Springfield City Council — December 4, 2023

0:05 I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon. Here. Councilor Webber. Here. Councilor Moe. Here. Councilor Rodley. Here. Councilor Blackwell. Here. Councilor Doyle. Here. And Councilor Pishioneri. Here. All right. Thank you, everybody. And the echo seemed better. Still early. We have two items tonight. The first one is the city manager's compensation 2023 with team. The city council regarding the wage increase or proposed wage increase for the city manager. The city manager's

0:50 contract requires an annual review to look at and either offer an increase or none at all. And usually as part of this process and I recognize that three of you have not gone through this before, but this process typically involves providing HR or HR providing information to council. One of the core pieces of info that we provide is the salary index. We've historically looked at four different salary indexes and used the average as part of that calculation. And then on top of that, in determining whether or not an additional market adjustment needs to be necessary, we provide you with comp data similar to what we do with all of our representing group as well as our non-representing group looking at entities or agencies of comparable size to the city of Springfield.

1:35 So, you have two attachments. One is the four indexes which shows an average increase of 5.65 in this new kind of post inflation period that we've all been living in. And then on the comp sheet, you will see that currently the city manager is roughly 10.3% below the median as far as our comparators, uh, the AIS included a number of options. Council can choose to select one of three of those options or do something entirely different. And what I'm asking today is really just for guidance on which you may ratify or what you will ratify in a regular session, which will be later this evening. So, with that I'll pause with any questions.

2:28 Did you have a question? No. All right, so I think it's up to us to discuss. So, we need to decide one of either one of those three options or we need to decide something entirely different. All right, it's going to be a quiet one up here today. So, Michelle, do you want to You look like both of you look like you're leaning forward here. Either way. Um, thank you for the information. It's helpful to have just kind of some guidelines to turn through as we're looking at this potential increase. I am kind of leaning towards option number three um, recognizing that we are

3:18 in a larger sense, you know, looking at at wage increases in a different way than we have historically done that for a lot of different reasons. Um, I'm kind of comfortable with that middle ground. Um, also recognizing that every time we do one of these large or, you know, try to fill that gap, that's going to trickle into the next set of increases. It's not just, you know, one or this or that. It's just realizing the impact on the on the budget overall is going to be bigger as we continue to to increase salaries. Corey. Since Counselor Webber went first and um yeah, I I kind of wrestle um because I think I I also feel most

4:03 comfortable with option number three and I just it it makes me nervous when we get behind and we're in a time of inflation and what ends up happening is we get behind and then we finally eventually feel terrible that we're behind in two or three years down the line and then we have to do this big gap. Um so even though I'm most comfortable with three, I also would go with two. The one that I'm not I'm not really interested in in one um because I do want to adjust for the market and I do feel like um you know, we we talked last week about how much we appreciate the work Nancy's doing and just the sheer economics of it. So um I again feel comfortable with three, would really like to stretch to

4:48 two and realize that I am one opinion. Thank you. it's going to be Joe and then Victoria. Now, thank you Shane for the information. Appreciate it. So I I agree with Michelle. I think that I like the middle ground. I think if we went with option one, we're just going to get slip further down the slippery slope of trying to get caught up. Um number two is and I I have to agree with Counselor Rodley as far as I know that that uh we have a lot of ground to get caught up on, but I think that we can get there with with option three and take a look at it again yearly, right? So

5:33 take a look at it this coming year and if we need to give a similar bump as option three this coming year for another option type three, then I would be okay with that as well, but I think I think option three is the most responsible one. Victoria. Hi, thank you and thanks again for the information and I apologize I wasn't involved in the actual when we gave you a review and what have you. I didn't get an opportunity to give you to give our city manager feedback, but I have to say that this being my first year as a city councilor, I don't know how I could have done it without Nancy. I think that she's been nothing but an absolute help to to myself and to this council. I think that the support that we get from her is is outstanding. I also look at a lot of the

6:18 different issues that she's had to deal with over this past year and has handled them I believe with class and grace. And so I am 100% if I don't think we should be talking about this as in like we need to catch up and we don't need to catch up and we're talking less than $500 a month between two and three. And in my opinion she deserves two. So if that's where my vote is at I'll I'll go with the councils. I mean I'm not going to vote no, but I I would like to see other people get on board with two. Steve. When we were doing the evaluation last week, I spoke very very highly of Nancy and and explained why I didn't go through the the steps because a lot of them didn't mean anything. But I feel that she is the best city manager we could ever have. I've seen a lot of them by the way going I remember

7:03 clear back to 50s there was some bad ones. And and and uh I I don't want to be a training ground for her for somebody else. I want to let her know that we really appreciate her talents for this city. So I'm I will support the best we can do for her and if three is it then I'll support that. Beth. I also agree with really everything everybody up here has had to say. I think Nancy's doing a terrific job and again we don't want to be a training ground for for someone else. I also want to be very responsible with the budget and I would say that that would be option three.

7:50 All right. So it looks like we're going to move option three forward to the to the regular meeting and that's the direction that we're going for. And also I do I also do think Nancy does a great job as well. Thank you. Appreciate it. Yes, I agree. Thanks, Shane. All right. So it's Capital Street Bond update with Jeff and Christie. Yeah, thank you Mayor and Council. It's really Christie's item which is she put all the materials

8:35 together. I'm just here I'm going to kick it off. Um one of the discussions and it's a kind of at the very end of the memo so we'll jump to the end of her memo which is the council brought up the Mohawk Boulevard 19th Street Q Street intersection Marcola intersection. And the the pavement condition in that one leg especially in the intersection. Um there's a lot going on in that area beyond just the pavement condition. Um and so staff has looked at that. One of the things is it's identified in the transportation system Springfield trans transportation system plan um as a project need for intersection improvements on the 20-year plan.

9:20 Um two in the 2008 wastewater master plan there was a sewer upgrade so that sewer goes underneath kind of where all that fill is on that downgrade heading to the north. Um it was identified for capacity issues in that 20-year plan. We kind of held off cuz the model wasn't great. Well, the current model, which has been updated, still shows future capacity issues. So, the council will see that in the upcoming wastewater master plan update. And that's going to be a big project cuz under that fill, it's about 20 ft deep to that sewer. So, fixing that's going to be a fun project. And so, I think what we've identified and what staff has worked on and met, Christie was a part of that group, is looking at some more substantive um

10:07 maybe interim condition payment condition update upgrades that we can do. So, more of a a repair similar to what we're looking at on 42nd Street to a long-term temporary fix while we work on some of these other projects and identify funding and identify those projects so that we're not putting something in there that we're just going to end up tearing up later in in 5 to 10 years. So, with that, that's that's why you don't see that project on there in that final project list. Okay, does anybody have questions about this that intersection? All right, Corey. I don't have questions, but I know I know I was a I'm a I am a very big voice for that area right there as

10:53 everyone knows. Um and I appreciate the the diligence to to explain about all that's going to happen or needs to happen. And I know I have confidence that it is a priority and that we're going to find a way to do it and pay for it cuz we're going to have to in that area. So, um I just want to say I appreciate that and I know that we were we were very strongly works. How are we going to do that at the last meeting? And so, thank you for taking the time to explain it. Thank you. Yeah, and before we go on to the rest of the bond conversation, um that's going to come up with the public no matter what. Um so, that the pieces that I think we've got to do is one of them is be ready to have, you know, as we're sharing information out with the public, share information specifically about

11:38 that intersection and what we're thinking. And the other piece is, you know, continue to look for um finding money to begin to get our arms around what what does that even entail? Because the more I hear both of you talk about it, the more complex it gets. And we really do want to tell the community that like we're hearing them and it's going to take more than a minute before we get our arms around what it what's going to be required for this intersection. Sounds good. And Drew is here who helps us get our transportation money, so it's perfect timing. Um so where we left it at the last council meeting is that we had this list um with the addition of 66 Street. So, 58 that

12:24 were 66, we didn't have that completely locked down. So, um the recommendation is for 58 Street to be the one picked out of those two um just because of the work that's being done already and then the high school is right in front as well. So, the next piece would be to have maybe one, two, or three projects added to the list in case we have extra money. Um the numbers that we do have for our estimates are 2025 numbers, so we see you know, I would be surprised, but it's not bad to have some backups or projects that if we go into design and or even get into construction, something happens

13:10 where we just can't do that project, then at least we have a backup. So, if we're looking in the one to two, three million dollar range for the projects, um I would recommend taking a look at Darlene from Doornock Street to Hartman Lane. We do have sidewalks that we are a sidewalk on at least one side of the street that we're working on as part of our other project right now. Um that's roughly a million a little over a million dollars for the 2025 numbers. There's also Aspen Street from Tamarack to Centennial which or sorry, that's on the list. Sorry. Um F Street from 51st Street to 54th and that's about 1.8 million.

13:55 And then 66th Street main to Thurston which is about 2 and 1/2 million. So those are the three that I would recommend to put on that auxiliary list. At this point. Corey. Um I have a question and I'm bet you'll have an answer. Last time I was advocating for um 21st Street. Um because I think 21st Street that's right it's between our two wards. Um and I know we chatted about it a bit and so I'm just curious as to what we could do about 21st Street. Yes, we have we've looked at 21st. It is in pretty bad condition of course and so

14:40 that would be more on the full reconstruction side instead of an overlay repair element. Um unfortunately and then we do also have a little bit of a tricky situation where we don't have enough right of way to put the bike lanes for the full extent. We would have to also get a significant amount of right of way because we would have to put a bike facility on there. Um for our the legal requirements. Well, so do you have an estimation of what that would cost when we were talking about it or Not yet. I can get that to you but I don't have that right for now. Sorry. Okay. No, that's all right. Thank you. And I just wanted to add that I know last time um I was like G Street and so I went out

15:27 even though I drive G Street and I was like, okay. And and I think I said last time, you know, I could definitely see the impact of G Street. We have several schools along there and as I was like driving and I can walk around, I'm like, okay, I can see where this could make a big difference especially if we're adding, if I'm correct, we'll also be adding, you know, like fixing any ADA on the and on the corners. So I do I was like, all right, I've come around on G Street, but I'm not ready to give up on Mohawk or 21st, but thank you. Sure. All right, other questions? Uh could you talk a little bit about what how this extra list would be shown to the public, right? So you know, if there's, I don't know, $6 million of additional cost there, or would we sort of present it as, hey, here's the here's the preferred streets and then if we get

16:14 to them, we may select something off of this list. How would that work? Correct. That's what we did on the last bond package, so we would just mimic that. Okay. So the Was there Nancy? Just a couple of questions. One, I'm assuming that we will be doing some outreach to talk about, you know, checking off the list on the current bond projects. You know, I know that we try to be good about that. Um second question, as we are um looking at these potential amounts, um are you going to be including information on costs to property owners? I mean, how does that, you know, I see the overall aggregate amount, but distilling that as part of, you know, I

16:59 think that would be a naturally would be a question. I think people would want to know, um especially if they're pulled. Yes. So I personally was not a part of the past process as far as polling and, you know, I just implemented. Once we got the money, then I implemented it. So we definitely want to work with Lorelei and her group as far as the polling and the questions and exactly what we would do for that polling and then any outreach that we feel. So, I would recommend that we come back as far as the outreach part of it. As the next step. I think last time so what we'll do is we would have an estimate of once we kind of if the council says yes, go forward

17:44 we can ask Don here's what 20 here's what 15 if the council gives us direction on the size of the package they're looking at we can work with our finance group to figure out what that impact would be to you know on that on that annual bill on the property tax over 5 years and we can give that estimate. And kind of where we're at you know what what the 2018 bond was and what the difference would be. We definitely would have that as part of any sort of poll. Okay, Joe. I like your additional list. I think we need that in the overall plan and see if we can't get those added in. Obviously not as a highest the highest priority but I would I would keep them there. I like that list. Makes sense.

18:29 I think how we showed it last time and I'd have to pull the actual bond up but we had our top 15 or our 10 million and then we had a 5 million dollar and it's like here's the cut line and if you know if there's extra money and or perhaps we get into a street as we're doing the investigation and find out that this is a lot more costly than we had anticipated that way we could come back and we can swap projects without a lot of headaches. Yeah, I I I I think it's smart that we we look at things as if in case there's the ability to do then we really should have a list that's set out in front of you that's been people have got given you the nod and you can move forward with clarity as opposed to eliminating any guesswork. So, I like that. So, go ahead.

19:19 All right. Um so, the I like the I like the alternative list, too. It's a solid list. Um I liked 51st to 54th, which is an area in town that doesn't not necessarily get a lot of attention. And we you know, I see a lot of emails that go back and forth behind that. Um could you walk us maybe walk us through if if if we're saying the project list looks good tonight, and you know, roughly we want you to start with 20 million. What happens between now and when we have to adopt the language and make the final have the public hearing about the bond? All right. Uh so, what we'll do is we'll go back, we'll work with our communications group, we'll put together the poll, we'll probably do something similar, a phone poll, and we'll we'll package up and put similar questions together like last time. The difference would be the size of the package, cuz I

20:05 think as we've identified through all of this, $10 million just doesn't get us very far anymore. And so, I think it's really kind of being able to go through those questions, and then that's going to tell us a lot when we come back. We'll prepare the language for the council, a draft language, present the um polling data, and then at that point council can make that final determination. I think that polling data also and the that that um outreach will give us a lot of feedback on some of the education pieces that we're going to need to do, especially with the cost impacts of where we are today versus 2018. Yeah, and uh um the the thing that worked really effectively in 2018 was to broaden the conversation around roads um

20:51 to not just be the project list, but also areas of interest that we do get a lot of questions around. You know, obviously, you know, where it was 42nd Street and Mill Street at the time. But people just need a refresher on the sort of the state and the quality of our roads, not just hey, here's the six six that we chose and here's why. That's why I really appreciate Council Rodli's comments and her advocacy for some of the other roads because we as staff, we look at this report and the reality is as I'm looking over here at Christie's list, which is like 20 or 25 projects long and I could throw a dart in any project that dart landed on is a great project. It's it's kind of trying to find that right fit with everything else we have going on and and all of the other infrastructure we're working on.

21:37 Well, that's and that's a couple of the conversations I've had with people in the public so far is just been hey, we could we could build bring a list of 80 million dollars with the roads and everybody would look at it and go before you saw the price and say oh, those are that's a great list. I mean, it's just it's just going to take a lot of it's going to take a lot of TLC. And I think there's a broader question about street quality that I have. You know, we're probably I don't know 60 to 80 million dollars on a backlog. And really one of the things I would love to see get out of this is more the the strategy to get what's a healthy backlog, you know, and how do we use the bond and additional road funds and mill street to kind of plot a path for the

22:22 public that says hey, if we're at 80 million dollars and we think the healthy backlog for our street system is 40. Well, how do we work over I don't know 10 years or so to try to close that in a way that makes sense? Because the reality for the public is we're going to be using road bonds for a while to you know, to just catch up because the road you know, the the maintenance is the road we're finally maintenance in the roads we're finally paying for it. Yeah, that was kind of educational to me when I put the packet together back in April. It's like we've when I looked at it, we made a we made significant headway on the mileage when you look at the actual road report and you look at the mileage of roads that are in that yellow kind of falling down to the yellow category where they need work. Um

23:08 but the economy over the last 5 years has just been against us, whereas the uh backlog in dollars grew even though our mileage dropped and sales in some ways you look at it's a little disheartening. All right, any other questions about roads? All right, so I think you say have yes on that yes on the the package of what's sort of above the line as far as primary roads. I think you've got yes on the alternatives and you know, yes on we're ready to go for you to go out and pull the amount. Is there anything else you need direction on? I think that's Excuse me, I think that's about it. Thank you. All right, perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you.

24:02 All right, that looks like the last road road bond our last item for the work session, so I'm going to adjourn us until 7:00. We'll be back. Thank you, everybody. I'm going to call the regular session of the Springfield City Council to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon. Here. Councilor Webber. Here. Councilor Moe. Here. Councilor Roddy. Here. Councilor Blackwell. Here. Councilor Doyle. Here. And Councilor Pictionary. Here. Thank you. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

24:47 One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. As we begin our tonight, there are two designated times for public testimony this evening 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 are joining us online with a tablet, smartphone, or computer and wish to speak either of those times, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. The order of public testimony is as follows. Anyone any one in person in the council chambers and then anyone who has raised their virtual hand.

25:32 First item, please. First item is the consent calendar. I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent calendar. Second. Could you call the vote, Neil? Yes, Counselor Weber. Yes. Counselor Moe. Yes. Counselor Roddy. Yes. Counselor Blackwell. Yes. Counselor Doyle. I. And Counselor Pishioneri. Yes, thank you. Motion passes, six yeses, zero no's. Next item. Next item is public hearings. You have three public hearings this evening. Public hearing number one is a resolution asking the legislature to modify Measure 110, the Drug Addiction and Recovery Act, and an ordinance prohibiting drug use on public property. Uh this is resolution number two, a resolution asking the legislature to modify Measure 110 to reintroduce

26:17 accountability for drug offenses and directing staff to collaborate with state and local partners in the pursuit of consistent criminal regulation of controlled substances in public and adequate resources for drug treatment. Uh this or also has ordinance number two, an ordinance repealing and replacing Springfield Municipal Code Section 5.256 to add a prohibition for use of controlled substances on public property. Mary Bridget Smith is here for this item. Uh good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm here tonight to talk about um present actually two items on one topic related to the addiction and overdose crisis in our community. Um and also measure 110, which was the

27:03 recent effort by the state to uh by referendum by the voters to decriminalize um drug possession, which is going to be a topic at the upcoming legislative session. This is procedurally a little unusual tonight, so what I was hoping to do is sort of set up procedurally what our requests are, and then um conduct the public hearing, then come back to you and ask to pass the motion on the resolution, and then um get feedback on the ordinance. Does that work from your perspective? Okay. All right. So, as I said, we have two items tonight. One is a um resolution on uh measure 110, and then the other is a first a public hearing and a first reading on an ordinance.

27:48 Um this is dealing with as I mentioned, the addiction and over-overdose crisis here in our community, which has obviously created a lot of harm for our community members. Also, um a stress on our systems here at the city, particularly for public safety. Um and has worked a strain on those systems. The resolution before you tonight is a statement by the council that asks the legislature to modify 110. It asks the legislature to look at reintroducing accountability or personal responsibility into um drug possession and addiction, and that to look at recriminalizing possession. It also asks the um staff to collaborate

28:35 with our state and local partners. It still supports treatment, drug um recovery treatment, and also um another part of this would be sobering facilities. There's a real lack of sobering facilities here in the area, which is sort of that first place that a first responder can take someone to to get them just a little bit healthier, not the long-term drug recovery. Um so, supporting treatment for both of those items and realizing that really is often more of a county role than our role. Um there is a legislative committee that is already formed on this issue. They've taken some testimony already. The League of Oregon Cities is partnered with the Police Chiefs Association, the District

29:20 Attorneys, and the Sheriffs Association on an 11-point plan. I believe you have this handout here. This is available online now. Um and so, we're like several other communities are either in the process of doing these resolutions or passed their own. Both Lane County and Eugene have asked to put this along in their resolution for their legislative priorities is my understanding where they are in that issue. So, that's the resolution. That's the first item. The second item is an additional item, which is a first reading on an ordinance. This would be a change to our municipal code, which would look at public drug use, controlled substance use in public. Sort of similar to drinking in public. You know, there is a

30:07 fine only violation for drinking in public. It's this idea that you just can't drink everywhere in the public. So, looking at trying to pass an ordinance that would also prohibit drug use in the public. There are some differences though. You know, it it's similar, but there are some differences because we're talking about controlled substance, higher potency, um potential risk to other people. So, you'll see that this potential penalty is a class B misdemeanor, not a fine only violation. We did get input from the police department and the prosecutor to arrive at the class B violation. Um it does vary a little bit from the 11-point plan from the league and that there is a preemption issue

30:53 from um trying to regulate public drug use. There's a state statute that says that local governments can't pass a law prohibiting drug use on public on public property, which I know at first blush is like that's weird. I think what they're getting at is that the regulation for state um for drug use runs through the state and the counties and is not really a city issue. So, that's why we're preempted. One of the things they're looking at in the coming session is Portland is like Springfield and is saying, "Hey, maybe you want to look at this preemption and let local governments regulate this." And so, our thought was we could bring this ordinance to you now. It's what I would term a trigger ordinance, meaning it would not come into effect or be a it would be listed in our code. You would

31:38 see the writing, but it would not be in effect until and if the legislature addressed the preemption issue, then it would become effective. So, just so you're clear on that. Um also, drinking in public stays where it is. It'll be left alone. So, it would still be effective fine only violation. It's meant to be drafted in a way where the controlled substances is on its own. Um I have some I'll have some questions for you after the public hearing of specifically about the ordinance to make sure that it's lined up if you're interested in moving forward that it's lined up with what you need. Remember, it'll come back to you for a second reading. You can also give feedback tonight based on your discussion that you could ask to change certain aspects of it and I'll bring you back a new one

32:23 and you can go from there. Um let me see. I just want to look at my notes to make sure I didn't forget something. We did look at um this is a one back to the misdemeanor penalty. It's one way to get folks um perhaps included in the adult treatment court if it's a misdemeanor. So, that was one thinking there. Um and it one thing we did look at and asked police and prosecutor about was like an escalating issue. You know, like hey, maybe the first time it's just a fine and then the next time it's a misdemeanor. There was some concern from there from the people who actually have to enforce it that that could be difficult to enforce because we have

33:08 multiple police officers kind of coming in contact with the same people. So, that's why you're just seeing the straight B misdemeanor. So, just some This did go through the legislative committee and is now for the council for your consideration. So, um I think next step would be to conduct a public hearing and then I can come back up and um we'll work through the motions. All right. Okay. Um I'm going to go ahead and open the public uh hearing. Mhm. Do we have any cards inside? All right. Um are there any hands up online? No. And I will go ahead and close the public hearing. Okay. So, turning first to the resolution on the agenda, there's a potential motion unless there's discussion on the

33:53 resolution. Mayor Bridget, Joe's got a question. Just a quick question. Did you um contact or is there any need to contact Willamette Lane with their enforcement of the park rules, park ordinance 100 when it comes to it uh enforcement on their properties, which is also public? Mhm. I did not uh consult with Willamette Lane on this. I I've I'm trying to remember if back when we first started talking with Measure 110 if I did reach out, but I can't recall. Okay, maybe a good follow-up with them to see if there's cuz they're in put on that. Definitely. All right. Other questions? So, Mary Bridget, I'm thinking maybe we separate the issues and you know, take a

34:38 motion on the ordina- I'm sorry, take a motion on the resolution and then we can talk about the ordinance if That would be great and there should be a motion for the resolution on the agenda. I'd like to make a I'd like to make a motion to adopt resolution number two. Second. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Counselor Weber. Yes. Counselor Mowe. Yes. Counselor Rodley. Yes. Counselor Blackwell. Yes. Counselor Doyle. I. And Counselor Pechenart. Yes, thank you. Okay. Thank you. passes six yeses, zero no's. All right. Let's do the Let's talk about the second part. This would be the ordinance. Um as I mentioned, this is a trigger ordinance, would not be effective until their

35:23 preemption is handled. It's meant to separate drinking in public from controlled substance use in public. Um and it has it as a B misdemeanor. Um happy to take any input that you um have. I do want to make a point that this is a little different approach that than what's in the 11-point approach from the League of Oregon Cities and the Police Chiefs Association and the Sheriffs and the DAs. They are looking to do uh not so much focus on the preemption, but just to ask to recriminalize possession and public use. So, it's a It's just a different way to get at it. Go ahead, Joe. Sorry. So, if that uh action is taken by the legislature based on their requests, would that preempt our

36:09 ordinance change or would ours automatically go to or or switch over to what the state ORS would be? If the um state decided to recriminalize possession or public drug use in some way, I think once we had that statute in hand and we could see really what they wanted to do. Most likely I would come back to you and say, "Okay, you can either keep yours going. That's a different There's a There's a a difference there, right? You could have potentially you could have the public drug use, which is a city city crime, and you could also potentially have the state crime of possession." Um or you could decide, "You know what? The state level is fine, and then we could repeal the ordinance." Thank you. Corey.

36:55 Thank you. Um and I just I wanted to just say a few things in this public meeting about the process that we've all gone through. I know many folks have been following this as we've been having conversations about this, and we are not alone um in having to deal with the city within the city of Springfield with the unintended consequences of Measure 110. Um and I have been someone who has who is um always wary of um going against something that was voted on by the majority of voters. I think that's where many folks are. It's like, how do we work within something that has been approved by the voters? And just holding and remembering that what we many of the voters wanted to get to was increased resources for um

37:42 addiction services and getting people into treatment, and I think that's been part of the work that we have done as a council, including the um the drug court that we are now working with here in the city of Springfield is saying, "Okay, how do How do we get to that intended consequence with what we can control as a city?" And I still feel that way. I still I'm like I know that there are a lot of different approaches to where we're going to go with this, and know that they're taking it up in the short session of the legislature, and we'll be very interested to see where that goes. And we also want to um acknowledge the additional work that our first responders have been doing and the impact on the health and wellness of this community because of this. So, I just wanted to say that out loud to say there's been a lot of conversations and a lot of care to get to this um

38:29 so that we can just try as a city to to wrap our arms around this and also be part of a solution statewide. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Okay. Um I think bringing more information back from about the question of from what Lime Lane would be helpful. Okay. Um and the other thing that I I think that would be helpful would be probably be something from from our lobby our state lobbyist. It's by the time we meet again, this is going to sort of form up at the state level and you know, it's there's a lot moving and we just need to be aware of what we think's going to happen with this 11-point plan, you know, any other discussions that might be happening at the happening at the legislature. Okay. Um so, I'm sorry. I should Is there other

39:15 feedback? Okay. So, on that um procedural note, um typically this would come back just on consent, you know, an ordinance would come back on consent and we would just adopt it, but I think considering we're in a area of flux here, um I would recommend that we just don't do that and that um we get more information from Lime Lane and we get find out what's happening at the state at least so you can have more information. I think now you've done it created a good public record showing that this is an important issue and you want to take some action. And then so, there may be more to come here, I guess is what I'm trying to say. You might not see this come through in kind of your typical way. I I Okay. Oh, go ahead, Victoria. Um no, I was going to wrap up with her. So, go right ahead. So, um Council Rowley brought up a a

40:00 good point and I it was something that I had thought about, but it sort of left my mind and that was how how does this work with the fact that this is something that was passed by the voters? Even though it was narrowly passed, it was passed. So, does it have to go back out to the voters again or can they actually override what's been put in place by the voters? Yeah, no, that's a great question. So, here's my understanding. The voters passed Measure 110, what we all colloquially call Measure 110, and then the legislature, I think it was Senate Bill 755, then passed legislation to implement 110. So, often like at the referendum level, it'll be like let's decriminalize drugs, and it won't have the actual specifics about how it gets implemented. Senate Bill 755, I think it was 755, implemented, um, which came up with a um, e-citations

40:47 and the funding and all of those things. So, I think what the legislature will do, will take a look then at another bill to try and try and address some of the issues with 110, is my understanding. So, they wouldn't necessarily have to go back to the voters. Now, the added complication with there's Measure 110 is that we have all, I'm sure, read in the paper that there are some ballot measures out there that community groups are interested in putting forward. My understanding from talking with lobbyists at the League is that the idea is is that the legislature is going to try and see what they can get done here in this short session because they think that they might get further along in implementation, whereas if we just had another voter referendum that like, you know, repealed and then we kind of or or modified but we don't

41:32 really know that we're kind of back. So, this So, what I'm trying to say, kind of long story longer, is that this could come back to the voters eventually, but I think first you might see a real effort in the legislature to try and get at some of the implementation and they can do that without having to go back to the voters. Does that make sense? And then one last thing I neglected to, um, talk about, I just want to make sure you're aware, one of the attachments in your packet was information from Eugene-Springfield Fire about overdose, um, responses and seeing the increase there. Um, just really an example of the strain on the public safety system. Since it was decriminalized, we don't have as good of, um, data for the police department because it's decriminalized, so we don't really have it. So, um and there's also this kind of added wrinkle, which is interesting, is that you know, sometimes overdoses don't necessarily go

42:19 into the hospital now cuz people have Narcan or they have abilities to um address overdoses without going through. So, that's something with the data. And then I just want to close with an acknowledgement for the um interest of the community in this issue. There have been a couple chamber conversations, city club, where people have talked about Measure 110 and um the police department and other city staff have participated in that. So, it's definitely a um timely issue for people to be discussing. Well, and I think there's a I would encourage people to take time to read the uh the the fire department's um description and statistics that they've had, you know, about uh their response to overdoses. It It's eye-opening. Um and the impact in this community is obviously significant. And I think the discussion that we've all had is this

43:05 has been kind of in the in the framework of we want to keep money going to treatment. We want to create tools in a way to get people to treatment. And so, when we when we're talking to the legislature and we're talking to the community, I think that's probably more in in line with what the what what the voters ultimately were looking for, which is, hey, we need if people are having behavioral problems, substance abuse problems, we want to create enough tools to get them to treatment so that they can get healthy and get on with their lives. Okay. That's all for me. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Uh next item is public hearing number two, fiscal year 2024 supplemental budget number two. Uh this is resolution number three, a

43:50 resolution adjusting resources and requirements in the following funds, special revenue vehicle and equipment. Nathan Belles here for this item. Uh good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh the item in front of you this evening is a request to conduct a public hearing uh and adopt not adopt a resolution adjusting resources and requirements in the special revenue and vehicle and equipment fund. This is the second of four now planned supplemental budgets. Typically supplemental budget two will come to you sometime in February. However, the two items included in the supplemental budget this evening needed appropriations in place prior to that. Both items have been recently discussed in work sessions and I think you're all familiar with them. So with that I'll turn it over to you for the public hearing or any questions. Are there any questions?

44:36 Okay. Thank you, Nate. I'm going to go and open the public hearing. Um we don't look like we have cards in the room. Are there any cards online? Nothing online. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. I'd like to make a motion to adopt resolution number three. Second. I just scrolling madly looking for it. But you want to come up, Christina? Here, while we while we sort out what to do here. I'm just seeing that the in the packet the supplemental budget resolution exhibit A I'm only showing

45:21 exhibit A. I'm not showing the resolution. Um I don't have a copy of the resolution on my computer now because I'm on Wi-Fi and not the network. I may have it. Do you have a copy of the supplemental budget resolution? Is it resolution number three, a resolution adjusting resources and requirements in the following funds, special revenue, vehicle and equipment? Is it located somewhere else in the packet? It's right at the bottom of the page. Well, I I think we're we need Aren't we looking for the actual resolution? Yes, not the AIS, the actual language of the resolution. It's going to be the whereas document. Yep. Yeah. I don't see it either. Um I I can get print that out of my office and come back with it. Can we can we keep going and then while you go get that go get that and then we'll come back.

46:06 going I think I'm the next agenda item. Okay. Well yes, sort of. Let me run the printer. I have it. Okay. All right. Sorry about that. Okay. We actually have a a digital copy of it if we just need to read it. That's all we need to do. Yep. That's all you need to do. Do you want me to read it? Yeah, go ahead. All right. We'll get this figured out. Okay? Supplemental budget number two, a resolution adjusting resources and requirements in the following funds, special revenue, vehicle and equipment. Whereas the Common Council has adopted the budget and made appropriations for fiscal year 2023 through 2024 through resolution number 20 Sorry. 2023-5

46:52 adopted June 20th, 2023 and as amended by resolution 2023-34 adopted October 16th, 2023. Whereas ORS 294.471 subsection 1 subsection A, subsection B, and subsection C permit a supplemental budget due to an occurrence or condition that was not known at the time of the budget was prepared that requires a change in financial planning due to a pressing necessity that creates a need for prompt action that was not reasonably foreseen when preparing the original budget or to budget funds that are made available by another unit of federal, state, or local government,

47:38 which funds were not reasonably foreseen when preparing the original budget. Whereas the Common Council is requested to make adjustment to the fiscal year 2023-2024 budget and appropriate appropriations to meet unexpected needs and to allow appropriations of new revenues pursuant to ORS 294 .471 subsection 1 subsection A subsection B and subsection C as justified in exhibit A which is attached and incorporated by reference. Whereas ORS 294.463 allows transfers of appropriations within a fund when authorized by

48:23 ordinance or resolution of the governing body stating the need for the transfer, the purpose of the authorized expenditure and the amount transferred. Whereas this supplemental budget and adjustments to appropriations are being presented at a public hearing at which the public may comment on such requests and whereas notice of the public hearing including information regarding such revenues and expenditures was published in a newspaper of general circulation not less than 5 days prior to the public meeting. Now therefore be it resolved by the common council of the city of Springfield. Section 1 the fiscal year 2023-2024 budget and appropriations as adopted by resolution number 2023-25

49:08 and amended by resolution 2023-34 are hereby adjusted as provided in exhibit A. Section 2 this resolution will take effect upon adoption by the council adopted by the common council of the city of Springfield on this day. I'd like to make a motion to adopt resolution number 3 as stated. I will second. Thank you AJ for that. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Councillor Weber. Yes. Councillor Moe. Yes. Councillor Rodley. Yes. Councillor Blackwell. Yes. Councillor Doyle. I. And Councillor Pishioneri. Yes, thank you. Motion passes 6 yeses zero noes.

49:53 Next item, please. Next item is public hearing number three. This is a system development charge, commercial to residential conversion policy, resolution number four adopting a commercial to residential conversion policy related to the imposition of system development charges. Christina Kras is here for this item. Hello Mayor and Council. This is resolution is a policy that will govern how system development charges are applied to properties that may choose to convert from a commercial building into residential development. The um Oregon legislature adopted House Bill 2984 in the last legis legislative session

50:39 that made a number of changes that preempt our local zoning laws, and one of those is the requirement that we allow commercial buildings in certain locations, not industrial zones within our urban growth boundary, to convert to residential uses without a zone change or further conditional use permits. It allows us to charge system development charges, which are infrastructure um payments essentially for reimbursement or um for future improvements for that capacity. Only uh in those conversions we can only charge system development charges if there's a specific policy adopted before December 31st, 2023. We have policies related to how um system development charges are imposed, and there are standard sort of

51:24 standard operating procedures that staff use, but we have no nothing that's specifically a residential to commercial conversion policy. So, since we had time before December 31st, 2024, um and an abundance of caution, I'm recommending the Council adopt an explicit policy that follows essentially how staff would have applied credits anyway, and clarifies some things like stormwater credits for onsite treatment that a commercial property may may have um gotten when they first developed would carry over and apply to residential development even though our um methodologies for calculating those aren't clear on that point. And I've confirmed with Although you will notice I'm city attorney's office, not um engineering staff,

52:11 I have confirmed with engineering staff and environmental services and community development division this uh resolution reflects generally how they would treat uh residential to commercial conversion if it came in without this policy. So, what we're doing is just kind of setting everything out clearly and in writing. And I'm open to any questions or Uh Victoria. Just a quick question. So, on the commercial um conversion, is that only with existing buildings or if there's like a commercial lot and somebody wants to come in and build residential apartments, would that be different? Great question. This policy is for specific commercial buildings or structures that are converted. Um House Bill 2984 has other requirements around allowing affordable housing in commercial zones that would

52:58 um apply to allow potentially that to happen with affordable housing and the SDC language would this SDC policy wouldn't be applicable because there would be no prior SDCs paid in that case. And I think that planning will be coming That's part of the planning um I code items you talked about like your work session last week to to wrap in some of those affordable housing legislation into the land use process. Well, I mean, even though if they like tore the building down and wanted to put something up, cuz I'm thinking more about the impervious surface and that sort of thing, too. So, if it's already like commercial, yeah, but that building is not going to work for a residential, then is that Does that also fall under this where they like take it down to the studs and start over again? It doesn't

53:44 um fall under the resolution in that it isn't a commercial structure to residential structure conversion, but the calculation for the way the SDC's works would be the same in that you only pay SDC's for storm water if you are adding impervious surface area. So, they may still need development permits because of the replacement of impervious surface area, but they would not pay new SDC's unless there was a significant time gap between when they took that out and when like if they demoed it, took out impervious surface, and then it would like if that happened before the last methodology was adopted and it had been green field for a while, then they can't capture those credits, but I think your situation they would get the same credit.

54:30 All right, any other questions? Okay. I'd like to make a motion to adopt recommend that you hold a public hearing real quick. My my bad, sorry. I was looking for that note right there. Okay. Uh we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Doesn't look like any cards in the in the in the chambers. Anybody online? All right, I'm closing the uh public hearing. Councilor Picioneri. I'd like to make a motion uh to adopt resolution number 40. Second. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Councilor Weber. Yes. Councilor Moe. Yes. Councilor Rodley. Yes. Councilor Blackwell. Yes. Councilor Doyle. Aye. And Councilor Picioneri. Yes, thank you. Motion passes, six yeses, zero no's.

55:16 Next item, please. Next item is business from the audience. Okay, do we have any cards in the chambers? All right. Do we have anybody online? No hands online. All right, next item, please. Next item is correspondence and petitions. Item number one, letter drafted at the request of the council to the Lane County Board of Commissioners regarding the I M E R F. Corey. I just wanted to note that the date on the letter is 2022. So, we just It says December 4th, 2022. Um and before we sign it and send it.

56:01 Well, we just started our homework earlier, I guess. I usually don't notice those things, and I did. All right. Any other comments or questions? the staff direction motion. Motion for filing the document. Well, I think we need a motion to sign it. I think that maybe the I think we got the motion maybe messed Yeah, they'll get it packaged and sign it. Maybe help us here, Mary Bridget, when with these kind of letters. Yeah, so these letters are on behalf of the council, so they require a motion and vote by the council to be um sent to the county on the council's behalf. So, I think the motion um I would make a motion to um finalize and send the letter on the

56:48 county on the council's behalf to the county. Go ahead, people. Is They're voting on this tomorrow morning, so we're going to get it there before the 9:00 meeting. Well, I don't know what time it their agenda item is going, but it will it's going over there pretty quickly. Okay. All right, thank you. All right. Great. So, I'd like to make a motion for council action on sending the letter over to the county commissioners. That sounds perfect. As as stated. Uh I believe with the corrected date. Yeah, as as modified. Corey. Second. Neil, can you please call the vote? Yes, Council Weber.

57:34 Yes. Council Moe. Yes. Council Rodley. Yes. Council Blackwell. Yes. Council Doyle. Absolutely. And Council Pishinary. Yep. Motion passes, six yeses, zero noes. Oh. I didn't know government could work that fast. It is, yeah. You're doing wonderful. We do? Yep. All right, next item, please. Um Uh next item is business from the City Council. Um this is item A, a city manager compensation 2023. Jean Hertz is here for this item.

58:19 Good evening, Mayor and Council. I am here uh this evening asking for a motion authorizing Human Resources to adjust the city manager's wage by the average in annual index of 5.65 retroactively applied to 7123 and an additional market adjustment of 4.65 applied January 1 of 2024. All right, I'm not seeing questions. Victoria. Just real quick, so on the um the options that we had, one, two, and three, I think I I spoke to you on number two and the question was, is that a common thing where we would backdate to fiscal year um on bonuses or on um a market adjustments and that type of thing? So, for the city manager, which is a one

59:04 of the unique processes where we have to go to council and get authorization and implementation and it's just done differently, we've historically retroed back to July 1. Um however, in this particular case, I think the question is the separation between the uh annual kind of performance increase and then any supplemental market increase and I don't think we have, at least in my 7 years, a good track record of having that situation come up before. Okay. All right. Joe. I'd like I'd like to make a motion to approve adjusting the salary of the city manager as agreed upon in this meeting. As he he stated. Second. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Counselor Weber. Yes. Counselor Moe.

59:49 Yes. Counselor Roddy. Yes. Counselor Blackwell. Yes. Counselor Doyle. I. And Counselor Pisani. Yes, thank you. Motion passes six yeses, zero no's, and let's just say one more time that our city manager does a great job and we're glad she's here. Thanks for being part of Springfield, Nancy. Next item, please. Any other business from the city council? Any other business? I have a question. Yes. I don't know where to ask it. The administrative Springfield school administration building on Mill Street was was put up for sale a couple of years ago and there's organizations that are going to get it. Some private entity bought it, I believe. This is what I think. And there's windows broken in it, things are getting destroyed in it. What's going to happen to that property? It looks

1:00:35 terrible for one thing, but is it something something about wrong out there? I'm just sort of curious what its status is right now. That's all. All right, we'll see. Um Allie, do you have any information or do you want the I She does. She's going to follow up. Hi. Uh the building's currently on the market. It is for sale. It was purchased by out-of-state developers a couple years ago. They started a renovation to convert it to housing. They're selling the property and the plans with it. Um we've had some folks call for due diligence city. Um and to my knowledge it has not proceeded to anyone else's ownership. Okay, and if we had any other I mean

1:01:22 this might be a Neil question. Have we had any any other questions about the broken windows, the just general repair of the building, like any code enforcement issues? No, I think I'll look to Jeff. We had some initial questions when the trees were in the windows, but those were removed and we haven't heard anything since then. Okay. So, does that help Steve? Yep. All right. Can we maybe if we hear more, can we maybe let Counselor Mo know since it's since it's his ward. All right. Next item, please. Uh next item is business from the city manager, item number one, Mill Street state funding. Uh Sam Kelly Quattrochi is here for this item. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh I am seeking a motion to authorize city

1:02:07 manager to sign contract 3524. This is with the state's Department of Administrative Services for $2 million for Mill Street funding. Uh early this year, the mayor and myself lobbied Representative Lively to secure this funding for us and he was able to do so quite successfully. Uh before opening up for questions or comments, I also want to call out that I have the easy part in this work. I get to bring you $2 million grant contract and walk away. However, Amanda Clinton, Drew Larson, Christie Krueger, some of our incredible engineering staff are doing the much harder work of getting this Mill Street project done. I just get a giant $2 million check and I get to walk away. So, I did want to acknowledge all the hard work they've done leading up to and then beyond this moment. Okay. Well, I will tell you everybody who's working

1:02:52 on Mill Street, thank you for that. This was something we continued to commit to the public um around 2018 when we got the first road bond passed and this is a big community need and it's nice to uh it's so close. It'll be It'll be nice to see dirt and work being moved out there. So, thanks, Sam. I'd like to make a motion to authorize the city manager to sign contract C 3524. I will happily second that. Neil, can you call the vote, please? Councilor Weber. Yes. Councilor Moe. Yes. Councilor Rodli. Yes. Councilor Blackwell. Yes. Councilor Doyle. Aye. And Councilor Pishioneri. Yes, thank you. Motion passes 6 yeses and 0 nos. Any other business Oh, sorry. Any other

1:03:37 business from the city manager? No further business, thank you. Any business from the city attorney? Uh no business. Just that was a good fall. So, thank you. Nice seeing you. Well, before I adjourn this our last official city council meeting for um for December. So, we will see everybody in in January for a and have a great Christmas, everybody. Except if you're going to the seat executive session, you have to stay after school. So, we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.