Springfield City Council — April 15, 2024

0:05 I'm going to call this Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon. Here. Councilor Weber. Here. Councilor Moe. Here. Councilor Rodley. Here. Councilor Blackwel. Here. Councilor Doyle. Here. And Councilor Pishue. Here. We've got four items on the work session this evening. The first one's budget committee interviews. They're and Jessica's coming our way. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Jessica Mummey, the city's budget and procurement manager. Here this evening for round two of budget committee interviews. This interview this evening is to fill one vacancy on the committee for Ward 3.

0:51 Council interviewed an applicant from Ward 5 on the March 11th work session. The application period was extended to March 29th and an application was received from Michael Roman, who resides in Ward 3. Mr. Roman is here this evening to be interviewed. If there's no questions, I'll go ahead and get Mr. Roman. I think we're good. Awesome. Good evening. Good evening. Good to be with everyone. Oh, I'm going to let people introduce themselves and then I'll ask you a couple of questions. Great. Hi, I'm Michelle Weber, Ward 1. Victoria Doyle, Ward 5. Corey Rodley, she/her pronouns and I'm

1:36 the Ward 3 counselor. I'm Sean Van Gordon, Mayor. Joe Pishue, Ward 6 in Thurston area. Steve Moe, Ward 2, which is uh I-5 to 10th Street, approximately. Beth Blackwel, Ward 4. All right, are you ready for your questions? Yes. Why are you interested in serving on the budget committee? Uh first of all, good evening to everyone and good to be with you. Um So, I'm interested in serving on the budget committee mainly for the reason of continuing to see the city of Springfield be a healthy, vibrant, and a wonderful place to to live for families and businesses. Um budgets force priorities and how you

2:22 make those expenditures and really support um you know, the the decision-making and I believe I can offer some skills in that area. I think you all have my application there, but in short I've been a part of the Springfield community for 18 years now, both from having raised our kids, working for different businesses, one I'm not far from here, a manufacturer, and helping manage budgets and not just in the professional realm, but also with our church council and helping manage the budgets there as well. So, I'm very excited to to be a part of it and when I found out that this role was open and we happen to live in Ward 3, it was something I was excited to um

3:07 put in my application and be be involved in city government, which I really haven't had much experience in, but I love the opportunity to be a part of it. Well, all the all of the Springfield services seem to have strong support from different areas of the community and it's often necessary to prioritize services for budgetary reasons. How would you go about the task of establishing priorities among services? So, um you know, within um any organization, certainly, um a budget is finite and above all, just a guiding principle is to, you know, live live within your means. So, um generally speaking, um certainly, the budget should be in

3:52 alignment with um you know, master plans for the city and the goals set forth, you know, by the the community, by the voters, by the taxpayers. Um personally, uh as someone again who's just a a community member, um I believe it's important to really prioritize the safety um and uh the welfare of of the citizens and just making sure first of all we have a safe community where people can uh feel confident about where they live and uh you know, feel like those are met. Um in addition, um having um things in place to again help uh attract and facilitate, you know, business and um just, you know, I would say healthy living because um I think that's an important part about um

4:38 where our experience has been being here in in Springfield. The schools, the parks, um just the community life, the art, I mean, the different things that have made Springfield an attractive place to live. Um you know, in terms of um some of the the budgetary realities, I mean, I I definitely acknowledge that um I am not aware of all the needs by all members of a community. So, I I definitely believe in listening to hear um being equitable with how how uh funds are expended and making sure that the needs of all the people are are heard and then, you know, getting that information on the table and then just prioritizing. But again, I think you do have to come back to um what's the obligations we have to our citizens. Again, in terms of the safeties, compliance, what's within the law and

5:23 then beyond that, you know, what are the needs versus the wants uh of the community and then just, you know, you have to say no or not now um in terms of a budget. That's just the reality of how things go. So, um I definitely have experience in in that area in a lot of fronts. All right, great. Thank you. Um if you were on the budget committee and we're looking at one of the city services to decide how much should be funded through general taxes and how much through specific fees on customers. What questions would you want to have answered in order to make that decision? Um I think you have to look at the data and try to understand, you know, a number of things. Um some things that come to my mind would be certainly how many people are impacted uh by the services in question.

6:08 And then just looking at um you know, how many people would be you know, paying into those services and and what that equitable breakout would be. So, um you know, trying to be reasonable in the approach of um how you pass on those costs and what are other communities maybe of a similar size, of a similar sort of socioeconomic um makeup or would would be doing that that's successful. So, um you know, I I also um I think it's it's important to um to just really look at what's what's reasonable in terms of some of those fees and making sure that things aren't being overlooked. Um so, you're not disproportionately saddling people with maybe costs that they shouldn't be in terms of their income, in terms of their or their revenue for businesses. And um

6:54 you know, sometimes there's give and take, but really again, I think it just comes back to looking at the data and then seeking first expertise to understand what what may be needed, what may be required to uh to help make the community, you know, vibrant and um you know, uh helping be um honoring the needs for all the citizens. Um those that may be very obvious and those that may be um sometimes feeling overlooked. So, um you know, I'm a big believer in, you know, seeking first to get the information and then putting it on the table and then you know, trying to make the best decision you can and be as wise about it as possible. And how do you think the work of the budget committee will improve our community? Um I It seems to me it's a very central component of any city government. Again,

7:40 your budget um is you've if you've heard the phrase, you know, show me your checkbook and I'll show you your priorities. It really is an important part of how you make those decisions and I recognize that, you know, the budget committee in of itself won't have the funds to sort of make it a vibrant community, but it helps protect and make the guidelines and make it a an area in which businesses, schools, all those things can thrive and be successful. So, you know, I look at what Springfield has become over the last 18 years since I've been here and it's been tremendous. I know that's coming at the work of a lot of folks on through leadership and I really applaud that and I think it's because from what

8:26 I've gathered Springfield has created a place where again, it's attracted businesses, it's attracted you know, with the park system, with various things that have brought people to it that have cared about the community and I think you have to make a expenditures to continue that healthy, you know, that healthy vibrant place to live. So, if it's through, you know, whatever the laws may be, whatever those things may be to make expenditures on the art or the public spaces. Those are all important parts and to me that's what's exciting is that it helps ensure both now and you know, in the future Springfield continues to be a great place to live and and work. Great, thank you. That was my last question. Okay. Um, we're going to discuss what we want to

9:11 do and the staff will get back to you. Thank you so much for coming in. Thank you. Joe. Oh. No, I'm good. I'm just waiting for the next item. All right, we you pulled your microphone like we were doing a thing. All right. I'm seeing some thumbs up, thumbs up, thumbs up. Yeah. Okay. Then we will see you in May. All right. Our next item is Santa Clarita annual rate adjustments.

9:58 Do we need to get additional seating? Back up. Sorry, only one comfy seat, sorry. All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Hi. Uh my name is Sam Kliwicki-O'Keefe. I'm your legislative and active analyst. I'm bringing forward to you today just a Santa Clarita annual rate adjustment request. Um this is just a chance to get a feedback or guidance on the request. This will come forward officially with the master fees and charges in a regular session in a few months from now. Uh just a quick overview per our franchise agreement with or with franchise agreement with Santa Clarita, they can request an um increase to the fees every year. Uh this year Santa Clarita's requested a 4.21% fee increase. Um what that might actually mean at the bottom line for the average-size residential can, it's about

10:43 a 93% increase. Um historically, we look at 90 93 cents. Sorry. Thank you. Yes, 93 cents per can. Yeah. Well, we're all listening. Great. Good to hear it. Did Did we pass the test? Yeah, absolutely. And I think with that, we'll leave it at 93 cents, and I'll just pass it over to Santa Clarita for maybe a few more words of wisdom. Uh good evening, Mayor, Council, staff. Erin and I appreciate your time tonight. Last year we came here and we did a a slide presentation. We opted out of that. Um other than Sam's great background on the PI that you have in front of you, uh talk about a few items of that, and then also talk about how the rates adjusted to the hauling side and also to the disposal, cuz there may be some

11:28 questions on that, and we want to make sure we get everything answered. Um as you can see, in 22, we were 5% last year, we had the pleasure of sitting here with 8.15. Glad that's behind us, right? And today, 4.21%. Some of our extra stats that we don't have in the packet tonight, when we talk about our cost, our labor, we successfully negotiated another 3-year deal with the local 206 that our drivers and mechanics are part of. So, in 23, we saw an 8.9% increase in labor. We're at like 11.7 now. We got the contract done. Employees are happy. Relationship between the union and company are good. Parts and materials and and tires one of our bigger expenses. Parts and materials was plus

12:13 25% last year. This year, we're still about 14 to 18%. And then the tires, which is a big big piece of our business. If you think we have 107 moving units, and some of them take up the eight tires, it's it's a large expense over a year. And we were seeing upward of 28% year over year, and now we're still seeing 8 to 12%. So, even though our costs have still come down, whereas a lot of our larger costs are above 4.1%. So, and on the second side of that is we're asking for 4.21% on the hauling and also on the landfill side. As we all know, the IMERF with the vote uh that the county commissioners had, it was 11% for the next 2 years. We are coming to you with 4.21%.

12:59 The reason is we did a trial period at the end of last year taking some of the waste from the city of Springfield to Dry Creek Landfill, which is one of our landfills in Medford, Texas. Oregon. And the Oregon, sorry. I'm from Texas. You can't be from Texas. God, that just fell out easy. Glad you were listening, Aaron. Um and you know, we're currently taking the trash there. So, the difference in that we we we're not knowing we'd be comfortable trying to get that 11% because the system benefit fee isn't in that. So, with that that is our presentation for the 4.21%. If you have any questions, Aaron for Santa Pack has been a lifesaver in doing most of the work with the county and in the

13:44 the I-MERF. So, if you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer. If I can't answer it, Aaron will be more than happy to take the reins. All right, any questions? Joe. Just a quick comment. I read over the material, it makes sense to me. I've seen your presentations a few times over the years. And I have to say that that looking at the material and and seeing how you operate and seeing how the citizens are served with this company, I don't think we could ever have a better situation for for both you folks and for the citizens. And I support this this fee re- request fee increase request. I don't see a problem with it, it makes sense. So, again, I appreciate the service you're doing here in Springfield

14:29 and and I support your request. Thank you, sir. All right, any other comments? Okay. I think we're good. Thank you for coming in and making the update. And then Sam will process the paperwork. Got it. All right, thank you. Thank you. All right, housing depart- housing diversity tax exemption parking and commercial discussion. All right, good evening Mayor and Council. Katie Carroll, housing analyst

15:15 for the city. Stall while we get the PowerPoint. Okay, so this item is a discussion of a couple of potential changes to the proposed housing diversity tax exemption program or HDTE. The HDTE is an incentive aimed at spurring development of multiple unit housing in transit served and core areas of Springfield by exempting some property taxes for a project's first 10 years of operation. Uh, council's been considering adopting this since 2017, but most recently, um, during your March 4th meeting, you had a public hearing as part of the required adoption process for this. Um, you did receive public comment during that hearing requesting that the city

16:00 consider exempting new parking and new commercial improvements in addition to exempting new residential improvements as part of this program. So, council directed staff to, uh, come back with more information, so that's what we'll be discussing tonight. Staff is seeking direction from council on if and how to include new parking and or new commercial improvements in the tax exemption program. Um, I'll briefly touch on parking, but plan to spend most of the time talking about commercial since that's a little bit more complicated. And then later tonight during your regular session, you'll have a second reading of the ordinance to adopt this program. Um, if council makes changes to what was presented at the March 4th first reading, uh, then we'll need to go to an additional reading before there could be

16:45 a motion. Okay. So, under state statute, the city can exempt parking, um, if it is constructed at the same time as the multiple unit housing and if it will be for residents. So, pre-existing parking and or new parking that's for commercial tenants or customers cannot be exempt. So, um, the memo in your packet outlines some additional details, but essentially staff doesn't, um, think that exempting new parking for residents as part of this program will have a significant impact on overall what the city is exempting. Um in an effort to keep this process moving forward staff has recommended

17:30 language in your packet for how to include parking in the tax exemption in a way that meets the statutory requirements. Um so the code is attachment three of your packet and the program guidelines are attachment four and the recommended language if council wants to include the parking is highlighted in green in both of those documents. And so essentially what we would require is that someone provide information as part of the application process that outlines sort of demonstrates how the parking is for residents. So whether that be like a parking management plan, site plan, operating plan or something similar that would get reviewed as part of the application process. Um and I did also want to flag for you

18:16 that after further discussion with city attorney's office if the council does want to include parking or commercial space in the tax exemption we actually do need to allow for that in the code language as well as the guidelines. So that's something that's a little bit different than what I shared in the past. So I did want to update you on that. So I'm going to turn now to talking about commercial. I'll come back to the parking in the discussion section, but if anyone had any clarifying questions I could answer those. Okay. So moving to commercial under state statute the city can exempt commercial space as part of this program if it is a required design element of the program or if it's considered a

19:03 public benefit for the program. Um so any existing code requirements that mandate some amount of commercial space be included in a development doesn't kind of rise to uh meet that requirement. Attachment two in your packet is a table that shows the various zoning types or we call them land use districts that are within the HDTE program areas and then what those zoning types allow in terms allow or require in terms of developing commercial space with residential. Um just a couple things to highlight from that. So there's only one zone, the mixed-use commercial zone, that requires some amount of commercial space to be developed before residential could be included in a project. Um there are a

19:48 couple of other zones that limit residential development um and some of those require a minimum percentage of non-residential uses, but those other zones allow for non-commercial uses which aren't part of this discussion or would be part of what could be exempt. There are multiple zones that don't require any commercial use to be developed with a residential use. You could do a fully residential project. And some of those zones actually limit um commercial development either in like size percentage or by type of commercial use. In particular, R2 and R3, which are medium and high-density residential areas, um those do allow a mixed-use building, but there are very few commercial uses that uh are allowed in

20:34 those districts. So basically overall, it's just kind of complicated to make recommendations because there are so many different zoning requirements or allowances. Adding kind of a further layer to that is um some work that's going on right now that may make some additional changes to some parts of Springfield to make them more flexible for residential development. I'm not going to go into great detail uh for the sake of time, but that is detailed in your packet. Um there may be some changes through the Glenwood Master Planning work to allow for more residential. Um, there's the housing in non-residential areas code amendments project, which is um, something that's currently going on to help us come into compliance with some new state laws, and

21:19 that will come to you in June. Um, and then designating climate friendly areas as part of complying with C-FEC. Um, we may need to make some changes uh, in the climate friendly area or areas to make those uh, more available for residential development. Okay. So, staff considered um, a couple different paths for how commercial space could be exempted as part of this program. Um, so, if you'll recall, the first way to do that is to require commercial space as a design requirement of the program. Staff's not recommending doing that because there are several zones that don't require any commercial space to be developed, and so, if we add that

22:04 requirement, and that could actually be an impediment to residential development, which is not what we want to do with this tax exemption. The other pathway is for uh, the commercial space to be counted as a public benefit. Um, and so, we looked at a couple ways that that might be possible. To be consistent with how the other option one or those clear and objective public benefits are structured, um, an applicant would need to go above and beyond code requirements in providing commercial space to kind of be in line with how we've structured those other ones. So, where commercial space is already required, we would need to ask someone to do even more than the code is already requiring, which could just lead to kind of more challenges.

22:49 Uh, an alternate path would be to identify certain commercial uses, like a grocery store, for example, um, that we could count as a public benefit. Uh, that would need more work for staff to flush out. We would need to know from the council what commercial uses you would want to qualify as public benefit, and then we need to go back and look at the zoning to see which of those uses is allowed in each of those zones. Um cuz as I mentioned, some of them are more restrictive. So, I'm not sure what the viability of that would be. Um and then because this program is intended to incentivize housing primarily, uh we don't recommend broadly using it to incentivize commercial, but there is an area where doing that makes sense. So, um some of you will recall back in 2017 and 2018, you had a couple

23:36 of council meetings about this tax exemption. And the council directed staff that in the East Main area, so that's the uh program area that's from like 38th to Bob Straub, that the council didn't want projects with ground floor commercial on Main Street in that area to be able to who qualify for this tax exemption because the council wanted to see businesses along Main Street. So, that's not something that's required by the zoning in that area. So, it would be consistent with how we've handled these other public benefits, um to say that that is a public benefit to build ground floor commercial there uh cuz it's going above and beyond code requirements, and then that would also be consistent with uh your prior policy

24:22 direction. So, ultimately, the recommendations that we move forward with that I'm about to get into, um aim to try and make this try to avoid making this program overly complex or creating kind of additional challenges. Okay, there we go. Um so, again, to try and facilitate this effort to move forward, we've provided suggested language in your packet in attachments three and four for uh how commercial space could be included in the tax exemption. I'm going to share two options that staff identified. Uh the council could move forward with one, both, or neither of those options. And but if council does move forward with either, again, we'll have to include

25:07 language in the code. That's the language that's highlighted yellow in your draft code. So, this first option would be to allow uh projects with ground-floor commercial in a mixed-use building that front Main Street in that East Main area to have that ground-floor commercial space be a public benefit and thus tax-exempt. Um this would fall under that clear and objective review, so it would just be reviewed by staff and be considered like any one of those other clear and objective uh public benefits. The second option is highlighted yellow in your draft program guidelines. Um if you'll recall, there's already an option

25:53 in the program guidelines for someone to propose a public benefit that doesn't meet clear and objective criteria, and those applications then come to council for review and a decision. Um so, we could add in language allowing someone to come and propose commercial space as a public benefit so long as it's part of a mixed-use building. Um and then those would come to the council. You already have criteria in the guidelines to kind of weigh those decisions. One of those criteria is does this public benefit Are we getting kind of a proportional benefit to what we would be exempting? And another one of the criteria is is this going above and beyond code requirements or has someone made a compelling argument um

26:38 for why it doesn't need to go above and beyond. So, that's kind of already baked in there. It would just be adding some additional language to allow for commercial space to be considered as well. Um and that option would then mean that an applicant with a project in any one of the program areas could come and make an argument to have their ground floor commercial space be exempt. So, for both of these options, staff is recommending that we only exempt commercial space when it's uh part of a mixed-use building including residences since incentivizing residential development is kind of the primary purpose of this. Okay. So, um again, as I mentioned earlier, there'll be a second reading of the ordinance tonight uh during regular

27:26 session and if you want to include parking and or commercial space in the tax exemption, uh then we'll need to come back for an additional reading, but we have suggested the language in your packet so that tonight's reading um can count as the first of two required readings. Moving forward, um if the council is comfortable with staff's recommended language, um and I'll lean on city attorney's office logistics-wise to help me with that. Um Uh yeah, that is kind of what I have. The questions are on the screen. I don't know um Mayor Van Gordon, if you just want to take them in turn or turn it over to you. Well, I'm looking for the council to see who wants to jump in with some feedback about these questions.

28:15 We're going to have a quiet bunch. So, how are we got to give them some direction? So, is it Well, one of the questions I have One of the questions I have about about the parking requirements is it specific to new resident uh or I'm sorry, new parking for residents? Yes, so that is city attorney's office reading is that the parking needs to be new and it needs to be for residents. Um there are circumstances under which it might be able to be shared, um but that would be my understanding is kind of like a fact-specific. We would need to look at what they're proposing. Yeah, I think it just felt a little like clunky maybe the right right term when I when I read it because I was like, well, could some you know, could somebody commercially use that during the day and

29:00 sort of residential use that at night and still would that still qualify on the exemption? Here, Christine is going to come. The um this Christine across the attorney's office. So, the statutes talk about the um parking must be constructed with the multiple unit housing as part of that multiple unit housing project. So, if the parking were only for commercial um purposes or constructed in such a way that it wasn't for the multiple unit housing, then the fairest reading of the statute implies that that would not likely be tax exempt. So, the parking has to be um I think it could be shared, but it has to be for residents in some in some

29:45 manner. All right, thank you. Any other questions from folks? All right. Corey. Um I don't really have a question. I think I have like a comment a couple of comments I think and just some concerns. Um so, I I'm open to us trying to to do the most that we can possibly to incentivize all the things and don't want us to get so bogged down that people can't use it cuz they're like, how how do I use this? Cuz there's 80 different pieces or it's we've got need five staff people just to move it along. I don't think I'm excited about

30:32 having everything come before council. Um so, there's that. I'm not it's not like a hill that I would die on if people are like, no, we want to see and approve all of these. Um I think I am intrigued about cuz I wasn't on council when there was like we want to save East Main Street for businesses and just knowing some of our challenges with just finding places to build. I'm I'm open to figuring out like is that a thing we want to do that we want to allow mixed use fronting East Main Street. I am open to that knowing that it probably means we have to look at traffic control and things. So, I think for me it's just really I don't want to overcomplicate it. If the the one thing that I would be willing I mean and I and if everybody's

31:17 like we really want this parking, I'll be like, "Okay, that's fine." But that seems to me to be a thing that could be a little bit complicated. And so, I'd be more inclined to like want to incentivize the the commercial and mixed use than to take that up with parking. But that's again, I'm I'm still figuring out how I feel about it. Thanks. Okay, anybody else? Joe. Excuse me. Um thank you. It's complex to say the least. Um I am okay with I'm okay with um exempting new parking improvements for residents. That makes sense. It would allow for the builders to uh build some homes and have a place for someone to park and live in those homes

32:02 as opposed to pushing them out on the street. So, I think we want to incentivize that. I I'm okay with that. Um do we want to exempt a new ground floor commercial improvements in mixed use buildings fronting Main Street? Um the conversations from back in the day in regards to the residential that long ago um talking about the commercial frontage along Main Street in that one section kind of a mid-East Main Street um the the impetus behind that was to not clutter Main Street with homes that are facing literally front yards onto Main Street. There's if you go down Main Street, you'll see many homes that have their front yards literally in the in the sidewalk of Main Street and and it's a loss of precious business

32:48 opportunities for vehicles going by and people drive traveling Main Street. So I'm still on board with keeping it that way. Um And then does Would we want to exempt new ground floor commercial improvements in mixed-use buildings as a public benefit? Then I think that's as I do, I support that. Um but I think we still need to have some sort of checks and balances and involvement with the council and especially in regards to any sizable projects. Maybe maybe find a you know, a break-off point for projects. So just I think responding to that and then maybe um Counselor Roddy's comment a little bit too is um the impetus in having those applications

33:33 where someone is saying, "Hey, we have commercial space. We want to count that as a public benefit so it can be exempt." Having all of those come to council is just because otherwise, outside of this East Main thing, then we're going to start getting into carving out like in this little area, then it would mean this and this area would mean that. Um so we could do it that way, but part of it was to try and avoid the complication of getting into I think exactly what you mentioned of all these different little ways of handling it. So let me clarify this for a second. So there's that is the way to avoid having to, you know, write 15 pages to make it, you know, the standards clear. That's kind of the best way that I could come up with. Okay. But Joe, yeah. That I support that. If I

34:19 didn't state it correctly earlier, that's what I support. Okay. Beth. Um I'm definitely in support of the parking. I'm I think that's important to have in there and allowing that to stay in there and I don't think it would um um over complicate the program too much cuz I agree we don't want to over complicate over complicate it make it so cumbersome that people don't use it. Uh and then I would also support um the East Main section as well. Sorry, you may have to clarify. Do you support exempting uh Exempting the commercial in that section. Okay. Yes. Anybody else?

35:06 All right. Um I think I'm still the the parking one I'm fine going forward here. Um I think we're going to have to take some feedback at reads really clunky to me, but I would imagine 6 months into this in into this project we're we're we're going to come back with a couple of tweaks anyway. And we can also work on maybe some other versions of that language for the third reading if the council has directed that they just want clearer language. I don't think that would require another reading and then another reading. Um I think as long you know one of the clear one of the messages we've said consistently is that it should be simple, easy to understand, right? So language type you know, friendliness um I think I would be open to as long as it doesn't put us into another reading, right? So All right, any other comments before?

35:55 All right. You may have to help me in the regular session for what exactly we're having we're doing. That was going to be my ask which I guess we can maybe Christina can help sort out. Um sounds like I have pretty clear direction on what we want to do with parking, but commercial maybe I heard a couple different things. So I'm not sure if So I've heard yes for the green highlights. Yes for the yellow highlights. And then we we probably need to give a clearer cuz I think Joe's a exclude the gray highlights. Are you What if What? Whatever incentivizes business development along Main Street is what I Okay. support. So he's for gray highlights. Yes. So I think we're yes to green, yes to gray, yes to yellow.

36:40 Okay. Then I didn't say it correctly. Yeah, I thought you were saying that that you understood what it was in 2017 you wanted to keep it that way. Well, 2017 is that we were pro-business and trying to allow as much as we could. This is not limiting. Yeah. Okay, go ahead. Well, no, if you I was just going to say so the the gray highlights is the allowing ground floor commercial in East Main to qualify for an exemption so the intent there being to incentivize development of commercial on the ground floor along East Main. But which would put residential on the and the third

37:25 Yeah. Okay. If I'm just looking at it if they can make it pencil out then go for it. I mean Okay. That's all you're getting. Yeah, I I I'm not going to it's again the term not going to a hill I'm going to die on but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with you know, we already have a lot of issues on Main Street and that's my my ward if they're 38th and beyond with with um pedestrians and the idea that we're going to now put more pedestrians potentially because we are we are talking about creating um housing above which then those people got to have to get somewhere and we're putting them out on the street. So I'm just I just want to caution that that's something that we're you know, adding to the mix that is not

38:10 considered just a local road. It is a a truck access way and we've had a lot of people that have concerns about the safety on Main Street. So it's just something I want to bring up. Could you guys pull up what the East Main Street district is so we can take a look at the the map? So, it's 38th to 38th to Bob Straub. I was going to say um Allison, if you're looking for it, if you go to the main housing page, there should be a link to a packet or the last packet from March 4th, I think had a map, too. Oh, right. It's in this packet. 82 Yeah, page 80.

38:58 Yes, sorry. I forgot it was in today's packet. So, uh it's is that attachment three, page 205 or Yeah, I oh Sorry, I was on the regular session packet, so it's also in the work session packet. that that seems a lot. I I know we're talking about and um we're talking about what it looks like on the face of Main Street, but that that's a fairly wide residential area. Yeah, I well, I don't All right, anybody else? Okay.

39:43 So, I think we're good. Um so, we may have to So, we're saying yes to everything. Okay. Okay, sorry. So, we may have to talk in but you know, during the intermission to make sure uh We're all logistically on the Yes. Yeah. All right, thank you. Don't uh I think you're up next, too. going anywhere. All right. Thank you for seeing us. All right, the last one is the Springfield Lane acquisition program update. Okay. Um, now joined by Erin Feifield, our

40:30 community development analyst. Um, so we've been before you a couple of times over the last year to talk about the city's land acquisition efforts for housing. Uh, the city's been working in earnest with a broker for more than a year now to look for land to acquire to be developed with income qualified housing to serve households with low income, and that's based on council's direction to add land acquisition to our housing strategy. Uh, the city doesn't plan to own any of the land that it acquires long-term. We will, um, award it to developers to build. So, as you recall, we received $1.5 million in one-time ARPA funds, uh, from the county through an intergovernmental agreement for land acquisition. So far, we've acquired three properties, two

41:16 small residential tax foreclosed properties, and then a property of about an acre, um, at 16th and Main. We're around $900,000 left of that ARPA funding with a deadline to spend by the end of December 2025. Uh, those funds have to be used to acquire land that will be developed with income qualified housing, um, for folks at the 80% or below area median income level. So, we can't use it for site preparation, redevelopment, anything like that. So, with that in mind, staff is coming to you tonight because we're recommending implementing a program that we're calling the Springfield Land Acquisition Program to make that remaining ARPA funding available to developers to purchase land, uh,

42:01 for development with income qualified housing while the city continues its own land acquisition efforts. Uh, so this proposed program would only run until that ARPA funding is exhausted either through our own efforts or by awarding funds to developers. As mentioned in the packet, there are a couple reasons that we're recommending this. So, first is staff capacity. While we are continuing to look for land given our limited capacity, staff is really focused on making the properties that we already own available to developers. So, this would allow us kind of an additional path to support these types of projects. The second reason is flexibility. So, we are more focused on looking for larger land that could support enough density

42:46 to be more competitive for state-level funding. So, opening this up a little bit broader would allow for developers with other ideas, potentially small infill projects, to come in and request funding. The state already runs a program similar to this. They run it as a revolving loan. We are alternatively proposing a forgivable loan, but otherwise have looked to the state for a lot of how they designed their program and what we're recommending. And similar to the state, the idea and the hope is to have these funds more readily available because real estate timelines can often be tight. So, I'm going to turn it over to Erin to go over some of what we're proposing.

43:32 Great. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Council. You've got some of the program highlights up on the screen and I'll point out attachment two of this part of the packet goes into detail of the draft program guidelines as well as the application process and criteria. I will point out we just acknowledge we definitely worked closely with Christina in the city attorney's office to sort of go through these program details, not only what the state had, but in terms of how we would apply it here. And that included how would we be securing the loan or the funds um to the property, what would we do in case of a default? Um how do we ensure an efficient and effective program? Um so those are um our goals as it reflects in

44:17 the packet. Um and I will just sort of highlight um I think something that Katie mentioned. What we're proposing is an application process, not a request for proposals. And so this would mean that there is a rolling application so that once someone has site control um either through an option agreement or purchase and sale agreement, um and they meet sort of the criteria as it out as it's um laid out in the program guidelines, and if they want to commit to developing property, making it available to a low-income household, and making sure it's in compliance for the next 20 years, then please yes, apply for the program. And so we kind of have that process built in um where that uh application process is looking at that

45:03 initial minimum criteria and then having a select group of staff go through um particular criteria. Um because um developers are at the stage of just buying land, we're recognizing that they may not have a detailed plan yet, and that is okay. Um but the process we've de- detailed here is really focused on assessing the capability of the applicant to develop and manage an income-qualified housing project for the next 20 years. So you'll see um questions looking at what is your experience um in either developing or managing a project like this, and if you don't if one sort of part of the ownership or developer doesn't have that experience, how are they going to show that they can sort of meet the

45:48 requirements that are coming through the ARPA funds and that we're laying out in the program. Um I'd also like to just highlight um the funds um that we're working here, these ARPA funds, are one-time. Um, so while Katie and I are looking for land now, and while we're proposing this program, um, we can use some of those ARPA funds to pay for staff time, but once those funds are out the door and land has been acquired, we don't have any additional funds to help ensure compliance over time. So, we've kind of also built that in to say, let's make sure up front we have, um, a project that we are confident can be successful, um, and let's put in a process to, um,

46:36 ensure that they are meeting, um, sort of steps along the way. We don't want to get into a situation 5 years down the road where we're walking a developer with how to develop a program. So, um, that's kind of built into this, but happy to answer questions. Um, yeah, and I guess, like I said, on the, you know, it's in the packet, it's on the screen. Um, we are proposing this for rental or ownership. Um, again, the 80% area median income requirement is part of the grant funds. Um, I'll just leave it there. We do have two specific policy questions as we were going through it, um, and Katie can start with that one. Okay. And then this may jog other

47:21 questions for you all. So, the first question is, should funding be available for mixed-income projects or only for income-qualified projects that will serve households with low incomes? Um, so, as Aaron mentioned, the primary, uh, requirement of this funding is to buy land that will have housing on it that will serve low-income households, but there is some flexibility, um, with that funding. So, the council could open it up to mixed-income, uh, projects as well, so long as the primary purpose is still to serve low-income households. So, there is recommended language in the uh draft uh guidelines also on the screen there. It's highlighted in blue and it would define primary purpose as at least 60%

48:07 of the units will be reserved for households with low incomes for the duration of the required affordability period, which is 20 years. Um we don't have a specific recommendation on what to do on this cuz there's kind of pros and cons to either approach. Anybody want to jump in here? Joe. So, there's a couple things here that I've got questions about. And I apologize. Will you please uh refresh my memory in regards to the acronym LTV is? Oh, loan to value ratio. So, we're saying we'll only give you 90% of what the appraised value is. Yes. Very something simple. I just couldn't remember. Um I do have a little bit of angst in regards to where it says 8 years to

48:53 build. It seems like we had a conversation about that a while back. But I can't but the 8 years we were talking about in regards to shovel hitting the ground as opposed to occupancy authorized. 8 years is um occupancy. So, lease and not just certificate certificate of occupancy but lease up um and that's just mirroring what the state's program is is so we'll give you some amount of time before you have to come back to us with a more specific plan and then from there you have some more time to actually build it and put people in the units. Cuz it seems to me that that if we have a if they have a requirement to have 8 years to build or 8 years to have occupancy

49:39 and I know that most everybody has seen that sometimes the economy is weird and that it can really throw some curve balls at any kind of any type of construction project. It seems as though that there's some rigidity there that that we may be able to mitigate somehow. But but 8 years is long I'm just saying 8 years is a long time. But um it seems like we could go with something earlier and then build in a uh buffer period that pushes it out to 8 years should it be necessary. So that way they're uh they're incentivized to get the project going and not lollygag and all of a sudden they're up against an 8-year window or 8-year wall and they have some economic issues or or

50:24 local supply issues supply supplies for building that may cause that project to be shuttered. So great point, yes. Um and yeah, built into the program um we've outlined on page five to sort of looking at what the state did and then internally our self to say initially um requiring that within 3 years of receiving an award, a recipient must present present the city with an updated development plan including a proposed development design committed and anticipated additional finances. So that initial 3-year piece to say we need to have this pretty much a dialed in. Um and then there's also um required reporting. Um we're looking for semi-annual updates

51:09 on project process along that way. So they need to be ready to go to dim. Yeah, every 6 months like what how like what is that initial calendar timeline you proposed for this? Um why are you applying for funds for the state? When are you looking for some other funding to come through? And every 6 months providing an update. And if that calendar gets pushed back, I think then each time we're looking at like how how are you sort of proceeding and do we believe you are going to meet this timeline or if not um I think that's where the terms um the failure of the terms coming into um having the sort of award, you know, tied to the property. And now saying at what point do we maybe need to take those funds back sort of built into the program if

51:55 they're not sort of meeting that timeline. Got you. And so so then with that December December 25th that must be used or lost then are you able to put in a if you have some project coming in to have a back door should one fail as opposed to losing that money? I will say if I'm recalling um the agreement with the county and the county with the state is not specific on what happens if you loan this out and it ends up getting repaid or something falls through. Um so we'd probably look to Christina and city attorney's office to nail that down, but um It seems like you it would be great yes, ideally the ideal world. instead of losing that kind of money. And that's where I think again the

52:40 emphasis on the front like not only do I not like we need housing. Let's let's try and say up front. Let's let's award funds to someone that we believe has a project that can happen. And so I think that is a that that is the hope. Um how do we minimize risk in all of this? But yeah, if something does come up. Along with that my final comments right is that um in regards to the mixed housing. I support mixed housing because if you have a specific focus requirement then you're going to turn it right around and limiting who can have a house. Um number one, but number two is that I'm looking at the the definition of primary use is 60%. Um so was that a state requirement? How about 51?

53:25 That's our proposal. Well, cuz cuz 60 seems heavy and would be excluding 9% potentially of other occupants if we open that up to the most amount of potential occupants, but still have the majority which is beyond or by a preponderance of 51% you'd still have that primary use but you would also open it up to more people. That's what it seems like to me. Point. Thank you. I also feel a little bit Wiggly about the 8 years to build but I appreciate you all talking about that. You know, it seems like a long time and then also maybe it's not. Love the 20-year affordability period and I also very much support the mixed

54:11 income whatever number we land on for that just to just just seems like the Springfield way and we like to have all sorts of different folks living in all sorts of different neighborhoods. So um that's that and when we get to question number two I know that it is there's going to be different feelings about it but I also say yes to that cuz I think we we have the one co-op um that I think was done maybe with a land trust and I know that this is you know habitat for Humanity and other folks are really leaning into that as a way to keep things affordable. So I I'm yes on number two. And I will as well. Okay and Victoria.

54:56 Hey thanks for all your work on this. On I think it's page four of the draft guidelines section six it talks about that it can't be used for property that's already purchased and you're talking about the the developer cannot have already purchased property and then come in and try to get it. What about property that the city already owns? Can they buy that from you and then develop it? Yeah, I mean I'm if I'm looking at the CDBG guidelines for that yes as long as there's a For example, how about we just throw out Linda Lane? There's an arms length transit if there if there's a change of ownership there yes. In that case we just happen to be the seller. Okay. Um assuming they meet other criteria.

55:42 Right, right. Yeah, but I just I know that there are people that can do that. Okay, so and I agree too with the mixed income. I think that it's never a good idea to take people in low income and put them all in one particular place. I think that doesn't give them the opportunity to also um grow and get out of that. And I like the 51% idea. Um and then the third thing I would ask is when we talk about the when somebody like defaults or doesn't do that. If they've used those funds to purchase that land, do we now become a landowner? I think that's one path, yes. We could either take back the land or take the proceeds of the sale of that land. I Yeah, Christina's saying yes.

56:28 But the proceeds meaning we would have to go through the process of trying to sell it or would they? I just I just don't want to see the city start becoming a land landowner. Sorry, I'm looking over. I know, that's okay. Or Mary Bridget, maybe you have a thought on I always like bend over awkwardly. Um so it just depends on the um specifics for how we design that um security, what that security looks like. It could be a deed of trust where if someone defaults um you know, it's like a forgivable loan and if you default then the city can foreclose and take back the property. It can be a lien on the property that stays there until the property is sold and we recover the

57:13 amount if it's not forgiven. So there's a variety of ways that that can be structured and council's guidance and what you would like the remedies to be can help direct how we structure that program. Okay. Thank you. Michelle. Okay. All right. Anybody else? No. Jumping back to what Council Doyle brought up in regards to reclaiming property, I would I would support whatever method is where we could the city has been fiduciary responsible take and get those assets back on the quickest path as opposed to something that's going to be long-term.

58:01 Okay. And then I have a question. ask a question before we move to two? Is that where we were going? Um just looking for it. So I heard a couple of um folks mention uh moving 50 to 51% as the definition of primary purpose. Is that what we want to move forward with? Okay. Great. We've got a 2 minutes before regular session. Well, number two is going to be going to be relatively easy. So question number two, um should funding um awarded through this program for low-income homeownership development projects be limited to a singular underlying ownership? Um I'll note that in a rental development that is a singular underlying ownership. And so over 20 years as tenants move out, move in, the underlying requirement

58:48 that a low-income renter be placed there, the responsibility for ensuring compliance is on that entity. Um I have concerns as the staff who would potentially be processing this to say over a 20-year period in a homeownership model, um if that individual home is sold multiple times, you're ensuring compliance each each time that it's sold, where does the responsibility lie? Does it lie on that new homeowner? Does it rely on the city? Are we asking that homeowner to um go out and find a low-income buyer? Um so that is my concern. I'll state it there. Um but did want to present the question to council, um, in this case. So, like Council rightly mentioned, uh, Habitat for Humanity or, um, Square One Villages C

59:35 Street Co-op, they have long-term models for low-income homeownership. As those ownership, um, individual homeowners change over time, the responsibility's on that entity to find that new body. So, um, staff recommendation is that yes, we limit, um, for homeownership development projects that come in for land acquisition funds, um, be limited to a singular underlying homeownership model. Could be different models, land trust, manufactured home park, Habitat's model, um, but just wanted to get, um, your direction for that. Sure. Yeah, absolutely not on that second option. This first option, obviously, is yes. Although, I would not like to see it limited to You're using a specific

1:00:20 example of certain entities. I would not like to see it restricted uh, having uh, ownership, personal private ownership to these properties limited because they're not an entity. Does that make sense? So, So, a landlord or a person that owns a property should be able to do the same thing without having to be a non-profit, without not not have not having to be some independent entity, so to speak. I think a a person that's a landowner that has this land and is compliant and applied for this project, getting those incentives, and is willing to work with this program, then they shouldn't be limited. They shouldn't not be excluded, unless there's some law that says we have to exclude those type of of relationships.

1:01:05 I'm not fully tracking just when we say land uh, landlord or landowner, um, because we're talking about homeownership. It's just it's specifically for this one, so could you explain? So, as as far as not renters, but you're talking about home ownership of that of those homes and having a an over an umbrella organization managing those properties. Okay, so I got that I was So if that attracts, yeah. Okay, I was confused in that part. So yeah, I support your recommendation, for sure. Great. All right, anybody else? All right. Oh, sorry. Are those shakes in support? Okay, just checking. Yeah. Okay. That's no, we don't have questions. This looks good. Okay. We will come back to you. I think we're on the July 1st regular session for this, so.

1:01:50 Perfect. Thank you. We are adjourned from the regular session. I'm going to call the regular session to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon. Here. Councilor Weber. Here. Councilor Moe. Here. Councilor Rodley. Here. Councilor Blackwell. Here. Councilor Doyle. Here. And Councilor Picioneri. Here. Thank you. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance.

1:02:40 As we begin as we begin our meeting tonight, there is one designated time for public testimony this evening under 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 online with a tablet, smartphone, computer, and wish to speak at either of those times, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. The order of public testimonies is as follows. Anyone in the council chambers, and then anyone who has raised their hand in Zoom. First item, please. We have no consent or public hearings this evening, so your first item is business from the audience. I have one card this evening. It is from Phil Farrington.

1:03:31 Good evening, Mayor and Councilors. Uh Phil Farrington, uh CDC Management Corp Planning and uh Real Estate Development Director. Um I appreciate the changes that have been proposed in the draft ordinance for the housing diversity tax exemption. Uh specifically, the additional language that allows the exemption to possibly include parking constructed in support of multi-unit housing and the potential for commercial use uh also to be included in the exemption. However, I would suggest deleting the green highlighted language in the program guidelines on page one of your uh attachment two that states parking that is for commercial tenants and patrons is not exempt. The legislative findings, I believe uh in in statute really allow for this to occur. I have a different reading maybe of the statutes than the uh city attorney.

1:04:16 The definition for multi-unit housing does specifically include commercial use as a portion of the structure. Um elsewhere in the statutes, it states that an exemption for qualified multi-unit housing may include parking constructed as part of the multi-unit housing construction. I don't think that means just the building itself. I don't believe the statutes require structured parking or any other parking improvements that that would be have to be provided exclusively for residents. I'm really speaking in uh regards to the the mixed-use development component. And that, I believe, is partly the most tricky to to execute and develop. Um I'd encourage you to similarly omit the green highlighted text on pages three and four of the program guidelines in attachment two. I think that really uh hamstringing the

1:05:03 ability to provide some quantity of parking for the support of commercial uses in a mixed-use development would, in my opinion, be a mistake. If you decide that that's not exempt, it's allowed but not exempt, that's you know, so be it. Uh but I believe if your intention is to try to promulgate and promote mixed-use development, then I think you would want to make it as broadly available as possible and let the market decide if there's some quantity of of parking available for to support both that commercial component as well as the housing component, let us bring that to the council to be considered as part of that option three as you're doing with commercial development in a mixed-use building. So, thank you very much for your consideration. I appreciate all the good work that you guys are doing and thanks for your service. Good night. Thank you. I don't have any other cards.

1:05:50 Neil, do we have any body raising their hand on Zoom? No hands raised for this item. Is there any council response? All right, next item, please. Any business from the city council? Any business from the city council? All right, I do have business. I'm going to borrow a sheet of paper. Up, go ahead, Steve. I'll tell you something interesting. You look at the legislature over the weekend, Nancy Fadeley died. And she was in politics in Eugene and her ward, she was legislature representative. And her ward was University of Springfield. And I'm a gun nut first and a Springfield person and that just bothered me. So, we went out and campaigned against her.

1:06:36 Uh Bert Meyer got the position. And she sued us. And we were known as the Springfield six. We were famous in the headlines. And and it went away. I don't know what happened, but boy, I talk about traumatized. Springfield six. This must have been 25 years ago. And Bert Meyer was our representative for about four years and somebody else won on after that. I think we're going to have to make you a local historian. Okay, um at your desk you will find a run of show for the state of the city, which is Wednesday, which of course in the ask that we have is that we all

1:07:23 uh that our group photo is at 5:40. So, please be there by like 5:30 Wednesday. So, uh the staff will direct us all out front because we're required to turn in one decent group photo a year, and this is it. So, dress accordingly. Yes. So, should we color coordinate now? Uh we should have put you in charge of the fa- you know, the fashion for the day. I'm looking forward to it. Looking forward to seeing you guys there. Oh, and if you need a seat And if you need an extra seat for your

1:08:09 spouse, let me know and you'll know so they can reserve an extra seat seat for your spouse. Next item, please. Uh next item of business from the city manager. Item number one is city council adoption of a resolution to initiate vacation of a 60-ft wide by 266.61 ft long right-of-way known as Ivy Street for the purpose of a future street land realignment. This is 18-02-04-00-00308, and Jeremy Shearer is here for this item. Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Council. My name is Jeremy Shearer, and I am your city surveyor, and I'm

1:08:54 here before you um to um to bring about this resolution to uh vacate or and to initiate I excuse me to initiate the vacation of a street that's also referred to as Ivy Street. Um A couple weeks ago I came before you and talked about an offer made by Hayden Homes to re-align that that street from an east-west position to a north-south position and that would facilitate um better connectivity for the development plans they have for wood Woodland Ridge which they are actually are in the in the uh um actually submitting

1:09:40 some plans for that as as we speak. So um they offered uh to um at the time of platting to um um to plat the road or excuse me the street and also provide two other connect connections um up from Pinehurst to Woodland Ridge and so this this process is um it's really a three-step process and that was through the advisement of our city attorney and that is to first of all initiate a resolution to um initiate the vacation and then the next the next step would be to vacate and

1:10:27 then at that time we would be free to divest that so that in the so when they go to the platting platting it would all be free and clear of title so that they can create those streets properly. Um So you have um in your packet you have the the original street deed that was um uh conveyed to the city with the with the public road um and uh also have the the legal description of that. So, um if it's a uh if if the council approves it tonight, um I will send out notice um to to the neighborhood uh letting them know that uh there will be another

1:11:13 hearing in um on on May 28th that would that would actually uh vacate the the uh the right-of-way. Um and then the next step would be to surplus it, divest it, and then um they would plat it and go through that process to realign. Um am I forgetting anything? Um I think that's all I have. Any questions? I'd like to make a motion to adopt a resolution to initiate vacation of a 60-ft wide by 266.61 ft long right-of-way known as Ivy Street

1:11:59 for the purpose of future street realignment. 18-02-04-00-00308 I'll second. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Counselor Weber. Yes. Counselor Moe. Yes. Counselor Rodley. Yes. Counselor Blackwell. Yes. Counselor Doyle. Aye. And Counselor Peaselee. Yes, thank you. Motion passes six yeses, zero no's. Next item, please. Uh item number two is the housing diversity tax exemption. Katie Carroll is here for this staff item and this is the second reading only. Hi. Uh Katie Carroll, housing analyst. Um as Neil mentioned, this is a second reading of an ordinance to adopt the housing diversity tax exemption or HDTE,

1:12:45 which is a tax exemption intended to incentivize development of multiple unit housing in transit served and core areas of Springfield. Uh earlier tonight you had a work session to consider options for exempting new parking improvements and new commercial improvements as part of this program in addition to exempting new residential improvements from taxation for 10 years. Um in the work session you directed staff to include both parking and commercial as recommended by staff uh in this program. So that would mean including all of the language highlighted green, yellow, and uh gray in the code, which is exhibit A to attachment one in this packet, and then um attachment two in

1:13:31 the packet. Um and then the caveat to that is um if we can clean up and make the language around parking less clunky without having to go to yet another reading um to do that as well. Um so that's what we'll move forward with. So we'll come back to you for a third reading. Um that's tentatively scheduled for May 6th right now, and then you'll also um see the program guidelines with those changes come back to you as part of a resolution for your consideration in that meeting. Um the other item that I wanted to draw your attention to this evening related to this is so as you might recall um the ordinance to adopt the HDTEE currently also repeals the vertical housing tax

1:14:16 exemption program, which covers a small part of downtown. Um and that is based on council's direction to replace the vertical housing tax exemption with the HDTEE. Um so since your March 4th meeting where we had the first reading and the public hearing, um the city did receive an application for a vertical housing tax exemption for 448 Main Street. That's the Rivet building. Um in order for the application that we received for the vertical housing tax exemption to be approved. It would need to be reviewed and certified, so approved by the council before that program gets repealed. Staff is processing the application now,

1:15:01 but it isn't yet ready for the council's review. So with that in mind, we've presented three options in your AIS for moving forward. The first option is to keep the ordinance as is, so repeal the vertical housing tax exemption and adopt the HDTE, and move forward with consideration of adopting that ordinance this spring. If council wants to do that, then it's very unlikely that that application for vertical housing tax exemption would be processed and come to you prior to the program being repealed. Option two would be to move forward with the same ordinance, so again repealing the vertical housing, adopting the HDTE, but delay a vote on the ordinance until

1:15:48 the fall. That would give time to process that application, but it would delay implementation of the HDTE program. And then the third option would be to pull all the language out of the ordinance that repeals the vertical housing tax exemption, so it would just move forward with considering adoption of the HDTE. And then at a later date, the council could separately consider repealing the vertical housing tax exemption. So that option would allow for time to process the application and for the HDTE to continue moving forward. And I'll look to the city attorney's office to confirm, but I believe if the direction is clear tonight, then we're still just looking at a third reading for the HDTE.

1:16:33 And it would be removing all of the language that's highlighted blue in the ordinance, which is attachment one. To separate those two actions out. And that's correct. I would want if the council chooses option three, I would want someone to read the title of the ordinance without the blue language just so we make sure we can count that as a first reading of the new ordinance title. So that it could come back for adoption. At the next meeting. And option three is not going to delay HDTE at all? Correct. Okay, good. Victoria. Um I'm in favor of option three. I think that that's something that we can I I would hate to see a project that we know is happening so two or three um have that end up not happening on the

1:17:19 likelihood that or this potential that we might get somebody who takes advantage of the other option. So option three seems like the best because we would still be able to um allow that that project that's existing and it's going on to continue but then we wouldn't um prevent someone who might want to take advantage of the HDTE during that time frame as well. So. Okay. Um and could you could you clarify is our council president just going to read the title of the ordinance into the record? Um or I could do that right now. Okay. So that so I'm hearing that council's direction is to bring back for a third reading and adoption consideration of adoption an ordinance adopting Springfield Municipal Code sections 3.550 through 3.558 to enact a property

1:18:04 tax exemption for multiple unit housing to increase housing diversity adopting a severability clause and providing an effective date. Perfect. This is second reading only no action. Next item, please. Other business from the city manager. Just one quick item. I do have an update from the January winter storm. Council you may remember that we submitted information along with other with Lane County to the state of Oregon requesting a federal FEMA emergency declaration. I received notification today from our emergency manager that that declaration was issued by FEMA on the 13th of April.

1:18:49 And I want to talk a little bit about what that entails. So the declaration authorizes the public assistance program for 11 counties that would include Lane County as well as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians. It also authorizes access to the hazard mitigation plan excuse me grant program statewide. So what the public assistance program does is it assists governments and certain type private nonprofits through grants so communities can quickly respond to and recover from major disasters and emergencies. So Ken is going to be spearheading that for the city and reaching out to our departments making

1:19:34 sure that we have all of our information accounted for. Partner agencies will probably get outreach from Lane County because they are kind of the emergency management authority for the county response for FEMA. And that's all I have. Joe. Quick question if you can help me I appreciate it. I'm curious it says that the the individual assistance program was not a was not given. I'm sorry I thought I had it on. The um the individual assistance program was not provided or or awarded because it was not requested by the state. Do you have any background as to why this what was the

1:20:20 Why did the state not request that? Councilor I do not have the background information as to why that was not included with the federal request. I can certainly ask our staff to reach out uh to our state partners and gain a better understanding on the on the thinking behind that. I don't want to speculate. No, that's why I don't know. You can find out. Yeah, I just thought maybe you might had some background but I would it would I think it'd be good information if we can get that. At least I'd be interested because I know that there's several folks in my ward that are very interested in in in that. Why the the story behind that maybe. Certainly we would have an interest in that as well since our city was the

1:21:05 hardest hit and we can find out, you know, if that deadline has passed, if there is an opportunity to um you know, make that request or not or if that if this determination is final and once they make the determination you it's kind of sealed and you can't go forward. So I we will ask our partners about that part of it. I didn't know which is why I didn't include it in my update. I'm fresh to me today as well. Yeah, I see it's very fresh information. So yeah, I think it would be great and I would like to know if there's other options if if that was that door shut if there's other options out there because I know it's still very active out in East Springfield because of that. Certainly we will. We would always want to exhaust every opportunity to help our

1:21:51 community. Thank you very much. All right, next item, please. Next item is business from the city attorney item number one is the planning commission municipal code amendments. Christina Craz is here for this item. Hi Mayor and Council and also here tonight is Sandy Belson who is the staff um the primary non-attorney staff for the planning commission as well. So if she wants to come up and can answer questions that I can't. This was a joint effort between Sandy and I. These were changes recommended by Sandy and then we worked together to clear just to update the planning the code for the planning commission. As a brief reminder, the planning commission is the is the commission of the council that reviews land use decisions and comprehensive planning um

1:22:38 comprehensive plans and um development code changes and makes recommendations to the council on those. So, these changes would um many of them would update outdated language reference and references in the municipal code and align current practices or the code with current practices in the council operating policies and procedures, especially around when vacancies occur. And then um the one of the more significant changes is to reflect current I think current understanding that the planning commission may include members that don't live in city limits, but they must live within the city of Springfield urban growth boundary. Do you have any questions? Graham. I don't think we have any action for

1:23:24 this night. It's for reading only. Thank you. And that is our all of them. Any other business? No. No other business. All right, then that is a wrap. We're adjourned.