Springfield City Council — May 27, 2025

0:06 Call the city council session. Mayor Van Gordon here. Councelor Weber here. Councelor V here. Councelor Rodley here. Councelor Blackwell here. Councelor Dele here. And councelor Sap here. Thank you. All right. We have two items even safety special operating levy. There you go. All right. Uh good evening mayor and council. So tonight I'm here looking for guidance rate for levy that will be on here back 26. Joining us tonight is DH research to share results survey they conducted in April of this year.

0:53 Before I turn it over to them, I wanted to the background information. This levy first passed in 2002 at 36 cents per thousand and it funed cost again. However, in 2015 due to circumstances I described in packet the council shows the lower rate 36 cents per turn about by 2020 uh it was roughly 65 to 70% cost of uh in 2020 council asked for a rate that maintain that balance that's 38 cents per

1:39 thousand. So running parallel to this process was the mayor's fiscal sub that began meeting mid January and what became clear from the first few meetings was that there was a consensus that they like the light uh that successfully renews every year since 2002. uh and that levy should be paying for the full cost of services that um because uh the work of the task force wouldn't be completed prior to us being uh we went forward with that

2:31 compility test that rate with our community. We also tested alternatively 46% 46% And I'm going to let them share the difference. Going forward, I've scheduled a work session and regular session on 16. If coming out of this meeting tonight, I have guidance, great. I'll come back in regular session on June 16th with the ballot. If uh after this evening you'd like more information uh we'll be back at work session June 16th bringing back ballot title on June 30th in special session and tonight we have enough time for the survey presentation and questions of the survey as well as the

3:19 discussion before I turn it over questions. I think we're ready for it to be turned over, right, Tony? Okay, thank Okay. Can you all see the the survey on the screen? We cannot. Okay. Let me give let me try that one more time.

4:17 Okay. How's that? We can see it. Okay. you can see. Sorry. Oh, all right. Well, it looks like we're still dealing with the camera. So, you are on. You can hear it. We can hear you. Terrific. And I will admit that my audio is I'm not hearing you extremely well. I'm probably hearing about 80% of what you're saying. And I'm hoping that you can hear 100% of what I'm saying. Can I can I just get an affirmation from somebody that you can hear me? Well, can hear you clearly. Yes. Fantastic. So, um, thank you, uh,

5:03 for allowing Anna and I to be here today. My name is Tony Yarino. I'm a senior research manager at DHM Research. I'm joined by Anna Feldman, a research associate at DHM. DHM is a policyoriented public opinion research firm based in Portland. Uh we've been doing this kind of work for 40 plus years in the Pacific Northwest. The last time I had the honor of presenting to Springfield City Council was in 2022 when we shared the results of our uh research on a potential police levy. We're fortunate to have this opportunity

5:48 again uh and we're eager to share our results. So, the purpose of the survey was to assess a general mood of voters in Springfield and identify the key issues that they're thinking about. Uh, gauge support for a potential fire levy in November 2025. Uh, understand why voters might support or oppose the levy. And finally, and if we have time, we can go into this, uh, identify some of the more trusted sources when it comes to opinions about the levy. Now, in order to do this, we connected with 300 Springfield voters via a hybrid

6:36 or mixed mode survey in which half of respondents received a phone call and spoke with a live interviewer and the other half uh received a text asking them to participate in a survey online. Whether people participated via a live interviewer or an online survey, the questions were entirely identical. The survey was conducted in early to midappril and uh this was a representative survey, a representative sample. So in order to ensure that we set quotas uh in other words certain percentage of voters uh needed to be of

7:21 a certain gender, age, political affiliation and ward. Um we also weighted the data by race and ethnicity, education level, home ownership. So, we have a representative sample of Now, this is something I'm going to explain a little more in detail later, but this is this was a representative sample of likely November 2025 voters. That's a little bit different than Springfield voters as a whole, but I'll get into that uh in a sec. uh the margin of error for this survey with a sample size of 300 is plus or minus

8:07 5.7%. Now this is a breakdown of our sample of who we spoke with. Um again something to emphasize here. Uh this was not a representative sample of all Springfield voters but of likely November 2025 voters. Now, November 2025, as you know, would be a special election. And based on our understanding of past data and voter turnout, um we know that special elections are a little different. Um the special elections tend to be more partisan, so there's fewer non-affiliated voters. Uh special elections tend to be more have more older voters. Um, so a lot fewer younger

8:53 voters were in this sample and because they're older, they're more likely to be homeowners. Uh so far fewer renters than owners compared to the sort of actual adult voting population. But what you see here is an accurate representation uh of of the likely uh cohort of voters in November 2025. So um DHM following Gallup uh which pioneered this uh has been asking a similar question for nearly 20 years and it goes like this. All things

9:39 considered, would you say that um X in this case the city of Springfield um is headed in the right direction or are things off on the wrong track? And this allows us to track trends over time uh and to make comparisons in other cities as well. Uh as you can see uh since we last conducted the survey in 2022, the outlook is a bit more optimistic uh with 58% of the sample uh saying the city is headed in the right direction. Now, how does this compare with what we've seen in other communities? Uh we've been seeing an upward trend in positivity in

10:25 cities across Oregon. Um uh so this trend kind of matches that overall trend we're seeing in the Pacific Northwest. But also um comparatively speaking, you're doing pretty well. Um in the last few months, we've done polls in Portland, in Sandy, in Albany. Uh only 23% of voters think uh Portland is heading in the right direction. Uh 49% of Sandy voters and in nearby Albany only 33% say the city is headed in the right direction. Why does all this matter? positivity about the direction of the city often correlates with support for

11:15 ballot measure referrals that city leaders are presenting to voters. Uh so and for example for this particular survey that we conducted voters with a positive outlook are far more likely to support rather than oppose the levy. So voters who think the city is heading in the right direction, 64% of them um support the levy, which is higher than the average. Now, we asked about how satisfied or dissatisfied voters were with various city services. Um and as you can see uh although

12:01 satisfaction has declined slightly uh by about three points for um fire and rescue services between 2022 and 2025. Um satisfaction is still pretty high. I mean it doesn't get much higher than 9 and 10. Um and satisfaction with fire and rescue services is higher. uh than for any other service that we tested, whether it's police, library, or street maintenance. I will notice um satisfaction levels with city street maintenance, perhaps something you're already aware of, um is down considerably in the last three years.

12:46 So, that's certainly something on voters minds. I'm going to stop here. um because I just don't want I don't want to just throw a ton of information at you. Um are there any questions so far before we a question I will open up council but I do have comment. I read the city street maintenance number and the decline. My my uh hypothesis there was that last year we passed the street bond and then nobody those projects aren't out there yet. So we surveyed it feel like to pass a street bond and they may haven't seen

13:33 the projects built yet. They're in the pipeline of being defined. Does anybody have any questions about the solid? But um is it difficult to sort of separate homeowners versus the renters and such because it seems like this is a an issue that's going to obviously affect property owners more than others even though those other folks vote. Um I just seem like it would weigh a little heavier on that. And also the number 300 seems like kind of a small number when you consider 12 or 15,000 people might be voting in a special election. So, is there a particular reason that it was only 300 or that you chose 300? Yeah, let me let me get to the 300 first.

14:19 Um, part of it is cost and part of it part of it is availability of of you know how it's how many people you can actually reach with your population size in a random sample survey. So, if we had an endless amount of time and we did a lot of marketing and you did optin surveys and you encourage people to vote, I mean to participate, you could get more than 300. Um, but it's hard to get more than 300 in a population your size doing a kind of scientific random sample survey. Um, without spending a

15:11 lot. Um and then your second question has to do with uh second part of the question seemed to have to do was are there you know are is there is there any demographic data suggesting sort of different demographic subgroups having different levels of satisfaction. [Music] Um we can certainly do that analysis. Um, we don't have that like on hand right now to share. Um, I wasn't asking about satisfaction. I was asking about targeting property owners versus renters. Oh, I see. Well, yes. So, reality is the property owners are the

15:56 ones that are going to pay for this, not the renters. Even though the renters property owners would pay for it. So, according to our data, about 55% of your community are homeowners. Now, of the folks we spoke with, about 75% were homeowners. And that's because we were talking to likely voters um again who are older, more likely to be homeowners, uh a higher level of education as well. So, um,

16:43 the the results that we're sharing are very much representative of the likely turnout in November 2025. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Okay. I don't see any more questions if you want to keep going. Okay. So now let's get into the levy test itself. Uh typically when we do ballot measure tests like this, we like to begin with what's called a cold test or an initial test. In doing so, we offer no information whatsoever about the levy except the ballot title, uh which is often very legalistic sounding.

17:30 And and we do this because for some voters, that's all they'll see. that's all they'll pay attention to is a ballot title. And so when we provide this ballot title, again using the kind of legalistic language that is that is often required, um you've got about 4 and 10 support. So 42% of likely voters support the levy. Um but as you can see after providing uh just a minimal uh amount of additional information basically the kind of information you might find on a ballot summary

18:16 uh including the fact that this is increase over the past levy that the increase is necessary to keep up with 15 years of inflation and to help maintain services. And finally, you know, that the co that it would probably it would likely cost the average household about $100 a year for 5 years. You see what happens? Um, voter support increases by 14 points to 56%. Now with that basic information you'll see that support for the levy increases among all groups uh all key groups

19:02 regardless of income of age of party and of ward. All right. So what are the main reasons voters support uh and oppose the levy? We provided voters with a set of potential reasons to support the levy. The language on the left is really in in bold is just shorthand language for us for analytical purposes. Uh voters did not see that. what voters saw is the the more elaborate uh reasons uh on the right and

19:49 they go from the fact that funds would uh even though Springfield and Eugene share the same fire department, the funds would go for to go to Springfield only. Um the fact that the levy would provide equal services for all residents, ensuring that all five stations stay open and that all neighborhoods, you know, enjoy equal access. That would provide protection against wildfires. That it's necessary to keep up with inflation. That the cost um of about an average of $100 per household per year is a reasonable amount. and that it would be a way to avoid service cuts. So, these are the reasons that we

20:34 presented to see how they fared and you'll find that all reasons uh to support the levy uh were found to be compelling by voters. Uh but there's three that really stand out. those top three, not simply because of the high percentage of those who overall thought them considered them to be very good or somewhat good reasons to support the levy, but also uh the percentage of those who especially found them to be very good reasons to support the levy. Uh that's that darker teal color in those t top three rows. So, the fact

21:19 that it sort of um reassuring voters that the funds would be for Springfield only. Uh reassuring voters that uh it would mean all fire stations remain open at all times, providing equal services for all neighborhoods, and that it would provide protection against wildfires. All of these deeply deeply resonate um with voters. The other arguments do or reasons do as well. They just uh not as much as the top. Now, we also presented a number of reasons why people might oppose the

22:05 levy. Um everything from, you know, this is bad timing given recent inflation and how high housing costs. Um that, you know, that we should be opposed to any property tax increase whatsoever. They're already too high. Um that renewal at the current rate uh is is fine. We don't need an increase. um that voters might not trust the city of Springfield to manage its property tax revenues wisely and also finally that a reduction in those services and is an acceptable tradeoff if it means paying less in your property

22:51 taxes. Um now before discussing the top reasons to oppose just a little context or just a little reminder. Uh all almost all of the reasons to support the measure significantly outperform reasons to oppose. So quickly just going back you'll see that they range from 57% convincing to 80% convincing. And then you go over here to the reasons to oppose and you're at 18% convincing to 58% convincing with those top two reasons. You know, it's just bad timing giving the high inflation and

23:36 high housing costs and um that were just opposed to any property tax increase tax. Property tax already too high. you know, with those being the most compelling reasons to oppose. So, what impact did hearing all of these reasons, both pro and con, have on overall support for the levy? So in this final test you'll see that um overall support you know stayed flat at 56% after hearing those um messages pro and con. But what we do notice is that

24:22 certainty of support and that's that dark blue um stack on the second column there increases about five points to 36%. So what does all this mean? I mean, our rule of thumb at DHM when we do this kind of research and we provide some consulting to our clients is to say that typically when doing a preliminary test like this, ideally you want to be somewhere around 60% support when you're thinking about referring something to the ballot because it's always easier to move

25:08 people to no than it is to yes. And so having that having something north of 50% is desirable because it serves as kind of a hedge against some potential erosion and support. Now you are just south of 60%. Um so keep that in mind. The second thing that we often point out is that when thinking about your support numbers, you want about half of your support to be certain. Um, and in this case,

25:55 um, at 36% you're well north of more than 50%. um more more than half of those far more than half of those who support the measure are certain of their support. So, uh, one might argue taking that information together is that council ought to be cautiously optimistic, um, that referring this ballot um, to voters uh, would result again with some caveats um, because this is months from now, not April, um, in support or passage for the

26:42 measure. Now, finally, I'll say that we do know that there's been some discussion about the appropriate levy rate. So we asked voters about that and we asked them would you prefer a 53 cent rate to maintain services which is what we've been testing or a 46% rate with some decreased services or none of the above. offered that choice between the proposed levy at 53 cents, a reduced cost levy

27:27 with decreased services at 46 cents, um, or no levy at all. You'll see that a plurality or 50% choose the proposed levy. [Music] Um about a third of voters are just opposed to any uh any levy increase at all. Um but another way of reading this as well is that 50% plus 14% you've got 64% of voters who support some sort of increase. um as opposed to no levy

28:23 Um now we can go into more detail uh about other things but um and there is a full report uh with more details uh than what we've provided here in our presentation. But we'd be happy to entertain any questions. Are there any questions? Um, I do have one question and I see you sitting at the back. I'm going to ask it slowly so you can walk. Thank you. So when I read the data um there was a big data swing in W three and round four. Could you since you managed to re

29:09 number all the fire stations if we think about this supporting a specific station where is that station the specific stations at 28th and Centennial station 3. So essentially right in the middle of those two boards. Okay. Um, so when we talk about this levy, is it covering any of the within the UGB but outside the city limit like Hayden Bridge and that sort of thing? Is that also covered within what this levy dollars are going towards. Some of those contract districts have their own levies and specifically Rainbow Water District which I think is a great and I can add I take when setting those

29:55 budgets we take the full cost including that fifth station and charging that out to our Uh question maybe sorry uh question uh I know this is there's so many numbers going around and there's there's so many parallel conversations to this um results the mayor's task force was there a comment about which direction from that task force the fire should be looking towards and I'm just trying to I can't remember exactly was it which particular a particular number that the task force had settled on so we um had already done our our

30:40 preliminary calculations that we thought it' be around 53 cents per thousand and the task force had a consensus and recommending that we do a full levy rate on that. So I think that was probably one of easier consensus items that they got. This is about the options. Option two at the 38 cents per thousand and option three is 46 uh cents per thousand. Do those both equate to a reduction in discussion? Uh that's gets a little more complicated. You know, I think my say no we have this balance general fund it's going to get more challenging

31:27 to maintain the current services. So without some additional funding we are going to get choices. Anybody else? So Nate, the ideal uh direction from us tonight is we've got a work session coming up. If we can kind of get new guidance on our rate, that would make that next work session a little bit smoother. Uh if I have consensus and strong guidance on a rate, we'll cancel that work session. And it is fair to say you want more time to talk if you have a sense of where the rate is going. Actually, I have one more question for Tony. Tony, did I read the data? Right. The the way we should be

32:12 talking thinking about this is that if we went with a higher rate, it would pass, but we probably need to have some sort of like outreach campaign. It's not going to necessarily pass on itself. Maybe have an audio. Can you hear me, Tony? Yo, yes. Um, I heard some of it. Um, I is it fair to say that um you were suggesting that um to increase the likelihood of passage uh some campaign would probably be necessary.

32:57 Yeah, that that was my reading of it was that to that the way you surveyed that definitely have to have a public outreach campaign that is paired with this. Is that accurate? So um again what we typically say is you know ideally you want about 60% support if you're going to refer something to the ballot. you're at 56. Um, so you're you're pretty close to 60, but you're not quite there. Um, it's easier to get people to know than it is to yes. Um, there's often a little bit of erosion uh as you get

33:44 closer to the election and people are concerned a little bit about their pocketbooks. So to the extent that [Music] um the let's say the political and civic leadership is united um and there is an active campaign as well to supplement that unity. uh that will go a long way to towards help uh ensuring like you know we can't make promises as a pollster but significantly increasing the likelihood of passage

34:29 and we al we also have some data as to who voters trust the most um who they want to hear from um the most on this particular measure and uh the Springfield fire chief uh residents who've received fire benefited from fire rescue and emergency medical services. Um you know those those are two uh individuals or bodies um that that voters really want to hear from when it comes to this particular measure. Thanks. So if we if people are comfortable um on providing guidance on their rate that would probably be helpful at this point or or we could take it over to work session reading it

35:15 and kind of where the discussion is I'd be bringing more than 53 cents but I think they're pretty for discussion there. Um under normal circumstances I'd probably push only those keep the the 38 cent rate. However, because of the structural imbalance and because of the work of the task force, I am comfortable of pushing the 53 cents. But that is my own uh position here. But that's just what I'm thinking now. Did we have a consultant um do the same type of work when we were going out for the road bond? We didn't. Did we? I wasn't involved in that. Jeff said yes. So we did. Yeah. And I

36:02 can leave it with a state salted note. So, do we have similar numbers with that one? Because I mean, we doubled that and it was resoundingly I'm just curious about historically like people in Springfield seem to be very supportive of the services like firing. So I can say in 2022 for police the survey attested at 58% supports the was formed and it yeah I am comfortable. Thank you. I'm comfortable with sense as well. All right I think you got your direction. Okay. So, I'm going to cancel the work session and I'm going to bring

36:47 back for adoption session on June 16. Thank you. Thank you. I think she put the most trusted. All right. Thanks to you, Jim. Thanks for the opportunity. Thank you. Good luck to you.

37:37 Good evening, Mayor Council. Um, tonight we're here to uh discuss the housing and design initiative code and plan update. It's the code audit review tonight and appointment of the governance committee. Um you'll hear from me briefly to introduce the project and then I have um our consultant Cascadia Partners who will take over kind of midway through and and really dive into depths about the project. Let me promote them really quick. And Allison is promoting so just one sec. And actually I'll just I'll give a little bit of background on this while she's doing that. Um so last time I came to you uh was in March. Uh that was just to introduce the project. At that time it was called the housing related code of plan update. It's been rebranded to the housing and design initiative just

38:23 because we wanted to be a little bit more clear about what this project was about. Um so tonight like I said we'll go into the audit. It's a 20 to 25 minute presentation. Um there's quite a bit of depth about what are the required actions versus strategic recommendations that Cascadia Partners will present on. Um and then we'll have times for a little bit of discussion and and hopefully the appointment of the governance

39:19 Okay, so I just kind of went into that the project background and goals. Um, the second part will be the required actions to comply with state housing laws. That's the legal compliance audit and then clear and objective standards. The third part of tonight's presentation will be got the strategic recommendations to support housing. This these are not quite required but again we're we're trying to increase um production affordability and choice for housing. We'll look at the neighborhood refinement plan and again those um housing production barriers and we'll go into next steps some timeline. So again the project background and goals. Um the main part of the project is the statutory compliance review that is compliance with housing related statutes and state rules. Again, you're seeing the little

40:04 arrow pointing to it. Those are the legally required um things that we have to do. And then the second part is the strategic recommendations. That's streamlining regulations to housing production, affordability, and choice. Again, we're going to be looking at neighborhood refinement plans and con thefts to remove barriers to housing and commercial uh and mixed use areas. And real quick about the community engagement, um we took a community engagement plan to our planning commission. they approved that in March. Um as well as technical advisory committee last week. Um so throughout the rest the remainder of the project there will be that advisory committee, the governance committee who we will hopefully appoint two people tonight from city council to sit on that governance committee. That's on ad hoc

40:50 basis. They'll meet over the summer and then again when we finally get to the adoption phase, we'll be seeing those planning commission. So, how does this align with the climate friendly areas? The climate friendly area project focused on uh mainly three areas. Glenwood, Riverfront, downtown, and Bohawk. Um, but in contrast, this project is uh again focus on those areas that are outside of the climate friendly areas. Um, but again, we're we're working to meet those state requirements and support broader housing goals um related but separate in the mixeduse areas that are outside. Um, I'm going to turn it over to Cascading Partners and hopefully we'll stand by for any technical.

41:35 Thank you, Haley. And good evening, mayor and council. I'm Rachel Cotton. I'm a senior associate with Cascadia Partners and part of the consultant team working with the city um on this housing and design initiative project. I'm also joined tonight by my colleague Jamon Kimmel, who is the principal in charge um on this project. So, a little bit about um the code audit that we did in your packets. You received a memo that summarized um the results of this code audit. But as Haley mentioned, I think an important thing to keep in mind is um there is a required actions piece of our work and then sort of a strategic recommendations piece of our work. So, I'm going to start with

42:21 the required actions. Um we did an audit of the code to look at legal compliance. There are a number of housing related state statutes that essentially say um cities codes either must contain these things or can't contain these things simply put. And so we did an assessment of um how Springfield's code kind of aligns with those requirements. For the most part the majority of the code um is compliant. So we've offered here in this table a summary of what all the statutory requirements are and then the findings. In this case, these are all the um requirements that the code is in compliance with. There are a few where um it's not required to have these things in your code. So we've flagged

43:07 those as well. And on to the next slide. So there are a few areas um that we determined are partially compliant. um those are related to residential homes and facilities, manufactured home parks. Um and then separately we did an assessment for clear and objective standards for needed housing. So what this means is the code um likely needs some minor amendments to come into compliance with with the statutory requirements. Um, we've detailed here allowing residential homes um, in districts where single dwelling units are allowed is is one of these requirements. Um, clarifying some

43:52 allowances for residential care facilities. Um, allowing pre-fabricated dwellings in manufactured home parks and um, ensuring no minimum lot size greater than 1 acre for manufactured home parks. Um we're working with staff on these amendments that are required as part of these um statutory kind of compliance piece of the work. Um so we'll be um doing that as part of this project. But as mentioned, these are the things that are kind of the mustdos. Um and separately and I'll get into a little bit later in the presentation, we did an audit for clear and objective standards. So I'll explain what that means and then I'll also explain what our findings were. Next slide, please.

44:37 Um, we also found one specific statute that the code was not in compliance with. So, there are um state requirements to allow uh RVs to be used um for residential occupancy if they're connected to water, electricity, and and sewer. And so, in this case, um the code is out of compliance in this area. Um that that is in the case if they're within RV parks. And then also um to be used without utilities following a natural disaster um which is considered a temporary use and there are some some timelines uh outlined in statute that um will just need to be adjusted to come into compliance with this requirement. Next slide.

45:24 Um and then there are a number of areas where um as mentioned it it's not that these things need to be in the code but um sometimes it is helpful and so we've recommended um in this case if there is a newly de adopted development standard or standards um essentially that the code has changed after someone has submitted an application um they are allowed to opt in to the new standards if they choose to do so. And um our recommendation is to include that in the code just so it's clear to an applicant that they have that option. Next slide. And so in addition to these statutory requirements, there's also a

46:10 requirement that there is a clear and objective pathway for housing development. And so what we mean when we say clear and objective is that um if two different people are looking at the code, they are able to come to the same conclusion. They're able to interpret it in the same way. So those are things that are clear and measurable and they will produce the same outcome even if different people are um reviewing an application. As an example, there's no discretion involved. And so the state requires that there is a clear and objective pathway for housing. And we did an audit just to see if there are code sections that don't meet those requirements. Um and the standards that

46:55 we reviewed are design and development standards, overlay districts, um and then land use application approval criteria including partitions, subdivisions, and site review. Um and also want to clarify there must be a clear and objective pathway but also there can be an alternative pathway that's discretionary. So as long as there is you know a clear path saying you must do this list of um you know measurable um interpretable by the same um measures things then there can also be a discretionary pathway. Next slide. And so what we found um the city has done a lot of work on its code um

47:41 and there are many recently amended sections of the development code that meet these state requirements for clear and objective housing standards. Um overall the mixeduse districts um need refinement. That was our finding. So, Glenwood Riverfront um is one example and then other mixeduse districts um have what we call discretionary language and will need amendments to offer that clear and objective pathway. Um some of the overlay districts, so including Wamic Greenway, Flood Plane, um and Hillside um contain uh what is considered vague or subjective language. Um, and we're just flagging that in those cases, these these areas may require additional technical studies or

48:26 policy guidance to determine the best way to replace or modify those existing regulations. Um, and this presentation, as mentioned, is meant as a kind of companion um, kind of highle overview to that memorandum included in your packet. So, um, that's really the best source of this information. Next slide. Um and so we looked chapter by chapter um for for anything that relates to housing development and we looked um we found in chapter 4 there were certain phrases um included included here are some examples. is things like to the maximum extent practicable, um substantial adverse impact, things

49:12 like that are not considered to be clear and objective. And so we flagged a number of sections that would not be in compliance with this um requirement. And then also just noting that um we interpreted clear and objective to uh apply to standards for public facilities. Um some additional examples are just using words like adequate, minimum, necessary or safe and efficient without measurable um criteria is is not considered to be clear and objective. And again these are just examples. Um but it makes it difficult if you think about the intent of these rules. It's really to provide certainty for applicants um to know what they need to be doing in order to get approved

49:57 applications. Next slide. Um in addition, we looked in chapter five and uh found some unclear submitt requirements. So sections um requiring application materials um using open-ended phrasing like where applicable as needed may include and again these are not um clear and objective. So it's it's again the intent is to pro provide certainty to applicants. Um and then lacking some objective metrics for physical features. So you know again other examples significant clusters of trees or transportation issues are considered vague um without any defined thresholds

50:43 or criteria. Next slide. Um so this is where we transition to the strategic recommendations piece of our work. Um and again just to summarize those first two pieces of the code audit that is the legal compliance review, clear and objective review. Those are where we've identified and um will continue to work with staff on needed amendments um to be legally compliant. So to avoid legal challenges. Um these next uh sections of work are part of the strategic recommendations. So when we look at the um kind of framework for this project that Haley initially uh mentioned, we're looking to increase um options for

51:29 housing availability, affordability, and choice. And so and um we're really looking kind of to make some strategic recommendations related to those things. So, we reviewed um the refinement plans um and identified some potential barriers to housing production. Next slide. Um and some key themes emerged. Um I just want to emphasize that the plans themselves are guiding documents and the code is where you know the criteria for development come into play. So the plans are more kind of higher level um and and not intended to guide development directly. They're just sort of setting kind of the vision and the overall kind of

52:14 priorities. So just want to make that clear. But some of the key themes that we found in reviewing the plans are um with the lens of barriers to housing development some requirements for large minimum development areas. So very large parcel sizes um examples 10 acres for new residential development. Uh and these large uh require size requirements may discourage infill or smallcale housing. Um we also found that multiple plans require additional planning requirements. So things like development area plans or master plans before residential development can occur. And those kinds of requirements add complexity um delay and cost potentially

53:01 particularly for smaller sites and for um small level developers. So not you know think more of like a mom and pop rather than kind of a um larger developer who does uh larger scale projects. Next slide. There are also policies that favor down zoning or commercial zoning. Um, in some cases, plans recommended reszoning residential land to office or commercial uses or applying exclusively commercial zoning. Um, and again, we're thinking about the lens of this work is to um assess barriers to housing. So, these sorts of um recommendations could potentially reduce the supply of land available for housing. We also found in

53:47 some cases unclear or potentially restrictive language. So, some policies encourage setbacks or buffers beyond what is already required by the code. Um, and just to reiterate, these are not enforcable as development standards, but they could conflict with the city's housing production goals if interpreted too rigidly. And so, we just kind of wanted to call them out as part of this work. How do we um maintain consistency between the plans and the code and also the um desired goals to increase um those housing choices, affordability, and availability. Next slide. So, in addition to the plans, we looked um kind of widely at the

54:33 commercial and mixed use districts to see um how restrictive they were. um in terms of allowing a variety of housing types that align with market demand um but yet experience regulatory barriers in the code. Um so here you can see a number of uh residential development types everything if I'm going from the right side of the slide from a compact neighborhood development. So we might think of this as the middle housing types. Um main street neighborhood, modern apartment, main street mixed use and then um kind of the highest density example I think is the corridor mixeduse development. And this

55:20 connects to work that was done um earlier uh related to a market study for the climate friendly areas project. And so really just wanting to kind of be consistent as we think about the types of um higher density housing that the market is potentially um able to provide within Springfield. What do the regulatory barriers and the code um mean for the ability to produce that housing within what the market might allow? So that's kind of the framework that we were using for this. Next slide. Oh yes, go ahead. It's a I'll just say along with Tony in the last presentation it's hard to hear so I will do my best but if I don't totally

56:06 understand you I may try to repeat the question. Okay. So when you did the climate friendly market analysis were these the type of h uh housing products that were evaluated in the market analysis for the CEC areas? Yes. So if I and please correct me if I'm wrong, if I remember the market analysis correctly, they were the market analysis was saying that anything that's above about like seven stories isn't going to just don't have the market stability for that. Is that accurate? That is accurate. So you don't see that type of housing as part of this? So could you help me? when I read your

56:53 memo and went through these market times, some of these were at that higher density level and at those heights and I'm trying to reconcile these two um those two presentations. Some of these are at at those higher levels according to your memo. Um I'm just trying to make sure I understand when you're saying the memo, you're meaning the the actual memo, not the market study attachment. So not I think it's appendix D just to make sure I'm understanding when you say the memo that's kind of the first clarification. Oh we I when I refer to market study thinking about the C effect presentation

57:38 that we had from your group I mean maybe six months ago. Okay. Because in the in the attachments it says those I was talking about those fire sites and I'm trying to reconcile these two things in my head because the market study for CEC said we would never see these fire right and those I don't know what you are seeing but the this slide is meant to represent not those higher heights. So none of you know the I think it's uh it's a sixstory building is the highest one and we're not going above that. And I apologize I didn't do the the part

58:24 of the market study part of the work. So I'm doing my best to track everything but if we have questions that we can't answer tonight we're happy to refer those um to other staff who did that work directly. That that's okay. I'm remembering something that was six months ago. So I could just be remembering an attachment one page 12 of 18. It said mixed use types and it's got it listed as six to seven stories and then it has got that that higher density level it's 120 to 175 units per acre which doesn't exist in the city of Springfield. I'm mainly asking about that use type if it's supported in the market data that you showed us the last time. I guess the modern apartment has got that same density level. I don't think those exist in the city at all.

59:11 Rachel, I think I can see clarify. Yeah. So, um the the key uh difference there in terms of um the cost of development. Uh it really steps up when you go from a um what would be considered usually a podium construction building. So that would be a um a woodframe four to five four to six stories or four to five stories, excuse me, of wood frame on a um concrete podium. So that sort of construction type uh maxes out at about seven stories. If you um build anything higher than seven stories, then uh you're then needing to build that in a

59:58 um steel frame building, which is significantly more expensive. And so that's where that market study found that the the rents currently in Springfield do not support uh construction of the those steel frame buildings that are taller than seven stories. So um it is possible to build up to seven stories with a um podium building that's that's mostly woodframe construction which is sign significantly less expensive. So that's really where the cost impact comes in in terms of the density and units per acre. Um you can build at a relatively high density with only four, five or six stories tall. Um

1:00:43 and that's what some of these prototypes here are showing. So there may be a relatively high density um compared to what is built in the uh city today. those could pencil if the if the code was allowing for that level of density to be built um and many other market factors about um how parking is provided uh on the site if parking is provided. Um so I'd say the density is not a good number to use on to base as a um barometer of the cost of development. It's really the height where where the height um the construction costs rise the most. So I guess what you're seeing here is a a set of prototypes that are relatively high

1:01:28 density and units per acre but none of them exceed that um seven stories in height. Does that clarify? It helps. And I don't and I can take my answer off the air because I think my in my head I should think both presentations is internally consistent. Is that correct? Sorry, it was a little bit hard to hear that again. Presentations, the market study we have for CPEC and what you're showing us today should be internally consistent. Is that correct? Yes, that was our intent. If there's something that is inconsistent about it, um I I we would like to know that. But I believe the consistency here is really that you're looking at is relatively high density

1:02:14 housing uh but not tall buildings, right? Not going into towers necessarily, but it's a high density within that envelope of at the most up to six to seven stories. you go back and double check because I vaguely remember that like lot size became a was a big factor in that other presentation and again we don't have to get into it now we just like somebody to double check so we keep the keep the conversation as consistent as possible and we can keep going from here okay yes and appreciate you pointing that out because as Jamon mentioned our goal was to be consistent with that work to kind of build off the findings of that market analysis this um so I choose to think of this spectrum right the corridor mixed use is kind of the

1:03:00 highest in terms of the height not necessarily the density like Jamon clarified kind of the highest um possible kind of development prototype that we would we would think of and we're probably pushing what's possible today we're we're pushing against that a little bit as an assumption you know we're future thinking in some of this work so we're really wanting to not um restric things to what the market is today, but also be realistic within those assumptions if that's helpful. But we'll certainly double check that we were being consistent because that's what we're going for. Um, next slide. And so, um, in terms of what we did for this piece of the analysis, we looked at, um, different commercial and

1:03:46 mixeduse districts and then their supportiveness for the different types of development. Um in some cases there were certain districts here highlighted in green that um were the regulations and the development standards um were generally supportive of these building types. Um yellow being mostly supportive and then red being not supportive meaning there are significant barriers in use regulations and development standards that make it difficult to support these building types. Next slide. And so in terms of a little bit more detail on the findings kind of how do we turn that chart into meaningful information um some of the barriers

1:04:33 include prohibition on standalone residential. So many districts um require commercial uses to be part part of a housing development um including mandates for commercial dominance um or restricting residential uses to upper stories. These requirements can raise costs um and complexity particularly if there's low market demand for commercial space. So in in this case um commercial districts uh listed here have these type of requirements. Um additionally some districts we recognize the intent is primarily for commercial commercial uses. So, um allowing standalone housing may be inconsistent with the intent of

1:05:18 that district. Um and additionally, allowing standalone residential may reduce the city's needed supply of land for commercial development. Um so we just want to caveat that additional analysis may be needed um to remove barriers to housing but also ensure that there's a sufficient land supply available for commercial and employment uses. So we will be doing additional analysis as part of this work just kind of assessing um the adequacy you know kind of what do some of these potential changes what might they mean for that um kind of supply of commercial and employment um land. And then finally, um, fi findings were that in certain

1:06:04 districts, um, height and lot coverage restrict, uh, requirements restrict feasibility of multi-story or compact development. And so modifying those standards could make housing more feasible to build. Next slide. Um, and then b back to the market piece. Um, groundf flooror commercial requirements can limit housing feasibility. um it can increase costs and reduce project feasibility. So oftent times um requiring ground floor commercial um means that you need to use podium construction which is more expensive than woodframe residential construction. Um and we took a look here on this chart

1:06:49 uh in the red is um retail lease rates in Springfield over roughly 20 years. So you can see they are um you know peaked uh there's been some some variation in the lease rates but overall they they there really hasn't been much variation. That red kind of stays between um you know 10 and uh at at highest a little over $14 a square foot for lease rates and vacancy fluctuates quite a bit. Um so the interpretation of this is you know lease rates aren't getting um you know the market is not uh so strong uh the residential market is not so strong.

1:07:34 There's quite a bit of vacancy kind of persistently with some variations over certain years um over the past 20 years. And so what that means um to us as a finding is that retail vacancy remains high. Um meaning that um being overly prescriptive about commercial requirements in some cases in some areas may be um unrealistic in terms of the market and also um uh me means that there's a barrier for housing development. Next slide. And I'm gonna turn it back to Haley um to talk through the project schedule, but I just want to say we'll be on hand um after the schedule to answer any

1:08:19 other questions that came up. Thank you, Rachel and Jam. So, uh on your screen, the project timeline, um you can see where we're at. That's the gray dot running down the end of May. It is the end of May. Um so, we're hoping to finalize this code audit based off feedback that we received tonight from council. Um then we'll move on to the code and plan concepts phase. This is actually where we're going to be reaching out to the community. You can see our first round of community engagement from July to August. Um we're going to be asking probably some questions, some surveys, handing out fact pages, creating posters and flyers and handouts, really getting the word out about what this project is about and asking for feedback. Uh last week I actually uh got approval from the planning commission for a technical

1:09:04 advisory committee. It's one of the largest we've ever seen. 17 members were appointed to that technical advisory committee and they'll be advising me on um what how they want to move forward some recommendations of policy changes uh for this project. I'll be meeting with them monthly uh till the end of the year. So about six times throughout the throughout the rest of this project and then um we'll be coming back to you with what we learn from those code and plan concepts this fall for the amendments phase. Again, that will be more of the actual drafting of the code and refinement plan, amendments, things like that. Uh there'll be a second round of community engagement from October to November. And then we're hoping by the end of this year we'll have an adoption ready package that we will then take forward next year. Um so again, that's

1:09:50 the end of the presentation, but I do have uh some questions to help with the discussion if necessary. Uh councelor Rodley, I have some questions of my own first. Thank you very much. Um, I really appreciate this and I appreciate the really kind of digging in deeply to what barriers mean. I think of the time that I've been on how we have thought of barriers and how do we remove barriers um has been kind of surface level. I think like a lot of municipalities, right? We're like what are our codes and what are how do we make things easier? So I I really appreciate this and particularly have just been like sitting with the the challenges of the mixed juice, you know, because I think a lot of us think of mixed juice as the most possibilities,

1:10:36 right? It's the opportunity to do the most we possibly can in there and to create the the kind of walkable vibrant communities that we are all seeing that we need. And I really appreciated the data about the challenges of building those and what that looks like in terms of the the market. Um, one of the things and I don't know where to go with this, but one of the things I've been thinking about since reading it and then listening to it again is, you know, in the chamber. You're you went on mute so we are not hearing. You're back. Yes. Oops. Whoever is digging into this um to think about, you know, what really is the business future of Springfield, we

1:11:23 tend to have more indust industry and more medical and things like that, which may or may not be compatible with housing. So, um I think there's this opportunity to really think about what where where do we fit in business and is there a way to get to um removing those barriers so that maybe we do have those block of housing that don't necessarily have retail but maybe they have other things maybe they have child care maybe they have other things that are going to add to the mixed use and the vibrancy of the neighborhood without burdening the building up. So really no question just pontificating. Thank you. Anybody else? Councelor Blackwell, excuse me. Is there anything in the the CEC mandates that stated the mixeduse

1:12:08 commercial has to remain? I mean, because isn't part of the idea of that to have the walkable, you know, live and walk same area and and if that was removed, wouldn't that kind of be contradictive to the whole idea of that? I'm going to have um Cascadia jump in about this one. Hopefully guarantee that question was about the ground floor requirement or CEC standards. Um uh no there's nothing in the um climate fair friendly areas requirements uh under CFAC that um would conflict with um allowing for a you know standalone uh residential development that doesn't

1:12:53 include any commercial uses. Um the uh CFA requirements um require the city to allow both residential and commercial uses in in CFAs. Um they do allow for cities to require ground floor commercial uh if they so choose. Um, and so I think it's it's broadly consistent with the way that your mixed use zones uh require um ground floor commercial uses as part of a mixeduse development. Um, in some of those mixed use zones, not all of them. Um, and so there's nothing that really conflicts with that. I would say one of the things that's different about the way that the um the

1:13:41 the climate friendly areas conceive of mixed use is more on a district scale in that there will be residential development as well as commercial development all within that same district. And the the way that conflicts with in some cases uh the um mixeduse districts you have in Springfield is that many of those think of that mixeduse development should happen on a site scale that on every site there should be a mix of uses. Uh and that's sort of the intent of of some of the um mixed use districts. Um so that's maybe a way to sort of understand the difference there. Yeah, that's good. Thank you. Other questions?

1:14:31 Okay. What questions do you have that we should be answering? For one and two, I just wanted to make sure that the council was clear about what were the required actions versus what were the strategic recommendations. So required was the state mandated stuff um and clear and objective and the strategic was these barriers that we talked about. Correct. Do we need to provide you feedback on the strategic portions or are we going to see them when they actually get written and sort of vetted out a little bit? We'll see them with the concepts. I don't really have clear right now, but I think the ground floor commercial was a great example of that. That's a policy decision that we um could discuss and work through as part of a strategic recommendation. Right. Jamon said that's not a requirement in the CFAC standards, but it is something that we have the

1:15:16 discretion to choose whether we want to continue that policy or not. And that's been consistent feedback from the development community for for a very long time. Um, I would be interested in seeing options, right? Maybe maybe that's going to help us zoom out and think about it in a more district-wide scale versus sight to sight so that we can still have some of those commercial amenities available in the area, but maybe not on every every specific site. Go ahead, Council Rodney. Thank you. Um, and I do this is this really is more of a question around the clear and objectable standards. I I think that was really interesting feedback, right? And as I think about what the process might look like in the next six months or so in terms of like getting clearer and

1:16:01 more on that, I also have this sort of shared concern that it gets more restrictive. Like some of the examples in there, excuse me, were like, you know, you say clump of trees as opposed to and I would hate it if we're like you have to have three to five trees and on a from here to here. I mean that feels like it's getting back to some of those restrictions we had before as opposed to opening it up as much as possible and I absolutely understand that it could be a barrier if it seems really wiggly. So that's just a thing however we proceed whether it's with your ch whether it's your technical advisory committee or the governor whatever to just weigh those to like how do we really keep it as flexible as possible but also give

1:16:48 yeah if I could just comment on that I think you just hit you hit on a really important tension related to complying with those clear and objective standards is that there could be an unintended consequence is that the code becomes more prescriptive than it is today and doesn't allow that flexibility. Um so it's something we've dealt with um in many other uh projects and um the the lens we try to bring to it is um how can we make this regulation more clear and objective um while not losing out on the ability for flexibility, right? And there's actually a way to thread that needle um with many kinds of standards where we

1:17:33 maybe have for example a menu of options, right? And you must do at least three of these things and each of those things is clearly and objectively defined. Um but you have options for three different things you can do, right? And so there there's ways to thread that needle, but I think it's it's a really important um tension point and something that um we may uh come back to um in a later later phase of this project to make sure uh we got that right of that balance of creating certainty in the code with clear and objective standards while not reverting to something that's um too narrow and prescriptive. Again, thank you for that comment. And as a community, I would tell you that we are not looking for a more prescriptive code and that we we

1:18:18 value flexibility fairly highly to allow developers to figure out how to make things pencil. And I think the the other comment that I would make and then we can talk about the governance committee is that as we're cleaning this up, I'm looking for like the decision points that make it easier to develop in Springfield, right? like this commercial on the ground floor is an easier piece, but when we we start start talking about specifically about well the we're adjusting the language and we're updating you know all the things right like at the end of the day we're looking at more housing in the city of Springfield and that's what I'm looking for from the from the lens of this conversation and I think it's really important that as we make these updates

1:19:04 that you know modernizing simplicity also usability, right, would be would be is really helpful here, right? Because as we add things to the code, we don't want it more legal but harder to use. Does anybody else have any comments? Um, we did talk about having a governance committee to do a couple summer check-ins. I have not talked to councelor Blackwell and councelor Doyle about doing that over the summer, but I would really um appreciate you taking an extra uh virtual meeting. And I'm not going to put you on the spot. I will read your answer off the air. Um but like it would be really helpful with how important this uh is for from a development perspective to just allow a

1:19:50 couple more check-ins with Haley over the summer. What other questions do we have? Um I guess just the last question any suggestions or feedbacks for the code and plan concept space that's the next phase. So again that includes a round of engagement. So we just kind of talked about the governance committee but if you guys had any suggestions I did mention the technical advisory committee is is a rather large group. I would be really interested to see the roster uh like that. I I think that you know that would be that would be helpful. Councor, something that I think often gets overlooked when we're doing any of these developments is what's the role of pedestrians and what's the role of bikes. I know we say that and we sometimes I'm concerned that we pay lip service to that. So all I'm asking is

1:20:35 just in whatever way possible, please make sure you always have the question of how is this building, how is this development making things just a little bit more walkable in Springfield. Thanks. That's councelor Roley. Thank you. Um, and I would second that. I appreciate that. Anything that's going to make it more accessible, biking, walking, people using mobility devices, any of that stuff. Um, I think, and because I got so excited about that, I started to forget what I was going to say. Um, oh, it was around the engagement piece. I think, um, I know it showed if I go back to that timeline, it kind of has engagement coming right up. And my suggestion, and it's just a suggestion and opinion, is to take a little time to get the

1:21:20 language as clear as possible um before going out there because sometimes it can be like depending on the questions we ask and the things we tell, things can get all spun up. And so it's just like getting really clear about what it is we want to share with folks and doing it in a really plain language way that's going to be really accessible. And making sure that we get a good mix, right? that we want to get ordinary folks that are living, people who maybe are small business owners and developers and just like not just lean on one groups is my suggestions for that. Okay, I think that's all the feedback that we have. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Uh I'm going to adjourn us um from the work session and then we are going to reconvene as soon as everybody can exit for the executive session.

0:07 Call the city council session. Mayor Gordon here. Councelor Weber >> here. >> Councelor >> here. Councelor Rodley >> here. >> Councelor Blackwell >> here. >> Councelor Doyle >> here. >> And councelor St >> here. Thank you. >> All right. We have two items even safety special operating levy with you. >> All right. Uh good evening mayor and council. So tonight I'm here looking for guidance for July 1st 26. Joining us tonight is DHF research to share survey they conducted in April of this year. Before

0:53 I turn it over to them, I wanted the background information. This loving first passed in 2002 at 36 cents per thous However, in 2015 due to circumstances I described in packet the council shows the lower rate 36 cents per by 2020 uh it was roughly 65 to 70% cost of uh in 2020 uh council asked for a rate that maintain that balance that's 38 cents per thousand.

1:40 So running parallel to this process was the mayor's fiscal sub that began meeting mid January and what became clear for the first few meetings was that there was a consensus that they like the levy that successfully renewed every year since 2002. uh and that those levy should be paid for full cost of services. Um because uh the work of the task force completed prior to us being uh we went forward with that compility

2:26 rate that test that rate with our community. We also tested alternatively 46% 46 and I'm going to let them share the difference going forward. I've scheduled a work session and regular session on 16. If coming out of this meeting tonight I have guidance. I'll be back in regular session on June 16th with uh after this evening you would like more information. Uh we'll be back at work session June 16th bringing back ball on June 30th in special session for tonight. We have enough time for the survey presentation and questions of the

3:11 survey as well as the discussion I think we're ready for it to be turned over. Right. Uh Tony. >> Hey, thank you. Okay. Can you all see the the survey on the screen?

3:58 We cannot. >> Okay, let me give let me try that one more time. >> Okay. How's that? >> We can see it. >> Okay. >> Sorry. All right. 12. It looks like we're still dealing with the camera. So, you are on. You can hear it. We can hear you. >> Terrific. And I will admit that my audio is I'm not hearing you extremely well. I'm probably hearing about 80% of what you're saying. And I'm hoping that you

4:46 can hear 100% of what I'm saying. Can I can I just get an affirmation from somebody that you can hear me? Well, >> can hear you clearly. >> Yes. >> Fantastic. >> So, um, thank you, uh, for allowing Anna and I to be here today. My name is Tony Oarino. I'm a senior research manager at DHM Research. I'm joined by Anna Feldman, research associate at DHM. DHM is a policyoriented public opinion research firm based in Portland. Uh we've been doing this kind of work for 40 plus years in the Pacific Northwest. The last time I had the honor

5:32 of presenting to Springfield City Council was in 2022 when we shared the results of our uh research on a potential police levy. We're fortunate to have this opportunity again uh and we're eager to share our results. So, the purpose of the survey was to assess the general mood of of voters in Springfield and identify the key issues that they're thinking about. Uh, gauge support for a potential fire levy in November 2025. Uh, understand why voters might support or oppose the levy. And finally, and if

6:18 we have time, we can go into this, uh, identify some of the more trusted sources when it comes to opinions about the levy. Now, in order to do this, we connected with 300 Springfield voters via a hybrid or mixed mode survey in which half of respondents received a phone call and spoke with a live interviewer and the other half uh received a text asking them to participate in a survey online. Whether people participated via a live interviewer or an online survey, the questions were entirely identical.

7:03 The survey was conducted in early to midappril and uh this was a representative survey, a representative sample. So in order to ensure that we set quotas uh in other words certain percentage of voters uh needed to be of a certain gender, age, political affiliation and ward. Um we also weighted the data by race and ethnicity, education level, home ownership. So, we have a representative sample of Now, this is something I'm going to explain a little more in detail later, but this is this was a representative sample of likely November 2025 voters.

7:48 That's a little bit different than Springfield voters as a whole, but I'll get into that uh in a sec. uh the margin of error for this survey with a sample size of 300 is plus or minus 5.7%. Now this is a breakdown of our sample of who we spoke with. Um again something to emphasize here. Uh this was not a representative sample of all Springfield voters but of likely November 2025 voters. Now, November 2025, as you know, would be a special election. And based on our understanding of past data and voter turnout, um we know that special

8:34 elections are a little different. Um the special elections tend to be more partisan, so there's fewer non-affiliated voters. Uh special elections tend to be more have more older voters. Um, so a lot fewer younger voters were in this sample and because they're older, they're more likely to be homeowners. Uh so far fewer renters than owners compared to the sort of actual adult voting population. But what you see here is an accurate representation uh of of the likely uh cohort of voters in November 2025.

9:30 So um DHM following Gallup uh which pioneered this uh has been asking a similar question for nearly 20 years and it goes like this. All things considered, would you say that um X in this case the city of Springfield um is headed in the right direction or are things off on the wrong track? And this allows us to track trends over time uh and to make comparisons in other cities as well. Uh as you can see uh since we last conducted the survey in 2022, the outlook is a bit more optimistic uh with 58% of the sample uh saying the city is headed in the right direction. Now, how

10:17 does this compare with what we've seen in other communities? Uh we've been seeing an upward trend in positivity in cities across Oregon. Um uh so this trend kind of matches that overall trend we're seeing in the Pacific Northwest. But also um comparatively speaking, you're doing pretty well. Um in the last few months, we've done polls in Portland, in Sandy, in Albany. Uh only 23% of voters think uh Portland is heading in the right direction. Uh 49% of Sandy voters and in nearby Albany only 33% say the city is

11:02 headed in the right direction. Why does all this matter? positivity about the direction of the city often correlates with support for ballot measure referrals that city leaders are presenting to voters. Uh so for example for this particular survey that we conducted voters with a positive outlook are far more likely to support rather than oppose the levy. So voters who think the city is heading in the right direction, 64% of them um support the levy, which is higher than the average.

11:51 Now we asked about how satisfied or dissatisfied voters were with various city services. Um and as you can see uh although satisfaction has declined slightly uh by about three points for um fire and rescue services between 2022 and 2025. Um satisfaction is still pretty high. I mean it doesn't get much higher than 9 and 10. Um and satisfaction with fire and rescue services is higher. uh than for any other service that we tested, whether it's police, library, or street maintenance. And we'll notice um

12:36 satisfaction levels with city street maintenance, perhaps something you're already aware of, um is down considerably in the last three years. So, that's certainly something on voters minds. I'm going to stop here. um because I just don't want I don't want to just throw a ton of information at you. Um are there any questions so far before we >> I have a question but I will open it up council but I do have comment. I read the city street maintenance number and the decline. My my uh hypothesis there

13:21 was that last year we passed the street bond and then nobody those projects aren't out there yet. So we surveyed it but people feel like they pass a street bond and they may haven't seen the projects built yet. They're in the pipeline and being defined. >> Does anybody have any questions about this? Um, is it difficult to sort of separate homeowners versus the renters and such because it seems like this is a an issue that's going to obviously affect property owners more than others even though those other folks vote. Um, I just seem like it would weigh a little heavier on that. And also the number 300 seems like kind of a small number when you consider 12 or 15,000 people might

14:07 be voting in a special election. So, is there a particular reason that it was 300 or that you chose 300? >> Yeah, let me let me get to the 300 first. Um, part of it is cost and part of it part of it is availability of of you know how it's how many people you can actually reach with your population size in a random sample survey. So, if we had an endless amount of time and we did a lot of marketing and you did optin surveys and you encourage people to vote, I mean to participate, you could get more than 300. Um, but it's hard to get more than 300

14:54 in a population your size doing a kind of scientific random sample survey. Um, without spending a lot. Um and then your second question has to do with uh second part of the question seemed to have to do was are there you know are is there is there any demographic data suggesting sort of different demographic subgroups having different levels of satisfaction. Um we can certainly do that analysis. Um, we don't have that

15:39 like on hand right now to share. >> Um, I wasn't asking about satisfaction. I was asking about targeting property owners versus renters. >> Oh, I see. Well, yes. So, >> reality is the property owners are the ones that are going to pay for this, not the renters. Even though the renters >> property owners would pay for it. So, according to our data, about 55% of your community are homeowners. Now, of the folks we spoke with, about 75% were homeowners. And that's because we were talking to

16:26 likely voters um again who are older, more likely to be homeowners, uh a higher level of education as well. So, um, the the results that we're sharing are very much representative of the >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. Okay. >> I don't see any more questions if you want to keep going. >> Okay. So now let's get into the levy test itself. Uh typically when we do ballot

17:12 measure tests like this, we like to begin with what's called a cold test or an initial test. In doing so, we offer no information whatsoever about the levy except the ballot title, uh which is often very legalistic sounding. And and we do this because for some voters that's all they'll see. that's all they'll pay attention to is a ballot title. And so when we provide this ballot title, again using the kind of legalistic language that is that is often required, um you've got about four and 10 support. So 42% of likely voters support the levy.

18:02 Um but as you can see after providing uh just a minimal am uh amount of additional information basically the kind of information you might find on a ballot summary uh including the fact that this is increase over the past levy that the increase is necessary to keep up with 15 years of inflation and to help maintain services. And finally, you know that the co would probably it would likely cost the average household about $100 a year for 5 years. You see what happens? Um voter support increases by 14 points to

18:47 56%. Now with that basic information you'll see that support for the levy increases among all groups uh all key groups regardless of income of age of party and of ward. All right. So, what are the main reasons voters support uh and oppose the levy? We provided voters with a set of potential reasons to support the levy. The language on the left is really in in

19:32 bold is just shorthand language for us for analytical purposes. Uh voters did not see that. what voters saw is the the more elaborate uh reasons uh on the right and they go from the fact that funds would uh even though Springfield and Eugene share the same fire department, the funds would go for to go to Springfield only. Um the fact that the levy would provide equal services for all residents, ensuring that all five stations stay open and that all neighborhoods, you know, enjoy equal access. That would provide protection against wildfires. That it's

20:17 necessary to keep up with inflation. That the cost um of about an average of $100 per household per year is a reasonable amount. And that it would be a way to avoid service cuts. So these are the reasons that we presented to see how they'd fared and you'll find that all reasons uh to support the levy uh were found to be compelling by voters. Uh but there's three that really stand out. those top three. Not simply because of the high percentage of those who overall thought them considered them to be very good or

21:02 somewhat good reasons to support the levy, but also uh the percentage of those who especially found them to be very good reasons to support the levy. Uh that's that darker teal color in those top three rows. So, the fact that it sort of um reassuring voters that the funds would be for Springfield only. Uh reassuring voters that uh it would mean all fire stations remain open at all times, providing equal services for all neighborhoods, and that it would provide protection against wildfires. All of these deeply deeply resonate um with

21:47 voters. the other arguments do or reasons do as well. They just uh not as much as the top. Now, we also presented a number of reasons why people might oppose the levy. Um everything from, you know, this is bad timing given recent inflation and how high housing costs. um that you know that we should be opposed to any property tax increase whatsoever. They're already too high. Um that renewal at the current rate uh is is fine. We don't need an increase. Um that

22:35 voters might not trust the city of Springfield to manage its property tax revenues wisely. And also finally that a reduction in those services is an acceptable tradeoff if it means paying less in the property taxes. Um now before discussing the top reasons to oppose just a little context or just a little reminder. Uh all almost all of the reasons to support the measure significantly outperform reasons to oppose. So, quickly just going back, you'll see that they range from 57% convincing to 80% convincing.

23:22 And then you go over here to the reasons to oppose and you're at 18% convincing to 58% convincing. with those top two reasons, you know, it's just bad timing giving the high inflation and high housing costs and um that were just opposed to any property tax increase tax property tax already too high, you know, with those being the most compelling reasons to oppose. So, what impact did hearing all of these reasons, both pro and con, have on overall support for the levy? So, in this final test, you'll see that

24:08 um overall support, you know, stayed flat at 56% after hearing those um messages pro and con. But what we do notice is that certainty of support and that's that dark blue um stack on the second column there increases about five points to 36%. So what does all this mean? I mean, our rule of thumb at DHM when we do this kind of research and we provide some consulting to our clients is to say that typically when doing a preliminary test

24:55 like this, ideally you want to be somewhere around 60% support when you're thinking about referring something to the ballot because it's always easier to move people to know than it is to yes. And so having that having something north of 50% is desirable because it serves as kind of a hedge against some potential erosion and support. Now you are just south of 60%. Um so keep that in mind. The second thing that we often point out is that when

25:42 thinking about your support numbers, you want about half of your support to be certain. Um, and in this case, um, at 36% you're well north of more than 50%. um more more than half of those far more than half of those who support the measure are certain of their support. So, uh, one might argue taking that information together is that council ought to be cautiously optimistic, um, that referring this ballot um, to

26:28 voters uh, would result again with some caveats um, because this is months from now, not in April, um, in support or passage for the measure. Now, finally, I'll say that we do know that there's been some discussion about the appropriate levy rate. So, we asked voters about that and we asked them, would you prefer a 53 cent rate to maintain services, which is what we've been testing, or a 46% rate with some decreased services or none of the above?

27:23 offered that choice between the proposed levy at 53 cents, a reduced cost levy with decreased services at 46 cents, um, or no levy at all. You'll see that a plurality or 50% choose the proposed levy. Um about a third of voters are just opposed to any uh any levy increase at all. Um but another way of reading this as well is that 50% plus 14% you've got 64% of voters who support some sort of

28:08 increase. um as opposed to no levy at all. Um now we can go into more detail uh about other things but um and there is a full report uh with more details uh than what we've provided here in our presentation. But we'd be happy to entertain any questions. Are there >> any questions? Um, I do have one question and I see you sitting at the back.

28:53 >> I'm going to ask it slowly so you can walk. >> Thank you. >> So, when I read the data, um, there was a big data swing in W three and war. you since you managed to reumber all the fire stations. If we think about this supporting a specific station, where is that station? >> The specific stations at 28th and Centennial station. >> So essentially right in the middle of those two boards. >> Okay. Um, so when we talk about this levy, is it covering any of the within the UGB but outside the city limit like Hayden Bridge and that sort of thing? Is that also covered within what this levy

29:41 dollars are going towards? >> Some of those contract districts have their own levies and specifically Rainbow Water District which I think is the >> and I can add I take when setting those budgets we take the full cost including that fifth station and charging that out to our for those. >> Thank you. Other questions question uh question uh I know this is there's so many numbers going around and there's there's so many parallel conversations to this um results of the mayor's task force was there a comment about which direction from that task force the fire

30:28 should be looking towards and I'm just trying to understand I can't remember exactly was it which particular a particular number that the task force had settled on. >> So, we um had already done our preliminary calculations that we thought it' be around 53 cents per thousand and uh the task force had a consensus and recommending that we do a full levy rate on that. I think that probably one easier items that they got. This is about the options. Option two at the 38 cents per thousand and option three at the 46 cents per thousand. Do those both equate to a reduction in

31:17 a little more complicated you know I think my say no we have this general years it's going to get more challenging to maintain the current services. So without some additional funding we are going to get choices. Anybody else? So Nate the ideal uh direction from us tonight is we got a work session coming up. If we can kind of give you guidance on our rate that would make that next work session a little bit smoother. uh if I have consensus and strong guidance and a rate we'll cancel that recession back

32:04 >> and it is fair to say you want more time if you have a sense of where the rate is going actually did I read the data right the way we should be talking thinking about this is that if we went with a higher rate it would pass but we probably need to have some sort of like outreach campaign is not going to necessarily pass on itself. >> Maybe audio. Can you hear me, Tony? >> Yo, yes. Um, I heard some of it. Um I is it fair to say that um you were suggesting that um to increase the likelihood of passage

32:51 uh some campaign would probably be necessary. Yeah, that that was my reading of it was that to that the way you surveyed definely have to have a public outreach campaign that is paired with this. >> Is that accurate? >> So, um again what we typically say is you know ideally you want about 60% support if you're going to refer something to the ballot. you're at 56. Um, so you're you're pretty close to 60, but you're not quite there. Um, it's easier to get people to know than

33:37 it is to yes. Um, there's often a little bit of erosion uh as you get closer to the election and people are concerned a little bit about their pocketbooks. So to the extent that um the let's say the political and civic leadership is united um and there is an active campaign as well to supplement that unity. uh that will go a long way to towards help uh ensuring like you know we can't make promises as

34:23 a pollster but significantly increasing the likelihood of passage and we als we also have some data as to who voters trust the most um who they want to hear from um the most on this particular measure and uh the Springfield fire chief uh residents who've received fire benefited from fire rescue and emergency medical services. Um you know those those are two uh individuals or bodies um that that voters really want to hear from when it comes to this particular measure. >> Thank you. So if we if people are comfortable um on

35:08 providing guidance on their rate that would probably be helpful at this point or or we can take over session reading it and where the discussion is bringing more than 53 cents but I think there discussion there. Um under normal circumstances I probably push only those keep at the the 38 cent rate. However, because of the structural imbalance and because of the work of the task force, I am comfortable of pushing the 53 cents. But that is my own uh position here. But that's just what I'm thinking now. >> Did we have a consult um do the same type of work when we were going out for the road?

35:56 >> We didn't. Did we? >> I wasn't involved in that. Jeff here said yes. So we did. >> Yeah. >> And I can read it with a consultant. >> No. >> So do we have similar numbers with that one? I mean, we doubled that and it was resoundingly I'm just curious about historically like people in Springfield seem to be very supportive of the services like fire and >> I can say in 2022 for police the survey tested at 58% support was formed and it >> yeah I'm comfortable >> I'm comfortable with makes sense as well. >> I'm see more headones.

36:42 >> All right, I think you got your direction. Okay, so I'm going to cancel the work session and I'm bring back for adoption session on June 16. Thank you. Thank you. Springfield. [Music] >> All right. Thanks, DHM. Thanks for the opportunity. >> Thank you. >> Good luck to you.

37:37 Good evening, Mayor Council. Um, tonight we're here to uh discuss the housing and design initiative code and plan update. It's the code audit review tonight and appointment of the governance committee. Um you'll hear from me briefly to introduce the project and then I have um our consultant Cascadia Partners who will take over kind of midway through and and really dive into depths about the project. >> Let me promote them while >> and Allison is promoting so just one sec. And actually I'll just I'll give a little bit of background on this while she's doing that. Um so last time I came to you uh was in March. Uh that was just to introduce the project. At that time it was called the housing related code of plan update. It's been rebranded to the housing and design initiative just

38:23 because we wanted to be a little bit more clear about what this project was about. Um so tonight like I said we'll go into the audit. It's a 20 to 25 minute presentation. Um there's quite a bit of depth about what are the required actions versus strategic recommendations that Cascadia partners will present on. Um and then we'll have times for a little bit of discussion and and hopefully the appointment of the governance committee.

39:19 Okay, so I just kind of went into that the project background and goals. Um, the second part will be the required options to Iowa state housing laws. So that's the legal compliance audit and the clear and objective standards. The third part of tonight's presentation will be the strategic recommendations to support housing. this these are not quite required but again we're we're trying to increase um production affordability and choice for housing. We'll look at the neighborhood refinement plan and again those um housing production barriers and we'll go into next steps and timeline. So again the project background and goals um the main part of the project is the statutory compliance review that is compliance with housing related statutes and state rules. Again you're seeing the

40:04 little arrow pointing to it. Those are the legally required um things that we have to do. And then the second part is the strategic recommendations. That's streamlining regulations to housing production, affordability, and choice. Again, we're going to be looking at neighborhood refinement plans and concepts to remove barriers to housing and commercial uh and mixed use areas. And real quick about the community engagement, um we took a community engagement plan to our planning commission. They approved that in March. um as well as technical advisory committee last week. Um so throughout the rest the remainder of the project there will be u that advisory committee the governance committee who we will hopefully appoint two people tonight from city council to sit on that governance committee that's on ad hoc

40:50 basis. They'll meet over the summer and then again when we finally get to the adoption phase we'll be seeing those planning commission. So how does this align with the climate friendly areas? the climate friendly area project focused on uh mainly three areas. Glenwood, Riverfront, downtown, and Bohawk. Um but in contrast, this project is uh again focus on those areas that are outside of the climate friendly areas. Um but again, we're we're working to meet those state requirements to support broader housing goals um related but separate in the mixeduse areas that are outside. Um, I'm going to turn it over to Cascading Partners and hopefully we'll stand back for any technical difficulties.

41:35 >> Thank you, Haley. And good evening, mayor and council. I'm Rachel Cotton. I'm a senior associate with Cascadia Partners and part of the consultant team working with the city um on this housing and design initiative project. I'm also joined tonight by my colleague Jamon Kimmel, who is the principal in charge um on this project. So, a little bit about um the code audit that we did in your packets. You received a memo that summarized um the results of this code audit. But as Haley mentioned, I think an important thing to keep in mind is um there is a required actions piece of our work and then sort of a strategic recommendations piece of our work. So,

42:20 I'm going to start with the required actions. Um we did an audit of the code to look at legal compliance. There are a number of housing related state statutes that essentially say um cities codes either must contain these things or can't contain these things simply put. And so we did an assessment of um how Springfield's code kind of aligns with those requirements. For the most part the majority of the code um is compliant. So we've offered here in this table a summary of what all the statutory requirements are and then the findings. In this case, these are all the um requirements that the code is in compliance with. There are a few where um it's not required to have these

43:05 things in your code. So we've flagged those as well. And on to the next slide. So there are a few areas um that we determined are partially compliant. um those are related to residential homes and facilities, manufactured home parks. Um and then separately we did an assessment for clear and objective standards for needed housing. So what this means is the code um likely needs some minor amendments to come into compliance with with the statutory requirements. Um, we've detailed here allowing residential homes um in districts where single dwelling units are allowed is is one of these requirements. Um, clarifying some

43:52 allowances for residential care facilities. Um, allowing prefabricated dwellings in manufactured home parks and um ensuring no minimum lot size greater than 1 acre for manufactured home parks. Um we're working with staff on these amendments that are required as part of these um statutory kind of compliance piece of the work. Um so we'll be um doing that as part of this project. But as mentioned, these are the things that are kind of the mustdos. Um and separately and I'll get into a little bit later in the presentation, we did an audit for clear and objective standards. So I'll explain what that means and then I'll also explain what our findings were. Next slide, please.

44:37 Um, we also found one specific statute that the code was not in compliance with. So, there are um state requirements to allow uh RVs to be used um for residential occupancy if they're connected to water, electricity, and and sewer. And so, in this case, um the code is out of compliance in this area. Um that that is in the case if they're within RV parks. And then also um to be used without utilities following a natural disaster um which is considered a temporary use. And there are some some timelines uh outlined in statute that um will just need to be adjusted to come into compliance with this requirement.

45:22 Next slide. Um and then there are a number of areas where um as mentioned it it's not that these things need to be in the code but um sometimes it is helpful. And so we've recommended um in this case if there is a newly de adopted development standard or standards um essentially that the code has changed after someone has submitted an application um they are allowed to opt into the new standards if they choose to do so. And um our recommendation is to include that in the code just so it's clear to an applicant that they have that option. Next slide. And so in addition to these statutory

46:08 requirements, there's also a requirement that there is a clear and objective pathway for housing development. And so what we mean when we say clear and objective is that um if two different people are looking at the code, they are able to come to the same conclusion. They're able to interpret it in the same way. So those are things that are clear and measurable and they will produce the same outcome even if different people are um reviewing an application as an example. There's no discretion involved. And so the state requires that there is a clear and objective pathway for housing. And we did an audit just to see if there are code sections that don't meet those requirements. Um and the

46:54 standards that we reviewed are design and development standards, overlay districts, um and then land use application approval criteria including partitions, subdivisions, and site review. Um and also want to clarify there must be a clear and objective pathway, but also there can be an alternative pathway that's discretionary. So as long as there is you know a clear path saying you must do this list of um you know measurable um interpretable by the same um measures things then there can also be a discretionary pathway. Next slide. And so what we found um the city has done a lot of work on its code um and

47:42 there are many recently amended sections of the development code that meet these state requirements for clear and objective housing standards. Um overall the mixeduse districts um need refinement. That was our finding. So Glennwood Riverfront um is one example and then other mixeduse districts um have what we call discretionary language and will need amendments to offer that clear and objective pathway. Um some of the overlay districts, so including WAMIC Greenway, Flood Plane, um and Hillside, um contain uh what is considered vague or subjective language. Um and we're just flagging that in those cases, these these areas may require additional technical studies or policy guidance to determine the best way to

48:29 replace or modify those existing regulations. Um and this presentation as mentioned is meant as a kind of companion um kind of highle overview to that memorandum included in your packet. So um that's really the best source of this information. Next slide. Um and so we looked chapter by chapter um for for anything that relates to housing development. And we looked um we found in chapter 4 there were certain phrases um included included here are some examples. So things like to the maximum extent practicable um substantial adverse impact things like that are not considered to be clear

49:14 and objective. And so we flagged a number of sections that would not be in compliance with this um requirement. And then also just noting that um we interpreted clear and objective to uh apply to standards for public facilities. Um some additional examples are just using words like adequate, minimum, necessary or safe and efficient without measurable um criteria is is not considered to be clear and objective. And again these are just examples. Um but it makes it difficult if you think about the intent of these rules. It's really to provide certainty for applicants um to know what they need to be doing in order to get approved applications. Next slide.

50:00 Um in addition, we looked in chapter 5 and uh found some unclear submitt requirements. So sections um requiring application materials um using open-ended phrasing like where applicable as needed may include and again these are not um clear and objective. So it's it's again the intent is to pro provide certainty to applicants um and then lacking some objective metrics for physical features. So you know again other examples significant clusters of trees or transportation issues are considered vague um without any defined thresholds or criteria.

50:46 Next slide. Um so this is where we transition to the strategic recommendations piece of our work. Um and again just to summarize those first two pieces of the code audit that is the legal compliance review, clear and objective review. Those are where we've identified and um will continue to work with staff on needed amendments um to be legally compliant. So to avoid legal challenges. Um these next uh sections of work are part of the strategic recommendations. So when we look at the um kind of framework for this project that Haley initially uh mentioned, we're looking to increase um options for housing availability, affordability, and

51:32 choice. And so and um we're really looking kind of to make some strategic recommendations related to those things. So, we reviewed um the refinement plans um and identified some potential barriers to housing production. Next slide. Um and some key themes emerged. Um I just want to emphasize that the plans themselves are guiding documents and the code is where you know the criteria for development come into play. So the plans are more kind of higher level um and and not intended to guide development directly. They're just sort of setting kind of the vision and the overall kind of priorities. So just want to make that clear. But some of the

52:17 key themes that we found in reviewing the plans are um with the lens of barriers to housing development some requirements for large minimum development areas. So very large parcel sizes. Um examples 10 acres for new residential development. Uh and these large uh requirements may discourage infill or smallcale housing. Um we also found that multiple plans require additional planning requirements. So things like development area plans or master plans before residential development can occur. And those kinds of requirements add complexity um delay and cost potentially particularly for smaller sites and for

53:04 um small level developers. So not you know think more of like a mom and pop rather than kind of a um larger developer who does uh larger scale projects. Next slide. There are also policies that favor downzoning or commercial zoning. Um, in some cases, plans recommended reszoning residential land to office or commercial uses or applying exclusively commercial zoning. Um, and again, we're thinking about the lens of this work is to um assess barriers to housing. So, these sorts of um recommendations could potentially reduce the supply of land available for housing. We also found in some cases unclear or potentially

53:49 restrictive language. So, some policies encourage setbacks or buffers beyond what is already required by the code. Um, and just to reiterate, these are not enforcable as development standards, but they could conflict with the city's housing production goals if interpreted too rigidly. And so, we just kind of wanted to call them out as part of this work. How do we um maintain consistency between the plans and the code and also the um desired goals to increase um those housing choices, affordability, and availability. Next slide. So, in addition to the plans, we looked um kind of widely at the commercial and

54:34 mixed use districts to see um how restrictive they were. um in terms of allowing a variety of housing types that align with market demand um but yet experience regulatory barriers in the code. Um so here you can see a number of uh residential development types everything if I'm going from the right side of the slide from a compact neighborhood development. So we might think of this as the middle housing types. Um main street neighborhood, modern apartment, main street mixed use and then um kind of the highest density example I think is the corridor mixeduse development. And this

55:20 connects to work that was done um earlier uh related to a market study for the climate friendly areas project. And so really just wanting to kind of be consistent as we think about the types of um higher density housing that the market is potentially um able to provide within Springfield. What do the regulatory barriers and the code um mean for the ability to produce that housing within what the market might allow? So that's kind of the framework that we were using for this. >> Next slide. >> Oh yes, go ahead. It's I'll just say along with Tony in the last presentation, it's hard to hear. So I will do my best, but if I don't totally

56:06 understand you, I may try to repeat the question. >> Okay. So when you did the climate friendly market analysis, were these the type of h uh housing products that were evaluated in the market analysis for the CEC areas? >> Yes. So if I and please correct me if I'm wrong, if I remember the market analysis correctly, they were the market analysis was saying that anything that's above about like seven stories isn't going to just don't have the market stability for that. Is that accurate? >> That is accurate. So you don't see that type of housing as part of this. >> So could you help me? when I read your

56:53 memo and went through these market times, some of these were at that higher density level and at those heights and I'm trying to reconcile these two um those two presentations. Some of these are at at those higher levels according to your memo. >> Um I'm just trying to make sure I understand when you're saying the memo, you're meaning the the actual memo, not the market study attachment. So not I think it's appendix D just to make sure I'm understanding when you say the memo that's kind of the first clarification. >> Oh we I when I referring to market study thinking about the C effect presentation

57:38 that we had from your group I mean maybe six months ago >> not okay because in the in the attachments it says those I was talking about those fire sites and I'm trying to reconcile these two things in my head because the market study for Cbec said we would never see these high right and those I don't know what you are seeing but the this slide is meant to represent not those higher heights. So, none of you know the I think it's uh it's a sixstory building is the highest one and we're not going above that. >> And I apologize, I didn't do the the

58:24 part of the market study part of the work. So, I'm doing my best to track everything, but if we have questions that we can't answer tonight, we're happy to refer those um to other staff who did that work directly. >> That that's okay. I'm remembering something that was six months ago. So, I could just be remembering an attachment one page 12 of 18. It said mixed use types and it's got it listed as six to seven stories. And then it has got that that higher density level. It's 120 to 175 units per acre which doesn't exist in the city of Springfield. I'm mainly asking about that based use type if it's supported in the market data that you showed us the last time. I guess the modern apartments got that same density level. I don't think those exist in the city at all.

59:11 >> Rachel, I think I can see clarify. Yeah. >> So, um the the key uh difference there in terms of um the cost of development uh it really steps up when you go from a um what would be considered usually a podium construction building. So that would be a um a woodframe, four to five four to six stories or four to five stories, excuse me, of wood frame on a um concrete podium. So that sort of construction type uh maxes out at about seven stories. If you um build anything higher than seven stories, then uh you're then needing to build that in a

59:58 um steel frame building, which is significantly more expensive. And so that's where that market study found that the the rents currently in Springfield do not support uh construction of the those steel frame buildings that are taller than seven stories. So um it is possible to build up to seven stories with a um podium building that's that's mostly woodframe construction which is significantly less expensive. So that's really where the cost impact comes in in terms of the density and units per acre. Um you can build at a relatively high density with only four, five or six stories tall. Um

1:00:43 and that's what some of these prototypes here are showing. So there may be a relatively high density um compared to what is built in the uh city today. those could pencil if the if the code was allowing for that level of density to be built um and many other market factors about um how parking is provided uh on the site if parking is provided. Um so I'd say the density is not a good number to use on to base as a um barometer of the cost of development. It's really the height where where the height um the construction costs rise the most. So I guess what you're seeing here is a a set of prototypes that are relatively high

1:01:28 density and units per acre but none of them exceed that um seven stories in height. Does that clarify? >> It helps. And I don't and I take my answer off the air because I think my in my head I should think both presentations is internally consistent. Is that correct? Sorry, it was a little bit hard to hear that again. >> Presentations, the market study we have for CPEC and what you're showing us today should be internally consistent. Is that correct? >> Yes, that was our intent. If there's something that is inconsistent about it. Um, I I would like to know that, but I believe the consistency here is really that you're looking at is relatively high density housing, uh, but not tall

1:02:17 buildings, right? Not going into towers necessarily, but it's a high density within that envelope of at the most up to six to seven stories. >> Could you go back and double check because I vaguely remember that like lot size became a was a big factor in that other presentation. And again, we don't have to get into it now. We just lack somebody to double check so we keep the keep the conversation as consistent as possible and we can keep going from here. >> Okay. Yes. And appreciate you pointing that out because as Jamon mentioned, our goal was to be consistent with that work to kind of build off the findings of that market analysis. Um, so I choose to think of this spectrum, right? the corridor mixed use is kind of the highest in terms of the height, not

1:03:02 necessarily the density like Jamon clarified, kind of the highest um possible kind of development prototype that we would we would think of and we're probably pushing what's possible today. We're we're pushing against that a little bit as an assumption. You know, we're future thinking in some of this work. So, we're really wanting to not um restrict things to what the market is today, but also be realistic within those assumptions if that's helpful. But we'll certainly double check that we are being consistent because that's what we're going for. Um, next slide. And so um in terms of what we did for this piece of the analysis, we looked at um different commercial and mixeduse

1:03:47 districts and then their supportiveness for the different types of development. Um in some cases there were certain districts here highlighted in green that um where the regulations and the development standards um were generally supportive of these building types. um yellow being mostly supportive and then red being not supportive, meaning there are significant barriers in use regulations and development standards that make it difficult to support these building types. Next slide. And so in terms of a little bit more detail on the findings kind of how do we turn that chart into meaningful information um some of the barriers

1:04:33 include prohibition on standalone residential. So many districts um require commercial uses to be part part of a housing development um including mandates for commercial dominance um or restricting residential uses to upper stories. These requirements can raise costs um and complexity particularly if there's low market demand for commercial space. So in in this case um commercial districts uh listed here have these type of requirements. Um additionally some districts we recognize the intent is primarily for commercial commercial uses. So, um, allowing standalone housing may be inconsistent with the intent of that district. Um, and

1:05:21 additionally, allowing standalone residential may reduce the city's needed supply of land for commercial development. Um so we just want to caveat that additional analysis may be needed um to remove barriers to housing but also ensure that there's a sufficient land supply available for commercial and employment uses. So we will be doing additional analysis as part of this work just kind of assessing um the adequacy you know kind of what do some of these potential changes what might they mean for that um kind of supply of commercial and employment um land. And then finally, um, fi findings were that in certain districts, um, height and lot coverage restrict, uh,

1:06:08 requirements restrict feasibility of multi-story or compact development. And so modifying those standards could make housing more feasible to build. Next slide. Um, and then b back to the market piece. Um, groundf flooror commercial requirements can limit housing feasibility. um it can increase costs and reduce project feasibility. So oftentimes um requiring ground floor commercial um means that you need to use podium construction which is more expensive than woodframe residential construction. Um and we took a look here on this chart uh in the red is um retail

1:06:54 lease rates in Springfield over roughly 20 years. So you can see they are um you know peaked uh there's been some some variation in the lease rates but overall they they there really hasn't been much variation. That red kind of stays between um you know 10 and uh at at highest a little over $14 a square foot for lease rates and vacancy fluctuates quite a bit. Um so the interpretation of this is you know lease rates aren't getting um you know the market is not uh so strong uh the residential market is not so strong. There's quite a bit of vacancy kind of persistently with some variations over certain years um over

1:07:40 the past 20 years. And so what that means um to us as a finding is that retail vacancy remains high. Um meaning that um being overly prescriptive about commercial requirements in some cases in some areas may be um unrealistic in terms of the market and also um uh me means that there's a barrier for housing development. Next slide. I'm gonna turn it back to Haley um to talk through the project schedule, but I just want to say we'll be on hand um after the schedule to answer any other questions that came up. >> Thank you, Rachel and Jam. So, uh on

1:08:25 your screen, the project timeline, um you can see where we're at. That's the gray dot right now, the end of May. It is the end of May. Um so, we're hoping to finalize this code audit based off feedback that we received tonight from council. Um then we'll move on to the code and plan concepts phase. This is actually where we're going to be reaching out to the community. You can see our first round of community engagement from July to August. Um we're going to be asking probably some questions, some surveys, handing out fact pages, creating posters and flyers and handouts, really getting the word out about what this project is about and asking for feedback. Uh last week I actually uh got approval from the planning commission for a technical advisory committee. It's one of the largest we've ever seen. 17 members were appointed to that technical advisory committee and they'll be advising me on

1:09:11 um what how they want to move forward some recommendations of policy changes uh for this project. I'll be meeting with them monthly uh till the end of the year. So about six times throughout the throughout the rest of this project and then um we'll be coming back to you with what we learn from those code and plan concepts this fall for the amendments phase. Again, that will be more of the actual drafting of the code and refinement plan, amendments, things like that. Uh there'll be a second round of community engagement from October to November. And then we're hoping by the end of this year, we'll have an adoption ready package that we will then take forward next year. Um so again, that's the end of the presentation, but I do have uh some questions to help with the discussion if necessary.

1:09:57 >> Uh councelor Rodley, >> I have some questions of my own first. Thank you very much. Um, I really appreciate this and I appreciate the really kind of digging in deeply to what barriers mean. I think of the time that I've been on how we have thought of barriers and how do we remove barriers um has been kind of surface level. I think like a lot of municipalities, right? We're like what are our codes and what are how do we make things easier. So I I really appreciate this and particularly have just been like sitting with the the challenges of the mixed juice, you know, because I think a lot of us think of mixed juice is the most possibilities, right? It's the opportunity to do the most we possibly can in there and to create the the kind of walkable vibrant communities that we

1:10:44 are all seeing that we need. And I really appreciated the data about the challenges of building those and what that looks like in terms of the the market. Um, one of the things and I don't know where to go with this, but one of the things I've been thinking about since reading it and then listening to it again is, you know, in the chamber. You're you went on mute so we are not >> you're back. Yes. Oops. Whoever is digging into this um to think about, you know, what really is the business future of Springfield, we tend to have more indust industry and more medical and things like that, which may or may not be compatible with

1:11:31 housing. So, um I think there's this opportunity to really think about what where where do we fit in business and is there a way to get to um removing those barriers so that maybe we do have those blocks of housing that don't necessarily have retail but maybe they have other things. Maybe they have child care. Maybe they have other things that are going to add to the mixed use and the vibrancy of the neighborhood without burdening the building up. So really no question just pontificating. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Councelor Blackwell, >> excuse me. Is there anything in the the defect mandates that stated the mixeduse commercial has to remain? I mean, because isn't part of the idea of that to have the walkable, you know, live and walk same area and and if that was

1:12:18 removed, wouldn't that kind of be contradictive to the whole idea of that? >> I'm going to have um Cascadia jump in about this one. guarantee that question was about the ground floor requirement for >> CES. >> Um uh no, there's nothing in the um climate fair friendly areas requirements uh under CFAC that um would conflict with um allowing for a you know standalone uh residential development that doesn't include any commercial uses. Um the uh CFA requirements um require the city to allow both residential and

1:13:03 commercial uses in in CFAs. Um they do allow for cities to require ground floor commercial uh if they so choose. Um, and so I think it's it's broadly consistent with the way that your mixed use zones uh require um ground floor commercial uses as part of a mixeduse development. Um, in some of those mixed use zones, not all of them. Um, and so there's nothing that really conflicts with that. I would say one of the things that's different about the way that the um the the climate friendly areas conceive of mixed use is more on a district scale in that there will be residential development as

1:13:50 well as commercial development all within that same district. And the the way that conflicts with in some cases uh the um mixeduse districts you have in Springfield is that many of those think of that mixeduse development should happen on a site scale that on every site there should be a mix of uses. Uh and that's sort of the intent of of some of the um mixeduse districts. Um so that's maybe a way to sort of understand the difference there. >> Yeah, that's good. Thank you. Other questions? Okay. Warren, what questions do you have that we should be answering?

1:14:38 >> For one and two, I just wanted to make sure that the council was clear about what were the required actions versus what were the strategic recommendations. So required was the state mandated stuff um and clear and objective and the strategic was these barriers that we talked about. >> Correct. Do we need to provide you feedback on the strategic portions or are we going to see them when they actually get written and sort of vetted out a little bit? >> We'll see them with the concepts. I don't really have clear right now, but I think the ground floor commercial was a great example of that. That's a policy decision that we um could discuss and work through as part of a strategic recommendation. Right. Jamon said that's not a requirement in the CFAC standards, but it is something that we have the discretion to choose whether we want to continue that policy or not. And that's been consistent feedback from the development community for for a very

1:15:24 long time. Um I would be interested in seeing options, right? Maybe maybe that's going to help us zoom out and think about it in a more district-wide scale versus sight to sight so that we can still have some of those commercial amenities available in the area, but maybe not on every every specific site. Go ahead, councelor Rodney. >> Thank you. Um, and I do, this is, this really is more of a question around the clear and objectable standards. I I think that was really interesting feedback, right? And as I think about what the process might look like in the next six months or so in terms of like getting clearer and more on that, I also have this sort of shared concern that it gets more restricted. Like some of the examples in there, excuse me, were like,

1:16:11 you know, you say plump a trees as opposed to. And I would hate it if we're like you have to have three to five trees and on a from here to here. I mean that feels like it's getting back to some of those restrictions we had before as opposed to opening it up as much as possible. And I absolutely understand that it can be a barrier if it seems really wiggly. So that's just a thing however we proceed whether it's with your whether it's your technical advisory committee or the government whatever to just weigh those to like how do we really keep it as flexible as possible but also >> give >> yeah if I could just comment on that I think you just you hit on a really important tension related to complying with those clear and objective standards is that there could be an unintended

1:16:57 consequence is that the code becomes more prescriptive than it is today and doesn't allow that flexibility. Um so it's something we've dealt with um in many other uh projects and um the the lens we try to bring to it is um how can we make this regulation more clear and objective um while not losing out on the ability for flexibility, right? And there's actually a way to thread that needle um with many kinds of standards where we maybe have for example a menu of options, right? And you must do at least three of these things and each of those things is clearly and objectively

1:17:42 defined. Um but you have options for three different things you can do, right? And so there there's ways to thread that needle, but I think it's it's a really important um tension point and something that um we may uh come back to um in a later later phase of this project to make sure uh we got that right of that balance of creating certainty in the code with clear and objective standards while not reverting to something that's um too narrow and prescriptive. Again and thank you for that comment and as a community I would tell you that we are not looking for a more prescriptive code and that we we value flexibility fairly highly to allow developers to figure out how to make things pencil. And I think the the other comment that I would make and then we can talk about

1:18:28 the governance committee is that as we're cleaning this up I'm looking for like the decision points that make it easier to develop in Springfield, right? like this commercial on the ground floor is an easier piece, but when we we sort start talking about specifically about well the we're adjusting the language and we're updating you know all the things right like at the end of the day we're looking to find more housing in the city of Springfield and that's what I'm looking for from the from the lens of this conversation and I think it's really important that as we make these updates that you know modernizing simplicity also usability, right, would be would be is really helpful here, right? Because as we add things to the

1:19:14 code, we don't want it more legal but harder to use. Does anybody else have any comments? Um, we did talk about having a governance committee to do a couple summer check-ins. I have not talked to councelor Blackwell and councelor Doyle about doing that over the summer, but I would really um appreciate you taking an extra uh virtual meeting. And I'm not going to put you on the spot. I will read your answer off the air. Um but like it would be really helpful with how important this uh is for from a development perspective to just allow a couple more check-ins with Haley over the summer. What other questions do we have? >> Um I guess just the last question. any suggestions or feedbacks for the code

1:20:00 and plan concept space. That's the next phase. So again, that includes a round of engagement. So we just kind of talked about the governance committee, but if you guys had any suggestions, I did mention the technical advisory committee is is a rather large group. >> I would be really interested to see the roster uh like that, I I think that, you know, that would be that would be helpful. counc >> something that I think often gets overlooked when we're doing any of these developments is what's the role of pedestrians and what's the role of bikes. I know we say that and we some but sometimes I'm concerned that we pay lip service to that. So all I'm asking is just in whatever way possible please make sure you always have the question of how is this building how is this development making things just a little bit more walkable in Springfield.

1:20:45 Thanks. That's councelor Roley. >> Thank you. Um, and I would second that. I appreciate that. Anything that's going to make it more accessible, biking, walking, people using mobility devices, any of that stuff. Um, I think, and because I got so excited about that, I started to forget what I was going to say. Um, oh, it was around the engagement piece. I think, um, I know it showed, if I go back to that timeline, it kind of has engagement coming right up. And my suggestion, and it's just a suggestion and opinion, is to take a little time to get the language as clear as possible um before going out there because sometimes it can be like depending on the questions we ask and the things we tell, things can get all spun up. And so it's just like getting

1:21:31 really clear about what it is we want to share with folks and doing it in a really plain language way that's going to be really accessible. And making sure that we get a good mix, right? that we want to get ordinary folks that are living, people who maybe are small business owners and developers and just like not just lean on one groups is my suggestions for that. >> Okay, I think that's all the feedback that we have. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. Uh I'm going to adjourn us um from the work session and then we are going to reconvene as soon as everybody can exit for the executive session.