and then anything they do after they annex, they don't get charged. So, if they had a piece of property that was larger than today's economy, you know, say it's 25,000 square feet or so or whatever, even a half acre. Yeah. And they wanted to come in

48:08 they want to build that more homes on that property. And so, they would have to partition submit a partition for that and an annexation. Would that Would this fee structure that's recommended cost them more than obviously besides annexation fee, but let's say a person wanted to an- do that same sort of work to property that's already inside the city. Same size property, same amount of partition work they want to do. One just wants to annex or scratch the annex part of it. For now, for the discussion, would the costs be about the same for both those folks? So, in the case where they are annexing, we we do we do this and we advise people regularly that annex first. So, they

48:53 process them concurrently. The annexation takes place and then we approve the partition. It just They run essentially concurrently, but the annexation goes first. And they don't partition when they're still in the UGB cuz it costs them more to do it that way. So, I just don't want to be It's their choice. They could do it that way cuz they may want to just build one new single family home and not pay city taxes. They may want to stay on septic and be in the county essentially under the tax for the county and um pay that 1.5 time to not annex. So, I just want to annex. My bad. I'm sorry. Okay. Um So, I just don't want this to be something that's going to I I feel

49:38 people inside the UGB, I don't Frankly, I don't like the UGB period. City limits should go out to the end of it. All good. But Amen. that part of it is I don't want to be able I don't want to be part of this decision-making process that's going to discourage people from wanting to come into the city based on all the costs involved. I I would like to make it easy. So, to me 1.5 sounds like it's making it more difficult. Well, it's only incentivizing bringing people into the city. Right, correct. And um there is So, it's on our my personal work plan to work on our annexation code. We didn't revise or update our annexation section of our development code with the last

50:24 big development code update. Under state law, there's an easier process for these septic failure type of one lot annexations where we don't have to take them through a public hearing. We haven't incorporated that in our development code and we should. We can. Um it would streamline that process, make it a lot easier for those situations. We can't for the larger ones where more people are impacted, but anyway, we need to create that easier process in our code for certain annexations that is just we haven't quite gotten to yet. So, that touches on improvement districts. Um as you annex, then um I'm not sure it touches on improvement districts. It could Well, it could impact other taxing districts. The LID is all of that, but taxing

51:10 LID LID as well for improvement districts. Um It's probably a much deeper Yeah. So, never mind. Okay. Steve. With the global warming issues coming up on us in Edinburgh, and we're having to concentrate more housing units on lots, and they're going to be the same units. How does partitioning work? If the lending institution So, we're going to want to lend for one part of it. Is it going to be easy to partition those? So, I just was talking with a customer, uh Mike Blankenship, some of you may know, today at the counter about doing just that. He was Now, under middle housing, you can do a duplex on what was previously just a single family home lot, and he can build two detached units at a duplex and then divide it. And so,

51:57 under the middle housing land division regulations, it's an expedited process to do that middle housing land division. It's still going through all the same survey rules, but then each house ends up on its own lot that you can sell separately. But, we're talking about multiple living units in the same building. Mhm. You're worth You can't if they're We So, townhomes are side-by-side connected one building, you can do zero lot lines. For if they're stacked or something, the only way to divide those would be a condominium plat, which isn't actually dividing the land, just the airspace. Can you get financing? Well, there is I mean, condominium stuff right now that really hard because of liability insurance, but um you can do it. I mean, I personally did a project like that in Bend when I lived over there as a

52:42 And if you know, we're trying to encourage more infill, and and housing like that is going to be where we're headed. So, how are the easiest way for people to handle that to get financing to build the place? Yeah, financing is becoming tricky for people. Mhm. A lot of people right now. Okay. Do you Do you have enough input? Um the And I just the last point I guess I want to make is um and it's in the memo, but that we're recognizing we'll come back to you in the fall. We'll have more of a a layout for this, hopefully some more data around these other services, engineering things, but even just for the planning piece is that as um NJ and and Reva mentioned, we did a survey. We And I've been through this fee study process at the city of Bend when I was there, at Lane County. It's

53:27 very similar process. We all kind of guess on average, how long does it take us to do a site plan or a subdivision? We don't have any hard data. We had a little bit in this case, but I've laid out we want to start collecting that data and come back to you in a year and actually have the data to then right-size these fees and adjust them and say, "Well, we were a little bit higher or lower here." and readjust them once we have more information to base the a more realistic average on. Yeah, so I'm going to tell I'm going to tell you two things here. One of them is don't bring it back in the fall until after we do the tech fee conversation like from a scheduling perspective cuz I don't see how we're going to be ready to, you know, dive into the details and that'll give you additional time to get the finance modeling modeling correct,

54:13 right? Cuz we really need to know how how well we're making the making these decisions. Um, for you starting to collect data on how long these individual sort of work items have, I think you're going to learn a lot from it. You know, just from from a professional perspective in my not here life, you probably are underestimating how long it's going to take how long it's taking you. That's just historically how people have they got a good sense, but it's probably on the lower end of what what actually happened. And I and I think it's valuable when you get the additional data that you probably have a gap in there that is some sort of you're going to have to solve some from either from some sort of process improvement, productivity increase, like whatever you want to call it, right? But I would think that, you know, you guys from internally could, you know, figure out a

54:59 way to solve part of it. Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Well, I first I want to um just going to say that then when you said something made me think of another question I have, but first I just want to just thank you all for doing this cuz I think this is just a a great um project and I appreciate y'all's work and the way you've you've looked at it because it gives us a chance to really dig into it. And when we talk about the the data collection and to Counselor Moss's point, I think it would be for me it would be especially interesting to be looking at these new projects that are coming in because of the code changes and looking at the time of that cuz, you know, we're we're sort of anticipating that well, is it it won't take more to put three things on a lot, but maybe there'll be new things that come up and this is a

55:44 perfect time for us to sort of start that base level data collection of understanding what that looks like for us and then we can when we wiggle or adjust the fees, we'll be able to adjust them to really match with the the the work that's coming with the code changes. Okay. We got you know, took a 30-minute topic and went 55 minutes, which I think Interesting. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Morris. We're going to adjourn and we'll reconvene at 7:30. I'm going to open the regular meeting of the Springfield City Council with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon. Here. Councilor Weber. Here. Councilor Moe. Here. Councilor Roddy. Here. Councilor Blackwell. Councilor Doyle. Here. And Councilor Pishioneri. Here. Thank you. And Councilor Blackwell is excused for

56:30 the evening. Uh please join me for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. As we begin our meeting tonight, there are two designated times for public testimony under public hearings and business from the audience. If you are attending in person, please complete the request to speak card located at the entrance of the council chambers and give them to the city recorder. If you're joining us online with a with a tablet, smartphone, or computer and wish to speak to either of those times,

57:15 please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. The order of public testimony is as follows. Any person in the city council chambers and then anyone who has raised their virtual hand. And Neil, how many people do we have joining us tonight? Approximately 30 in the council chambers and five online. First please. First item is the consent calendar. I move to approve the consent calendar. Second. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Counselor Weber. Yes. Counselor Mow. Yes. Counselor Rodley. Yes. Counselor Blackwell. Counselor Doyle. Aye. And Counselor Pishioneri. Yes, thank you. Motion passes, five yeses, zero no's, one absent. Next item, please. Our next item is public hearings. You have three this evening. Public hearing number one is the fiscal year 23 supplemental budget four. This is

58:01 resolution number one, a resolution adjusting resources and requirements in the following funds: general, special revenue, fire local option levy, regional wastewater capital, street capital, ambulance, insurance, and vehicle and equipment. Neil Obringer is here for this item. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Neil Obringer, budget and procurement manager in finance department. I'm here to present for adoption the city's FY 22-23 fourth supplemental budget. This evening you're being asked to conduct a public hearing to consider and consider the adoption of the supplemental budget resolution. The supplemental budget resolution was inadvertently left out of the published packet. So, I'd like to read the resolution into the record before you start the public

58:46 hearing. Note that because it was published in the packet, exhibit A will be incorporated into this resolution by reference, but not read into the packet into the record. City of Springfield, Oregon FY 22-23 supplemental budget number four resolution. A resolution adjusting resources and requirements in the following funds: general, special revenue, fire local option levy, regional wastewater capital, street capital, ambulance, insurance, and vehicle and equipment. Whereas the Common Council has adopted the budget and made appropriations for fiscal year 2022-23 through resolution number 2020 22-25 adopted June 20th, 2022 and as amended

59:33 by resolution number 2023-04 adopted February 21st, 2023 resolution number 2023-09 adopted March 13th, 2023 and resolution number 2023-19 adopted May 1st, 2023. Whereas ORS 294.471 section 1 subsection A and subsection C permits a supplemental budget due to an occurrence or condition that was not known at the time the budget was prepared or prior to a previous supplemental budget and that requires a change in financial planning. Funds that are made available by another unit of federal, state, or local government and the availability of which could not reasonably be foreseen when

1:00:18 preparing the original budget or a previous supplemental budget for the current year or current period. Whereas the common council has requested to make adjustments for the fiscal year 2022-2023 budget and appropriations to meet unexpected needs and to allow appropriations of new revenues pursuant to ORS 294.471 section 1 subsection A and subsection C as justified in exhibit A which is attached and incorporated by reference. Whereas the supplemental budget is being presented at a public hearing at which the public may comment on such requests. And whereas notice of a public hearing including information regarding such revenues and expenditures was published in newspaper of general circulation not less than 5 days prior

1:01:05 to the public meeting. Now therefore be it resolved by the common council of the city of Springfield section 1 the fiscal year 2022-2023 budget and appropriations as adopted by resolution number 2022-25 as amended by resolution number 2023-04, resolution number 2023-09, and resolution 2023-19 are hereby adjusted as provided in exhibit A. Section two, this resolution will take effect upon adoption by the council. Thank you. Um I ask that you now conduct a public hearing um on the supplemental budget.

1:01:50 All right. I'm going to open the public hearing for the supplemental budget. Um I do not have any cards for this item. Triple check here. No, yep. I do not have any cards for this item. Uh Neil, do you have anybody online? Um no hands for this item. All right. I'm going to go and close the public hearing. I move to adopt the resolution number one for the supplemental budget for fiscal year 22-23 including exhibit A as read into the record by Neil O'Brenger before this evening's public hearing. Second. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Councilor Weber. Yes. Councilor Moe.

1:02:35 Yes. Councilor Rodley. Yes. Councilor Blackwell. Councilor Doyle. I. And Councilor Pishue. Yes. Motion passes five yeses, zero no's, one absent. Next item, please. Uh your second public hearing is a fiscal year 2023-24 city budget adoption. This is resolution number two, a resolution adopting the fiscal year 2023-24 City of Springfield budget, making appropriations, and imposing and categorizing the tax. Ethan Bell is here for this item. Uh good evening, Mayor and council. Uh this one's going to sound similar to the last one. I apologize for that. I'm here to present the um adoption of the city's FY24 budget uh this evening. You're being asked to conduct a public hearing and consider the adoption of the budget resolution. Uh the budget resolution was inadvertently left out of

1:03:20 the published packet, so I'd like to read it into the record before you start the public hearing. Uh note that because it was published in the packet, exhibit A will be incorporated into this resolution by reference but not read into the record. Uh City of Springfield, Oregon, FY24 adopted budget resolution. A resolution adopting the fiscal year 2023-24 City of Springfield budget, making appropriations and imposing and categorizing the tax. Uh whereas starting on April 25th, 2023 and ending on May 9th, 2023, the budget committee met and reviewed the proposed 2023-24 City budget. Uh whereas on May 9th, 2023, the budget committee recommended approval of the 2023-24 City budget for Council adoption. Uh whereas on June

1:04:05 20th, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing on the recommended budget and Uh whereas the City Council of the City of Springfield finds that adopting the budget and making appropriations is necessary and complies with the applicable requirements under ORS 294.305 to 294.565. Now, uh therefore, be it resolved by the Common Council of the City of Springfield, Section 1, the budget for the City of Springfield for fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2023 and ending June 30th, 2024 uh on file at Springfield City Hall in the total amount of $434,355,495 is hereby adopted. Uh Section 2, the amount for the fiscal year beginning

1:04:51 July 1st, 2023 and ending June 30th, 2024 as set forth in exhibit A are hereby appropriated for the purposes shown therein. Uh Section 3, the following ad valorem property taxes are hereby imposed for tax year 2023-24 upon the assessed value of all taxable property within the city, uh the rate of 4.7403 per thousand of assessed value for the permanent rate tax, uh the rate of uh two, uh the rate of uh 0.38 per thousand of assessed value for the voter-approved 5-year local option operating levy for fire operations, three, uh the rate of 1.40 per thousand of assessed value for the voter-approved 5-year local option

1:05:36 operating levy for police, court, and jail operations, and four, the amount of 3,979,058 for debt service for general obligation bonds. Section four, the taxes imposed are hereby categorized for the purposes of Article 11, Section 11B as follows. Uh the funds, general fund, uh 4.7403 per thousand subject to the general government limitation, uh fire local option levy, um 0.38 per thousand subject to the general government limitation, uh police local option levy, uh 1.40 per thousand subject to the general government limitation, and bond-seeking uh fund excluded from the limitation in the

1:06:21 amount of 3,979,058. Uh Section five, uh the city manager of the City of Springfield is authorized and directed to certify the levy as authorized by law with Lane County Oregon Assessor and the Lane County Oregon Clerk and will file a copy of the adopted budget with the Department of Revenue in the State of Oregon. Section six, uh this resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the council. Uh thank you, and I ask that you now conduct a public hearing. Thank you. Um I'll go and open the public hearing. I have no cards for this item. Neil, do you have anybody online? Uh appears no hands for this item. I'm going to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion?

1:07:12 I move to adopt resolution number two, the fiscal year 2023-24 City of Springfield budget making appropriations and imposing and in categorizing the tax including exhibit A as read into the record by Nathan Bell before this evening's public hearing. Second. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Councillor Weber. Yes. Councillor Moe. Yes. Councillor Rodly. Yes. Councillor Blackwell. Councillor Doyle. Aye. Councillor Pishioneri. Yes, thank you. Motion passes, five yeses, zero noes, and one absent. Thank you. Thank you. Next item, please. Your third public hearing is a resolution certifying the city's eligibility to receive state shared revenues from cigarette, marijuana, gas, and liquor taxes. This is again resolution number three, a resolution of the common council of the City of

1:07:57 Springfield certifying eligibility for state shared revenues from cigarette, marijuana, gas, and liquor taxes, and approving the City of Springfield's participation in the state revenue sharing program. Neil O'Bringer is here for this item. Good evening again, uh Mayor and Council. This is the city's routine certification uh needed to receive state shared revenues. Um each year, the city needs to hold a public hearing before the budget committee, hold a public hearing before the city council, uh adopt a resolution certifying eligibility and approving the city's particip- participation in the program, um and then finally, uh file a copy with uh the State of Oregon. This action tonight um satisfies uh steps two and

1:08:42 three uh of that process. So, um with that, I thank you and um ask that you conduct a public hearing tonight. All right. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. I don't have any cards for this item. Neil, do you have anybody online that wants to speak? No hands for this item. I'm going to go close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? I'd like to make a motion to adopt resolution number three. Second. You know, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Council Weber. Yes. Council Moe. Yes. Council Rodley. Yes. Council Blackwell, Council Doyle. Aye. And Council Pishioneri. Yes, thank you. Motion passes five yeses, zero no's, one absent. Next item, please. Next item is business from the audience. Give me one second and I'll call the

1:09:28 first person up. All right. First person is Mary Byrne. Thank you. Uh my name is Mary Byrne. I live in Eugene, Oregon, and I want to thank you, Mayor and council members, for the opportunity to speak tonight. Gun ownership is a constitutional right. Gun violence is not. Gun violence is a problem, and gun violence is an epidemic. As a healthcare professional, I had a front-row seat to the effects of gunshot

1:10:14 wounds. Gunshot wounds burden our healthcare system. Gun violence costs Oregon $8 billion each year, and 89 million falls on taxpayers. Because of school shootings alone, more than 350,000 students have experienced gun violence at school. Now, regardless of social, political, or faith values, that can't be a statistic that makes any American proud. I want to personally thank Council Corey Rodley for attending and speaking at our recent Wear Orange event at Island Park. Wear Orange is an annual national day to honor victims and recognize survivors of gun violence.

1:10:59 And Wear Orange is 100% non-partisan. Full stop. I lived in Colorado in the 1999 Columbine Massacre, less than a year after Thurston. Since Columbine, there have been 386 school shootings. That's two each month. How is this possible? How is this acceptable? And while mass shootings get national attention, more than half of gun deaths are suicides. In Oregon, firearms are used in over 80% of suicides, and Springfield has one of the highest suicide rates, with more than 20 suicides per 100,000 people.

1:11:44 Again, no one can be proud of these facts. I am here tonight to ask Mayor Van Gordon of Springfield to join other mayors to designate the first Friday of June as a gun violence awareness day to honor the 48,000 victims, innocent Americans, whose lives have been cut short by this epidemic. A proclamation can still be made for 2023, even though June 2nd has passed. And we can always make ones going forward. Several cities have even proclaimed the entire month of June as Gun Violence Awareness Month. But I know this intelligent body can quickly agree on one day of awareness in the month of June, and I

1:12:31 guarantee you will feel proud of that fact. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Uh, Mary Jo Sanders. I'm Mary Jo Sanders, and I live in Springfield. Um I would also like to start by um thanking um Councilor Rodley for coming and speaking at the Wear Orange event that was held at Island Park on June 3rd. Um again, the purpose of that event is to raise awareness about gun violence and remember the victims and survivors. I felt like it was especially fitting that this event be held in Springfield

1:13:16 for the first time because this year was the 25th anniversary of the shooting at Thurston High School. Both of my children were students there at the time. Our youngest was in the cafeteria. So our family was very personally impacted. Many others in our community were also touched by this tragedy. And they came together to um respond with compassion and support and a strong desire to work towards preventing similar things from ever happening again. Sadly, in the last 25 years, the incidence of gun violence has significantly escalated to the point where it is now the number one cause of death for children and teens in the United States. I think that's a shameful statistic and

1:14:02 one that I am not willing to passively accept. So along with many other dedicated volunteers, I've increased my efforts to try and promote gun safety. Even though Wear Orange is over for this year, the work continues. Gun violence is a threat to all of us regardless of our politics. And so I'm asking all of you to step up and actively join the effort to reduce gun violence and make our community and country safer. Again, Mayor Van Gordon, I hope that you will join other mayors and um sign the proclamation making the first Friday um National Gun Violence Awareness Day in Springfield, Oregon to honor um victims and survivors, many of them who are members of this

1:14:47 community. Thank you for your time. Thank you. David Sanders. My name is David Sanders. I'm a citizen of Springfield. Council members, Mayor Van Gordon, the citizens of Springfield, I'm urging you to sign the proclamation declaring the first Friday in June be National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Want to thank Counselor Rodley who spoke eloquently at the Mayor Orange event at Island Park on June 3rd to remember and especially honor the victims of gun violence and to remind us of the 25th anniversary of the shooting at Springfield High, excuse me, Thurston

1:15:33 High. Both of my kids were students there and one was in the cafeteria during the shooting. My family and many others in our community have been scarred forever by that tragedy. Our whole community came together then to respond with an outpouring of support and a common desire to prevent such tragedies from ever happening again. Remember the fence outside Thurston High? Remember the ribbon of promise? I'm wearing that on this shirt. Look at us now. 25 years later and it feels like we have done next to nothing to protect our children and community from this mushrooming tragic epidemic of violence. This is not about whatever rights you may feel you are granted under the

1:16:18 Second Amendment. I'm not against well-regulated, responsible gun ownership. I am not coming for your guns. Very sentence of our Constitution, the very first sentence of our Constitution, says our country is being established in order to form a more perfect union, to ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. Gun violence threatens the tranquility and welfare of us all. Is having kindergarteners kindergarteners practice active shooter drills what you want to leave to our

1:17:04 prosperity? Why are guns so readily available as the answer to so many young seeking a solution to their problems through mass violence and suicide? Every day we hear more shootings so that nowhere feels safe anymore. I'm asking you to join our voices together to help make this community safer from gun violence. The Remon a promise campaign was once launched right here and Springfield again should be leading in that cause. Again, I asked you to declare the first Friday in June to be the national gun violence awareness day. Won't you please speak up and make a

1:17:50 difference. Thank you. Thank you. Next card is Trudy Bachman. Thank you. Trudy Bachery. Thank you for your time. Um I'm here to request funding for Springfield block party. My partner Benjamin Wilkinson will speak a little further about more details, but we were offered production of this very successful event just a few weeks before it began last year and it had an pretty low attendance its first 2 years. We decided to take it on. Between the two of us we have over 30 years of small business experience, local businesses,

1:18:36 and we have been front and back of house management as well as owners of local small businesses in our community. So, we felt like we were well-poised to figure out how to make this event really successful for our local businesses. We also have about 20 years of event production experience as well, so we were really excited for this challenge to have just a few weeks to really pull it off. And I think it was a huge success. I know, Mayor, that you were there, and we set up a booth for you. There was a lot of time and attention put to all of the businesses. There was a lot of thought and planning around the entertainment, where to place the entertainment, how to stagger the performance times, making sure there were lots of different types of

1:19:21 entertainment so everyone in our community felt represented, felt entertained. And one of the biggest things that businesses were worried about is having people flow through the entire event so that each business got exposure, got some new audience members, um increased business. And we did that. We did that extraordinarily well. It took a lot of time, it took a lot of expertise, and we want to do it again. But, it's grown, and we need help making sure that happens. Last year, we had a shoestring budget, and we put our hundreds of hours in for free just cuz we love it. We love this town. We live here, we own a own We own a home here, we own a business here. And so, we did it for the love of our community. But, if we want to

1:20:07 continue to provide this event for our community in a safe and sustainable way, we're going to need some funding to make that happen. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Ben Wolkson. Uh thank you, Mayor. Thank you, counselors. Uh special thank you to uh, Counselor Weber. Uh we live in your ward, and so thank you and welcome to the council. Um, I grew up in rural Alaska, and uh, when I was 12 years old in 1994, I gave a speech on gun control, um, to my gymnasium full of people, and I just got to say I'm very proud, uh, to be here tonight. So, thank you for, uh, sharing with us and and for being willing to put yourselves out here. It means a lot to

1:20:52 have witnessed that. Um, emotions aside, uh, yes, Springfield the Block Party. Um, you may have been, uh, you may have heard about it. I sure hope you heard about it because we had over 3,000 people in downtown Springfield last year, uh, wandering the streets. Now, if you can imagine downtown Springfield, we don't have a lot of blocks, but we're very proud of them. 3,000 people does fill up a lot of space. Um, we're looking forward to 2023 as this way to carry forward the spirit of the Boiler Fest. Um, I didn't get to go to a Boiler Fest. I haven't lived here long enough. I'm I'm sure you have. Um, I'm sure many of you have. Um, uh, we know the Children's Festival is one of those great events that, uh, happens every year in Springfield. Things like Tap and Taste, you know, these gatherings. We need events like this, um, to remind Springfield of who we are and why we are proud to be members of this

1:21:38 town. To celebrate, uh, coming together as a community, our shared history, uh, welcoming everybody. And I think the Springfield Block Party really nailed it. Um, Trudi did a great job of describing how we succeeded at that last year. And I think the challenges, which were rightly brought to us by members of, uh, city staff and other community members, is that going forward, we're going to need more infrastructure. We're going to need more safety, more planning, all of that, uh, put in thought and time to making the event happen in a safe and successful way. Um, we started the party or we we David Lovall started the party in 2019. There There's never been a mechanism for revenue for this event. It's not meant to be, um, like a downtown festival somewhere over there. Um, it's meant to be this

1:22:24 everybody is welcome free event in downtown Springfield. So, we're building a new event and finding the ways to pay for that event can be a challenge. Um we are looking forward uh to inviting uh small dollar contributions from our business owners. Again, we're looking forward to inviting gift in kind uh contributions from media, other organizations to help support us, volunteers to help staff the party like we did last year. Uh but we're asking the council for a budget uh this year of $28,000 to help facilitate this event. Now, I've put all that information into a packet that's much easier to cram into a PDF uh than a three-minute speech, but I do want to leave you with this. Um we're very proud of the place that we call home, and I know all of you are,

1:23:09 too. Uh we wouldn't be anywhere else, and I think that the block party helps to encapsulate that. We'd like to build on the successes of the past and move it forward uh in a safe and productive way. Um I recognize my timing is less ideal, uh but I'm here today, and I have packets for you. You all have emails, PDFs, and there is a link to the slideshow. So, make sure you check out those photos from last year's event. All right. Thank you. Thank you, council. Neil, that was my last card. Do you have anybody raising their hand online? Uh no hands for this item. Okay. Is there any council response? Uh Corey. I just want to thank everyone for coming and sharing tonight. Um and just the

1:23:56 the the sort of breadth of conversation that we had, and similar to Ben, I'm I'm feeling um I'm I'm feeling a lot of pride in how we all want to make Springfield safer. We want to make it more inclusive. We want to celebrate the things that we love about Springfield. And I'm sometimes I'm crabby, people know. Sometimes I'm a little bit crabby up here, and tonight I'm just feeling um just such appreciation for people who are willing to like dig in, lead with values, and think about how how do we do this better. So, thank you all for coming and sharing tonight. I appreciate it. All right. Thank you, Corey. Anybody else? Okay. Uh Oh, Victoria. I just wanted to say if the folks will

1:24:41 stick around that were asking about the funds, I had some information that I'd like to share with you. So, thank you. Yeah, and looking at this request, my recommendation would be can And Nancy, if you can assign somebody to meet with them and go through this and figure out what would be appropriate. Um I can certainly do that, Mayor. I just wanted to uh make the council aware that we have discussed this request in our our Team Springfield meeting, which is a collaboration with uh government agencies here in um Springfield. We have a modest budget for doing community events, and the team agreed um to uh provide a $4,000 uh donation for this event. So, I just wanted to make you aware of that. All right. Thank you. Next item, please.

1:25:28 Uh next item is any business from the city council. Does anybody have any other business? Steve Moe. I do. Beautiful museum that Springfield has is sponsoring a summer solstice cemetery tour tomorrow, June 21st. And it's where the Douglas Cemetery, why I was called it that cuz I grew up there, but it's the Laurel Grove Cemetery. And uh Long stay the I'll read this. Long stay the year to learn about Laurel Grove Cemetery 167 years as a community cemetery. Enjoy the sweeping views of Eugene and Springfield while learning about the Grove's residents and the stories they can tell about Lane County history. And the original Springfield Cemetery was on South Second Street. It got full, so

1:26:13 they bought that property over there and disinterred reinterred the founder of Springfield and everybody of a lot of the other prominent people. So, it would be quite I've been there. This is quite a fun event. It is rumored that I will be reading facts and stories about the first mayor of Springfield. You've heard it here first. So, seance, right? You're not like trying to raise them from the Um I didn't ask that clarifying question and now I'm a little bit concerned. Victoria. Um I just wanted to share that I attended the Red Cross um wildfire relief um event that they sent out and got a lot of information about the Red Cross and what they do in our communities. And um I I had notes and I didn't bring them. I apologize. I

1:26:59 totally forgot about it, but one of the things that I think they wanted to mention was um there are like different aspects that the Red Cross does in in communities besides doing first aid training and then also um you know, responding to different events, but a lot of times when an event happens in our community like what happened with the fire the fires in 2020, our community is so loving and so giving. The first thing they said was what can we do, right? Everybody asks what can we do and we started influxing and what the Red Cross has asked is that they don't need physical donations um of food and water. They have the ability to to work reach out and work with different organizations and get that and they have a way to organize it and get that out. What they really need is your

1:27:45 time if you're interested in volunteering and a financial donations. Um over 90% of the money that goes to the Red Cross goes directly to those um things and only less than 10% goes to admins. So, they really put that money back into the community and they have the infrastructure to make sure that those things get to where they need to be. Um but they said that um almost all of their staff is volunteer and a lot of people come in in an event like that and they volunteer one time and then they stay because they just get so much out of it. And so, if you're interested in volunteering or getting involved, they are great. I would highly recommend looking them up cuz they do a lot for our communities. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. On Saturday, I attended the canine

1:28:30 event. Fully packed Silky Field. It was amazing. And I didn't get to stay for the whole thing, but I understand SPD represented in fine form and super proud of all the people that that participated in that. All right. Perfect. Next item, please. Uh next item is you have a few items under business from the city manager. Item number one is land acquisition for affordable housing. And Katie Carroll is present here for this item. All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Katie Carroll. I'm the city's housing analyst. I'm joined on this item by Aaron Fifeild, the community development analyst. Um this item is a request to approve a

1:29:16 request to Lane County to transfer two county-owned tax-foreclosed properties located in Springfield to the city for the purposes of low-income housing development. And it's also a request to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute all documents needed to formalize the request to the county and to take ownership of the properties. So, a little bit of background, the city has been looking for land to purchase or help developers purchase for purposes of developing low-income housing um as one of the city's housing strategies. Earlier this year, county staff approached city staff with a couple of tax-foreclosed residential properties, small infill properties, um in Springfield that and wanted to see if the city wanted to um take those

1:30:03 properties from the county. Um under state statute and the Lane manual, the county can transfer county-owned properties to municipalities without payment for purposes of developing low-income housing. Um, in order to initiate a request, the city has to propose a plan to the Board of County Commissioners for how it would use those properties. And if the county approves the plan and agrees to transfer them, there's a $400 administrative fee associated with that, and then the city would be responsible for recording fees as well. Um, the city has conducted due diligence on these two properties and determined that they're viable for development um, as low-income housing. And then council has also reviewed these properties in previous executive

1:30:48 sessions. So, the attachment in your packet tonight is a draft of the plan that the city would present to the Board of County Commissioners to request transfer of the properties. Um, it proposes that one lot be used for low-income home ownership housing and the other for low-income rental housing. So, the smaller of the two properties is being proposed for low-income rental housing, and the city expects that could fit a fourplex on it, so four units. Um, and the plan is proposing that the city would award this property along with um, home ARP funds, which the city city has about 900,000, and that's for development and operation. And those funds get awarded through um, a competitive request for proposal process

1:31:33 that's run through the Eugene Home Consortium. Um, and then for that lot, the city also has um, a program that council has previously approved, the low-income rental housing property tax exemption or LIRHTI, that a developer could apply for alongside to help make that project pencil long-term. Um, and then the second property is a little bit larger, that's being proposed for low-income home ownership, and that could probably fit four um four to five homes on it. And the city doesn't have development funds available for home ownership, but um the council has created a couple of other things that could be accessed for this lot. So, first is a system development charge or

1:32:18 SDC waiver for low income home ownership that um you all passed late last year, but a developer could apply for to reduce kind of the upfront cost of development. And then on the back end, a buyer um could apply for Springfield Home Ownership Program or SHOP funds um to help make that purchase affordable. So, those funds are for first-time low income home buyers. Um it's an interest-free loan. Can be used for down payment and other uh purchase costs. And then both of these properties would be required to be affordable for at least 20 years. That's what's required under the Lane Manual. Um and if council directs staff to move forward, we will finalize this plan and try and submit it to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration this summer. That's all I

1:33:03 have. Thanks. Any questions? All right. I had just one quick question because of the HOME Consortium. When the RFQ for the HOME Consortium goes RFP for the HOME Consortium goes out, it would specifically be with these properties in mind. Yeah. Okay. Well, with the um smaller of the properties. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. May I do that then? I asked if I could make this motion because I've been For those of you who don't know, this is my passion and I have loved working with these folks and um I say that we've now created a land banking program. So, anyway, I'm just really excited about this. I would like to move that we approve a request to Lane County tax foreclosed properties, tax lot number

1:33:49 1703274105200 to the city for purposes of low-income housing development. Like is it both of them together? No, you just you do the first one and then All right, do we have a second? Second. All right, Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Counselor Weber. Yes. Counselor Mowe. Yes. Counselor Roddy. Yes. Counselor Blackwell. Counselor Doyle. I. And Counselor Pesce near. Yes. Motion passes five yeses, zero no's, one absent. I would like to move to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute all documents needed to formalize the request and to take ownership of the

1:34:34 properties. Second. Neil. Counselor Weber. Yes. Counselor Mowe. Yes. Counselor Roddy. Yes. Counselor Blackwell. Counselor Doyle. I. And Counselor Pesce near. Yes. Motion passes five yeses, zero no's, one absent. Next item, please. Thank you. I Uh item number two is the land acquisition IGA with Lane County and again, this is I'm sorry, Aaron Fifeield with this item. Uh good evening, Mayor Council. Um I'm here tonight with a inter governmental agreement with Lane County um for the city of Springfield to receive 1.5 million dollars to put toward land acquisition for low-income households and or people currently experiencing homelessness. In 2001, Lane County was

1:35:20 awarded 1.5 million dollars in state ARPA funds to buy land in Springfield at the request of then Senator Beyer. Springfield was informed of this after the fact and we've since been working with the county staff to broaden the flexibility of this award to the existing project description that's in your packet. We are working closely with the city attorney's office to finalize this agreement um so there is a near final version in your packet. Um authorization by council would allow the city to further pursue council's housing strategy to identify land suitable for affordable housing development and to use federal dollars to acquire or help developers acquire land. Authorization would not obligate the city to purchase property. We plan to

1:36:05 work with the city manager's office to determine the most effective way to use the funding to acquire land and any final decisions on purchase or distribution of funds would still come back to city council for your approval. I could make a motion to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute all documents needed to give effect to an intergovernmental agreement with Lane County for the city to receive up to 1.5 million dollars in reimbursement for land purchase for the development of affordable housing for low-income households and or people experiencing homelessness. Second. Neil. Councilor Weber. Yes. Councilor Moe. Yes. Councilor Rodli.

1:36:50 Yes. Councilor Blackwell. Councilor Doyle. Aye. Councilor Pishue. Yes. Motion passes five yeses, zero noes, one absent. Next item, please. Item three is the CDBG action plan substantial amendments. Aaron Fifeild is here for this item. Hello again, Mayor Council. Um I'm here tonight with a recommendation from the council's community development advisory committee to reallocate federal community development block grant funds from unspent activities toward the Relief Nursery to purchase an adjacent property to their Springfield site so that they may expand services and increase their capacity. Relief Nursery is a local nonprofit located on South 42nd Street. They serve low-income high-risk children and

1:37:35 families with counseling, early childhood programs, outreach, and family support. They have seen an increased demand in their services um and are requesting Sorry, their aim is to construct a new building adjacent to their existing building um that would provide additional office space, classroom space, and respite child care. They're requesting CDBG funds to acquire this land. The estimated costs, factoring in staff time to conduct an environmental assessment, is about $225,000. Total project cost is estimated at $3.3 million. As part of the city's CDBG citizen participation plan, the proposed allocation was noticed in the Register-Guard and published online for

1:38:21 30 days for public comment. The Community Development Advisory Committee also held a public hearing on the proposed changes. Um we had one comment received, and that was from a former committee member, just um applauding the work that the committee does in this work. Um The Relief Nursery was asked to submit a CDBG proposal, of which the Community Development Advisory Committee evaluated and scored during their public meeting. After a bit of discussion following the public hearing, the committee recommends that council fully fund Relief Nursery's request. The committee then held a discussion about whether there were currently unspent CDBG funds that would be able to be reallocated toward this project now.

1:39:07 Ultimately, the committee voted and is recommending the reallocation of funds from three different activities, and those are in your packet. Um one um money from the Emerald Art Center, about 22,000. These are funds that council has since funded um with general funds through supplemental budget two, um in order to sort of easily move that project forward without the federal requirements that were attached to them. Um the other uh recommendation is to move 162,000 from the land acquisition um activity, recognizing the anticipated $1.5 million in ARPA funds through the county that would be available for land acquisition. And then further uh the committee is

1:39:52 recommending a move of $40,000 um from fiscal year 24's home repair program actually. Um that was an allocation that was above what is expected to be spent um and they are recommending to remove that sort of excess and apply it toward this project. Um looking ahead uh it would probably take about 6 to 9 months to complete the environmental review um and identify any concerns. Um ultimately, the city would need to submit a request to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development in order to request the release of funds for this project. Um as noted in their proposal included in the packet, the Relief Nursery um has identified different sources of fundings, um but right now they're still working on that plan and

1:40:38 have said that this funding to acquire land would help them leverage future dollars. There are members of Relief Nursery here should there be any questions. Are there any questions? I do. On the the funding from you said the home repair program Mhm. and you said that um it's expected that they're not they're going to be available not used. Who's expecting that? Staff's projecting what they've been currently spending this year and then projecting what um they'll spend next year and then sort of comparing that against what was allocated for next year. So that's the additional 40,000. were budgeted funds already or not? Yes. Um you approved those May first

1:41:24 week of May. Sure thought. So what's plan B if those funds are have got a greater demand than what is expected? So you know, I think for the most part we have other funding that like currently there is still unspent funds through land acquisition and there are right now funds being put toward another activity like the down payment assistant program. I think it's the way we've been operating the program is to see what's moving and if there is a need to reallocate as that goes then the committee is sort of primed to make a recommendation. Those those funds you're talking about as far as um acquisitions etc. Those can be used for repair. No, but they can be um moved. Um they

1:42:09 can be reallocated to the home repair program. So they can't be used for repair then. Yes. Okay. Yeah. That's first question. Thank you. And then so the relief nursery folks so it's good to be able to have money leveraged but that's not a done deal, is it? Is there a plan B for that? Meaning meaning using it using our okay, we can use we want to give you money for the property but you don't have any you don't have any solid commitments to continue that project as of yet. Is that correct? Whoever my relief nursery people are. We're we're going to call an audible here. it's you. Yeah. Hello council. My name is Jennifer

1:42:54 Solomon. I'm the director of philanthropy at Relief Nursery and I understand that we have been approved as a shovel ready project on a list of projects for state lottery fund bonding. Okay. That's what I was hoping on so we're not just gambling on it. Right. Perfect. Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you. All right. Good. I'd like to make a motion to uh find it here. Okay, approve the changes the community development advisory committee recommendation to substantially amend the fiscal year 2022, fiscal year 2023, fiscal year 2024 CDBG annual action plans and reallocate

1:43:40 those funds toward Relief Nursery to purchase property. Second. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes. Councilor Weber? Yes. Councilor Moe? Yes. Councilor Rodley? Yes. Councilor Blackwell? Councilor Doyle? I. And Councilor Pishioneri? Yes. Motion passes. Five yeses, zero nos, one absent. Next item, please. Next item is the Saint Vincent de Paul manufactured dwelling park agreement. Aaron Fiefield is here for this item. Last one, I promise. Um the item before you, uh Mayor Council, is a request to authorize the city manager to execute the attached grant agreement with Saint Vincent de Paul to disperse state grant funding for the purpose of developing a manufactured dwelling park, a new

1:44:26 manufactured dwelling park here in Springfield. This grant agreement carries out the city's obligation under the intergovernmental agreement the city signed last fall with the Oregon Housing and Community Services, by which OHCS was appropriated $3 million in 2021 for this purpose. As outlined in the agreement with Saint Vincent de Paul, the objective of this project is to develop a new manufactured dwelling park in Springfield. This is permanent housing, not shelter. Um anywhere from 40 to 100 units. Um a mix of rent and ownership is planned for the development. Um the agreement also recognizes that this project may be a mixed-income project. Um only 51% of units need to be made available to

1:45:13 low-income households. Um As you may recall, the city has been working to support the needs of manufactured dwelling park residents over the past decade. This allocation from the state was seen as a solution to help preserve the number of manufactured homes here in Springfield given the potential for displacement of existing manufacturing manufactured dwelling park residents. The city worked with Rep Lively and St. Vincent de Paul to advocate in the state legislature for these funds. They can be spent specifically um to be used to purchase land, pay for infrastructure improvements, payment of system development charges, completing road improvements, and other development costs.

1:46:01 As stated in section Sorry, to recognize that counselors, I know there some concerns that counselors have brought up in the past um about the city's responsibility in sort of dispersing these funds. Um we've worked closely with Christina in the city attorney's office. Um and as stated in section 11 of the grant agreement, um we're talking specifically about repayment for when perhaps misspent funds or funds aren't used by that deadline so that any obligation we have to OHCS is then carried forward to the grantee. Um I'll add once the grant agreement has been executed, uh St. Vincent de Paul will be responsible for ensuring the project objectives are met and that

1:46:46 grant funds are used only for eligible activities and in the agreement we have a plan for reporting and sort of keeping track of that over time um to make sure those are spent appropriately. So. Victoria. So, is there any discussion within the city about property specific to St. Vincent de Paul in this project? Not Not not in a few years not in a while, no. Um We haven't talked to St. Vincent about I mean they've expressed interest to say if there's land, this is what we're looking for. Um, but not specifically, no. So, we don't know what their plans are going to be or where they're going to put this cuz it seems like a pretty large you know, 40 to I

1:47:31 what you said that seems like yeah, that seems like a pretty large piece of property which is kind of hard to come by in the city. So, I'm wondering if they have expressed any interest in any particular way that they're going. I mean, they've certainly talked about um I mean, they've approached the city I would say over the last 5 years as we've been looking at this project and so um they've talked they've asked the city on certain properties that may be zoned differently than residential to see if we'd be interested in rezoning and looking at what those plans are. Um they've expressed interest over time on the city-owned Lind Lane property. Right. Um they expressed interest before we even bought it when it was just for sale and they were looking at purchasing it, but um

1:48:16 yeah, so we they're kind of waiting on they're looking at what's available and then specifically on that waiting on us to see what are we what are we going to do? And they could end up using private property that has nothing to do with the city, correct? 100% like completely different processes, yeah. Thank you. All right. So, let's just make sure everybody's clear on this. This agreement doesn't specify any location, correct? 100%. Okay. Just in the city of Springfield. And it and the way I read would it support multiple sites? I think that's a it would I think under the agreement um I think there's a question about uh cost to manage that that I think they're constantly looking at, yeah. Joe.

1:49:01 Is the UGB area excluded? Uh no, it's not. There is you'll note a piece in the um agreement that mentions um the property for the manufactured dwelling park must be located within Springfield's urban growth boundary. If outside city limits, the property must be capable of being annexed to the city prior to or conjunction with development of the manufactured dwelling park. Thank you. All right, anybody else? I can make a motion to authorize the city manager to execute the grant agreement with St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County, Inc. to distribute or disburse state grant funding for the purpose of developing a

1:49:46 new manufacturing manufactured dwelling park in Springfield. Second. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Councilor Weber. Yes. Councilor Mowe. Yes. Councilor Rodley. Yes. Councilor Blackwell, Councilor Doyle. Aye. Councilor Priestly-Brown. Yes, thank you. All right, motion passes five yeses, zero no's, one absent. Next item, please. Any other business from the city manager? I have a couple of items, thank you. Um, one I also want to commend our police department for holding the canine event on Saturday. I was really sad to miss it this year. It's a great event and I'm looking forward to going next year. I I had an ironclad excuse. I had a very important um, family celebration to attend. It was my great-nephew

1:50:31 um, Annaprasanam ceremony and his name is Ramakrishna. And so we had a wonderful time um, doing that ceremony. So that's the only reason I would miss the the canine competition. Um, we Tonight we talked about the importance of meeting coming together as a community and I thought this would be a great time to remind our community members that our summer event series is kicking off soon um, and in fact it will begin on the 28th of this month, 10:30 a.m. um, in the fountain plaza. And I I hope I don't mispronounce this too badly. Uh, but the feature performance will be from Raices del Oregon Ballet Folklorico traditional dances from

1:51:16 Mexico. I've seen this group before performed before they're incredible. This is a free event and we welcome you to come and enjoy the dancing at the plaza. After the event we have a partnership with food for Lane County. They'll be providing free lunches to children up to the age of 18. So if you have little ones it's a great event to come and see it's a great all age event and I want to thank our library for the hard work they do in making these events possible. If you want to see a schedule for these events visit the library's website at where minds grow.org. That's all I have. Thank you. Nancy I just want to note that Chief Shir was writing down your excuse for last year so that he could could check it again. Actually

1:52:01 could we get maybe an a quick legislative update? I know there was news out of Salem today. We're going to see if we can't call an audible and put people on the spot. I wasn't sure when you were going to do that mayor but yes if we have Sam McKelly Quattrochi here. Howdy mayor. Hi council. I hope Nancy didn't warn you. I did not. He has no idea what we're doing. You shared news with me this afternoon. confidential yeah. It was oh the other yeah. So we just heard the other day that Springfield's request for 2 million dollars for our Mill Street construction from state is going to go past the session this year. There was some uncertainty recently but they've come back together so we're being awarded 2 million dollars for Mill Street

1:52:46 reconstruction. This is part of our ask for the legislature with a federal ask as well. They're a little bit slower as the feds tend to be but state wise this will be 2 million dollars hopefully coming in the next few months here for us. Hey Sam. Thanks for your work on this. Of course happy it was very much a team effort. I'm glad Jeff Passco's here and much credit goes to very helpful as well but happy to be of service. All right. Thank you so much. Next item, please. Any business for the city attorney? Uh no business. Thank you. All right. That's a wrap for the evening. We will uh adjourn. Thank you very much.