Springfield City Council — March 2, 2026

0:03 Big challenge. Gavl. >> I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon >> here. >> Councelor Weber >> here. Councelor Mo >> here. >> Councelor Rodley >> here. >> Councelor Buck >> here. >> And councelor Stout >> here. Thank you. >> Did I Did we hear the recording start or do we just were we having too much fun? Okay. We have two work session items this evening. And the first one is gateway transportation planning with Emma Newman. And we have slides. Perfect. Good evening, mayor and counselors. I'm Emma

0:48 Newman, your transportation planning manager, and I'm here this evening to talk with you about gateway transportation planning. Um, so an overview of where we're headed. Assuming the clicker works perfect. Um, I'll cover first a highle history of planning in the gateway area and take this in chronological order. And then I'm seeking your input this evening on a few different options on things we could pursue from here forward. Um, I do want to note that there are there's a need for resources to pursue any of the options that we're looking at tonight. Those have not been identified. So going back in time, the first interchange at Interstate 5 and Belt Line was constructed in 1968.

1:33 Since then, significant land use changes in development have occurred. As development has occurred, the number of people traveling through the interchange has increased. In 1999, ODO constructed a safety improvement project that separated northbound off-ramp freeway traffic that eliminated one of the weaving movements that was causing issues at the time. However, deficiencies still existed which led to evaluating broader solutions. So, starting in about 1996 through the early 2000s, ODOT started a planning process to address geometric operational and safety deficiencies. This led to the 2003 revised environmental assessment. So, an EA, an environmental assessment, is a public

2:18 document that describes existing conditions, identifies potential effects of a project, and proposes me measures to minimize the negative significant effects that a project could entail. There were three different options that were evaluated to solve the transportation problems at I-5 beltline interchange as part of that EA process. And it also included the surrounding area. So that includes the gateway and belt line intersection. I will note that roundabouts and multile level flyover options were not analyzed in the EA process in the early 2000s. This EA then led to the interchange um area management plan. So an IMP is the short term for interchange area management plan. This is a typical plan

3:04 that you would have for interchange locations throughout um a freeway system. In the IMP for I5 and belt line, there are a couple phases. Phase one is the IF5 belt lane interchange and that project has been built. Phase two includes the gateway belt line couplet project. That project has not yet been built. There was a monitoring and implementation IGA with ODOT that was intended to trigger phase 2. However, the IG expired in by its terms in 2008. ODOT attempted to initiate monitoring in 2014 and the city declined. At that point in time, ODOT region staff and city staff informally agreed to work an alternative to phase 2 sometime in the

3:50 future. That has not occurred yet. Um, I do want to note that ODOT's interest in this area is to not allow traffic to back up onto I5. That could create some serious problems. So, given that the city needs to manage the congestion in the area on the local street system so that it does not inter interfere with Interstate 5. >> Could you have a cl could you clarify that in their interest? They would have the same interest if we had traffic backing up onto the belt line inter like on the belt line too. Correct. >> I imagine that would not be acceptable either. Yes. Correct. So, what is this couplet project? Up on the screen, you'll see a photo from the environmental assessment. And this is

4:37 the Gateway Beltline couplet project. Um, completing the project would require relocating multiple businesses including gas stations, a convenience store, and Hot Valley Brewery. You can see kind of where Cruiseway and Hutton Road that is the part of the couplet that is referenced in its name. So moving along in about 2011 the city of Springfield started developing our transportation system plan. Previously there were transportation plans but they were for the region not specific to just the city of Springfield. In 2014 the 2035 transportation system plan was adopted. Roadway project R50, as you'll see here on the screen, is included in our transportation system plan. The

5:22 description is as defined in the 2003 revised environmental assessment, including cruise hutton couplet gateway road improvements. At that point in time, it was estimated at $12 million, but that was back in 2014 and would likely cost significantly more in today's dollars to build the project. Development relies on R50. this project to address transportation system traffic needs in the gateway area. In addition to development relying on R50, there are three primary concerns from a traffic impact perspective. One, exceeding intersection capacity. Two, longer cues than the infrastructure is designed to accommodate. And three, increased crashes and higher than

6:08 average collision rates, which means lost lives and severely altered um lives. Springfield is already experiencing all three of these issues, but the magnitude is expected to increase as more and more trips are added to the system. The more the de development that goes in, the more that people are driving through that space, the bigger the problem gets. So, looking forward, we have a TSP update on the horizon. The climatefriendly and equitable communities rulemaking process updated the transportation planning rules which set the rules for how cities in Oregon plan for transportation. Uh cities in metropolitan areas such as Springfield need to complete a major update to our TSP. For our deadline, our adoption is

6:55 due by December 31st, 2029. A couple key there's a lot of requirements. There's a whole whole transportation planning rule here, but a couple of the key requirements that I'd like to highlight are two. One is vehicle miles traveled per capita reduction. So, we need to look at the entire transportation system and collectively with our plan look to either maintain or reduce the vehicle miles traveled. And then we will also need to have a financially constrained project list. So we'll go through a process to forecast what is the anticipated revenue to fund transportation projects and then we need to align our plan at least within the financially constrained project list to be realistic within the revenue available.

7:42 Um ODOT is bringing some money to the table to help with our major TSP update, but the city will need to provide a 10.27% cash match for that process. Uh for context, ODOT and the city are both facing transportation funding shortfalls. ODOT's ability and resources to support planning for public facilities on the state system in Springfield area is limited or may not be feasible um to the extent that we might desire in the near-term future. I have started conversations with ODOT staff to start queuing up this transportation system plan major update, but still awaiting some answers on the specifics of the scope of what can and cannot be included. Uh, I will say that ODOT shared earlier today that the dollars available to update the Springfield TSP do not include funds for

8:29 an IMP or amendments to the environmental assessment for gateway belt line. Um, if the city does want to pursue that route, additional resources are needed. And in today's dollars, I'm hearing that it's about like a million and a half or so or more for an interchange area management plan, just to give you a sense of scale. So, that is the TSP. I'll briefly cover a little bit of the land use in the area and then get into the options. So, UGB expansion, the urban growth boundary um to serve the employment needs for our community was expanded in 2016 for both North Gateway as shown on the screen there and South 28th areas. The UGB expansion was then acknowledged by the state in 2019.

9:15 This was expanded to meet the needs of the large sites needed for employment land needs. And as you'll note, employment does not add more um residents to our community. So planning for transportation for this area could add more trips, but is not adding to the per capita for that citywide calculation. We'll need to be looking at the transportation plans when the UGB was expanded um were not completed at the time and have not yet been completed. We do not have transportation plans to serve this area yet. Development of the lands in North Gateway will further impact the gateway belt line intersection that we were talking about a moment ago and the surrounding areas that must be used to access the North Gateway area. Addressing transportation issues is the

10:00 critical path to achieing achieving economic development in the North Gateway area. There is other planning that is needed but transportation is really the key um issue. So now we get into some options. So options to address congestion at gateway belt line as well as the safety issues. So option A would be to build the plan projects including R50 the couplet. Option B would be to change plans. So change the plan projects including R50 and or accept higher levels of congestion. There is a thing called an alternative mobility standard which essentially says we will accept more congestion at specific locations. that has been done for some other intersections within Springfield on the state system. Um, but that's just one of

10:47 the options available or it could be a combination of both. So, I just want to note that if we do change R50, it would also have business impacts and high cost. There is no perfect solution that is low cost and gets done today and solves all the problems. Um, additional funds would be needed to pursue and complete any of the options. And then addressing traffic congestion in this area at gateway belt line regardless of the north gateway u expansion area um kind of is an issue on its own but not addressing this issue makes it harder to figure out how to plan for the north gateway area. And then for options to incorporate north gateway planning into the tsp

11:32 um there's a couple different options. I can't promise that either one is necessarily going to work and be perfect, but I want to start thinking about ways that we could pursue this. So, the next major TSP update, which is required to be adopted by December 31st, 2029, must um comply with the new Oregon transportation planning rules. And they effectively those rules effectively prevent doing transportation system planning solely for North Gateway area prior to the next TSP update. So, the soonest option would be option one, which would be attempt to plan for North Gateway within our next major TSP update. Option two would be to defer the north gateway planning and adopt a refinement plan in the TSP. So we do have the

12:18 option to identify plans to do further planning in the TSP document, but the actual details of those plans would be done afterward. Pursuing either option for planning the transportation system to serve the North Gateway area will take years to complete. However, it would be helpful to get an indication from city council as to your preferred paths to pursue. Um in your packet attachment two is a memo from uh staff as well as an attached memo from KDson Associates from 2022 as well as the urban I also want to note that the urbanization element in the city of Springfield's comprehensive plan provides information on the planning work needed that that needs to be completed prior to development approval for the properties located in the urban

13:04 holdings areas which is that north gateway area right So, with that, I'll just say staff are seeking input on which options to pursue, recognizing that additional resources will be needed um for whichever paths are chosen. >> Questions or comments here? Councelor Rodley, >> thanks. I'll kick us off because I probably have some things messy things to say. So first I wanted a clarification when you talk about the overall reduction that's being demanded. Is that like overall the whole city? Is it per capita? Is it when they talk about reduction? What does that mean?

13:50 Because if we grow as a city, we're going to have more trips happening. So I'm like, how is that being measured? >> Yeah. So there is a transportation and land use model that will be updated as part of the TSP major update. And then we'll be plugging in information to that model and making sure that the planned projects overall are looking to reduce the vehicle miles traveled when calculated out per resident in Springfield. Okay, that's helpful. That makes sense. Um, and then I'm happy to let other people ask questions before I share my opinions about things. counc want to clarify a couple of things in there. So, it seems like we're talking about a

14:35 couple of different things here at the same time. One is the areas that um we share some ODOT jurisdiction with. So that wouldn't include all of Springfield, but that would include some of some of our major areas like, you know, obviously I5 that belt line that that impacts and then some other areas that um ODOT has some jurisdiction over. Is that correct? >> Yes. So the I I5 is definitely ODOT and then we're looking at the interplay between the ODOT own state system and the local system. >> Gotcha. Okay. But the mandate for reduction is still the system the overall system. >> Correct. Our TSP will be looking at all

15:22 of the infrastructure serving surface transportation within Springfield urban growth boundary. So all the jurisdictions. And so as as we're looking at that north gateway, knowing that there are other areas of Springfield that we're going to have to um take a look at as well as as development happens and considering like limited funding, we would be we would have to contribute 10% 10.27% of the cost of this project and ODOT picks up the rest. Is that with that stat? >> For the TSP update, we are required to provide 10.27% cash match. Yes. Okay. All right. I think that's the extent of my questions for now. I'll probably have more here in a minute, but

16:09 >> may I clarify one other thing? >> So that is for the TSP that is required. If City of Springfield wants to go above and beyond and add more planning work, then we would need to find additional resources. The ODOT is helping us comply with the state required transportation planning rule which does not include changes to the I5 interchange area management plan. >> Steve, did you want to get in? Oh, councelor Rodley. >> Oh, I can go back. Okay. Um, I was trying to There it is. I was like, where is the one? Because I went into the memo. Um, I think I actually just first of all, I really appreciate this work and I think this is a perfect time for

16:54 us to be talking about this. This is definitely in the last year or two has bubbled up and I know that I've had um when we've met with our state delegation, we've talked to them a lot about if we're going to keep putting stuff over there, we really have to talk about it. So, it's it's it's a good time for us to be talking about it. Sometimes these things come to us and it's like, please can we not talk about this? But there's been so much activity happening over there and potential activity happening over there particularly with um businesses and the medical profession and all of those things that we've really been thinking about what is that going to look like in terms of how is that impacting the traffic. So I think I am I I think that we're going to have to look at it. This is my opinion that I don't think we just go forward with what we decided to do before. So we do need

17:40 to look at it and change our plans. Um, and I I'm not really I and I think we have to put some time and energy into it as opposed to like kicking that can down the road where it's like we could change plans but we could just wait. Um, I think that the part where you put in there that we have to accept the congestion. I mean, there's already a bit of congestion in there, particularly when you get around all of that sort of retail area as you're coming down Gateway. Um my concern is around um I I think there's places where we can accept the congestion and however having it over by the hospital or if there's new things that go up in there, that's not a place where I think we should have congestion and we've already done a lot of infrastructure work there to make the traffic flow pretty well. So I think I'm leaning towards option B of changing

18:25 plans. Um, and then also I think option one maybe around the TSP update um, in terms of us kind of digging in and thinking about what that needs to really look for like and analyze the needs and all of that. So, I think that's where I'm landing and I'm looking forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say about this, but I don't think this is a like we sit on it or kick the can down the road. Council member, >> uh, I do agree that we we need to kind of make some decisions around how we solve for the the issues that are in that area for sure. Um, with increased building and all of those things, but how much I guess one question is how much support during the development process can we get for fixing um, some

19:11 of this uh, congestion issue? And it it might be helpful to have some sort of an idea what cost and staffing time looks like. I mean just not to the detail minute detail, but just generally kind of what we think that will take as far as time and cost. Um and then maybe in comparison to hiring a consultant to help us complete that planning work. I would like to see if one of my colleagues in development. Maybe Michael wants to speak to the development question. >> So, um, good evening counselors. I'm Michael Wler, uh, City of Springfield's transportation planning engineer. Um, as development comes in, we often review a

19:57 lot of their different applications. We don't have a specific reimbursement district set up for this area to um exact any funds or or get anything specific to supplement the funds for a study or for this project right now. Um that's an option for the future in terms of planning to to think about setting up a reimbursement district or something like that. Um for zone change applications um typically the t the TPR the state planning rules require us to do analysis to show that we are maintaining the mobility standards that are set in our TSP union by the state um as part of zoning applications. Although the TPR allows um for the city to give a finding

20:43 um stating that it is reasonably likely within the planning horizon that we will build that project. Um so when the new hospital came in um there was a zone change uh Haw building um proposed new zone change um per state law and um they're allowed to rely upon the couplet. So, as of right now, um development when it looks at it, it does the analysis and it shows that it's it's not meeting our um level of service standards and it has a higher than regular crash rate. But when you plug in for like a zone change application, when you plug in that um couplet project, it it provides the additional capacity that allows them to kind of continue with their development. Different development

21:29 applications are different. Um, an annexation is different than just a simple zone change. Um, and when we're doing um um a site plan review like for the hospital, we also have to remember to stay within proportionality. Um, for Nolan and Dolan, there's a nexus and proportionality for what we exact. So, as part of development, we haven't been exacting money from um businesses as they come in other than the typical um system development charges. Um and and so that's that's where we're at kind of with development as we move forward. >> Councelor Stout, >> thank you. I I really enjoy this question. I think it's so important for

22:15 the future community. Um I concur with councelor Rodley that um I like option B and or yeah option B towards changing plans and then option one on the TSP update. Um and I think the nuance that I would give to that is simply that I would love to see as we do look at changing plans what is the minimum level of changes we can make to achieve the necessary standards. Now I don't want to say that in a means of just paying lip service to the state. That's not what I mean by that at all. What I mean is that what is the least amount of money that we can spend, the least amount of changes that we can make so that in perhaps in an iterative fashion so that we can still achieve our goals but without making massive massive

23:01 huge changes. Um, the one thing you um you did say, Michael, just a second ago that was that did pick my ears up was a bit about the crash rates being higher than average. I think if we're looking at uh that I'm I am sensitive to increased crash rates, what what can we do? What's the smallest change around there? And I know that's a little bit off the topic of what we're really talking about, but I think that's just such an important component we're talking about. and even and about 10 times more if one of those was a pedestrian or bicycle crash. That so that's that's kind of whereas I'm I'm just trying to add some nuance to it. Yes, I do think we need to change directions on this. I do think we need to plan for North Gateway, look at what's possible, what kinds of developments are going to be welcomed there, but um with the with the minimum

23:48 amount of changes because people will adapt and we don't know how they're going to adapt there. We're a complex adaptive system. don't know what people are going to ultimately do and as long as we're also paying attention to the crash data that's that's I think really important to me. So thank you >> councelor Buck. So I want to clarify something because I I think that I agree with councelor Rodley. just want to make sure I understand it and and part of it where I'm coming from is um our office is on gateway loop so I deal with this daily and I can tell you that there's congestion on gateway like there just is and I don't know that there's going to be um like around the holidays

24:34 um businesses are altering their work schedules to like accommodate for that. So, we already are, you know, kind of recognizing and having to kind of manage that. If that were to increase in that area, I don't know what that's going to look like. And there's a lot going on um in terms of pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic, a lot of cars, and um depending on the time of day, getting in and out of the parking lots um kind of where from Chick-fil-A to where Five Guys and Panda Express are, that whole thing um that can be really challenging. So, if I'm understanding correctly, changing plans like like if we went

25:20 ahead with option A, we're just kind of looking at the couplet and we're just kind of looking at um doesn't really affect that area as much, but it also affects businesses and utilizes resources. So, by changing plans, we can look at what does a solution look like, not just for um that interchange, but kind of that whole area. So, how can we kind of keep things flowing? Because I know we have done a lot over there. There's just a lot of cars and there's a lot of people. And so, I I agree on on that part. Am I am I understanding that correctly? And then I think if we wrap this into a larger transportation plan, um I I like option one as well because I think that Northgateway is is a very

26:07 important part, but there's other aspects. There's other areas of Springfield I think we have to also look at as well as development's happening. And so I would hate to see us tie up tie up resources and not be able to do anything elsewhere. >> Thank you. Um, and I really appreciate the conversation too that's happening here from the deis and how we're digging into this to um, you know, there was something that councelor Stout said that got me to thinking about this. You know, because as I'm looking at this and we're talking about flow of traffic, I think there's such an opportunity if we're going to go back and look at this to see how do we get people out of their cars and make it more pedestrian and bike friendly. Um, I will say my son lives over there and

26:54 only uses bike and um, bus transportation, which is super handy because you've got the MX right there, but it's not always the safest. And when I hear about like we recently had like a crash with a bicycle or pedestrian. So, I think as we look at this and if we're going to go back into it, which I think it sounds like people are pretty much in alignment, maybe it's it's not just about the traffic flow, which we've already done a lot of infrastructure work, but maybe there's like some, you know, pedestrian bridge over gateway or there's some things we can do that would make it easier for people to get there, park, and move around a little bit more. And if there is some way that we could also I know you're ready to cut me off, but if there was some way that we could um kind of think about the the shopping and the the dining and that sort of

27:39 people moving around that way and separate it out a little bit from the anticipated medical transportation that's happening because where people are going to need to speed along and get to the places and you've also got a fair amount of residential that's tucked in there. And so I I know that's a lot to think about, but how do we make it so that maybe that neighborhood people who live there can walk over to the restaurants and it it just makes it safer for people to move around out of their cars might help to alleviate some of the congestion and I will shush. Thanks. >> I wasn't ready to cal you off. >> So I've got a question about the the I5 management sort of interchange management plan. How big is that? Is it just the gateway belt line intersection

28:25 or does that go further or is it impacting other areas? Does it go up on to you know towards Cobberg Road? >> So the AMP the interchange area management plan phase one is built that was the interchange work that was happening before. >> Phase two is the couplet project plus some of the closer in intersections but think gateway belt line plus maybe out another intersection each direction roughly. um the planning work that would be needed to do more planning for North Gateway and the the transportation system in the area. That's where you start expanding out. And in the KDson memo, there is a visual that you might find on page uh 12 of 13 that shows the potential impacted corridors. And so

29:11 that shows the different places and kind of how far out some of the impacts would be expected to go. So, how do we think about the work and development that the Eugene side has seen um that is up around that north game farm sort of area, right? Because a lot of that medical traffic and especially with the new SLO building like I think that's pushing traffic back down towards our site. Is that acc >> Yeah. So part of the TSP requirements are making sure that we're doing that interjurisdictional coordination piece because transportation is inherently about connecting people and it doesn't care where the line is for the jurisdiction. >> So if we think about that sort of one step forward and you know not the you

29:56 know um to think about sort of Eugene does does Eugene in those regional transportation conversations does development on the Eugene side sort of buy capacity on our side or vice versa? the model that is informing both the Springfield TSP and the Eugene TSP as well as the regional transportation plan which was recently adopted. It's looking at the whole metro area. So, it is taking into account the change of plans on either side of I5 >> and I'm listening to the conversation and it seems like you know we've got a lot of peripheral sort of issues or ideas that are around the gateway area which is fantastic. It's a super important district, but I'm when I listen to the presentation, you're really wanting us just to come back and kind of give direction specifically

30:41 around that one transportation question because it unlocks all these other conversations, right? >> We have more planning work to come. I will be in front of you with other transportation planning. So, yeah, just getting guidance on the options tonight gives us a sense of the direction that you'd like to go. >> So, I think you're hearing I think you're hearing very clearly that we're we're open to evaluating a different plan, right? like I think that is, you know, worthwhile work. Um I think that's uh I think that's valuable work as well. And I also think um with with this the challenges with state transportation funding, right? Like I think there is value into bringing this topic back when we start talking about our fall. Let's see. I can't believe we're talking about 2027, our 2027 legislative priorities

31:27 because the planning money that we need to complete this, you know, is going to require some advocacy and looking around for capacity at the at the state level. Um, so I hope that we bring this conversation back next time we meet as a legislative committee as well. Did we miss a question? I mean, I'm we're we're all halfway down planning all a gateway, so I want to make sure you're you leave with a you >> I have what I need. I think I may not have responded to councelor Weber's second question about kind of funding and uh staff capacity versus consultant. I would say that if we are looking to change the plans, then we are going to need to hire outside consultant support to do the technical work and some of what that involves. And as I said earlier, maybe one and a half plus is

32:13 what we're talking for an IMP these days. So that gives you a sense of magnitude. We do not have a cost estimate specific to, you know, what plans do you want? Do you want a multi-art process where we first started evaluating what does no build look like and how can we take the minimal but address enough kind of question. So, more to come, but that gives you a sense of what we're talking about >> before we really get down this road, right? We don't have extra transportation planners like lying around. we really are going to have to find money so that we can get the resources that we that we need to do to do the extra planning. >> Correct. And the TSP is mandated. So there's significant transportation planning work that will be happening in the coming years regardless of this specific piece. And I think more broadly

32:58 for us up here, this is the place that especially when we talk about MPC, when we talk about Lane Act, right, getting on the same page with our colleagues in other jurisdictions about how we talk about transportation funding becomes really, really important because we really do need to get to Salem and Washington as a united front to find, you know, find these dollars. >> Go ahead. >> I wanted to ask an additional question. I was thinking about what councelor Buck said about is is it there any sort of a coste effective way um I know we're just again you're trying to get us to rein it in and not be talking about all of this and the moon but is there a way to be thinking about if we're thinking about resourcing it are there other areas that we could pull into this as we think about it which is I think what you were

33:43 saying is like are there other key areas where we really need to pay attention to and could we put it into some sort of a package or think about it And and I think to that point, I'm wondering if by looking at it comprehensively, and I have no idea if this makes sense or not, so feel free to, you know, know, but I wonder if by packaging that and looking at more comprehensively in other areas that it would be more cost effective rather than peacemealing it out. I don't know that that's true, but I wonder. Yeah, I think there's some cost benefits. If you have a team that's already doing modeling and transportation planning work for our area, if we could bring resources to the table to add on, that could be beneficial. Um, there are some decisions

34:29 that I'm still trying to figure out the best way to deliver so that we can both meet state deadlines for things that have deadlines, but also pursue things of local interest to move the ball forward. Just one more thing really fast is um within this conversation, I think something I always come back to is that um I like to see when roads connecting distant places quickly and I like to see streets slowing people down to really build wealth in an area. I want I want to see certain areas where we want traffic fast and certain areas where we want traffic slow. What we don't want is another kind of hybrid strode where people it's too fast to be safe and it's too slow to be useful. And I'm sure that's part of your guys' conversations each and every day in transportation planning. But I just wanted to say from

35:15 here how important that is to me. So thank you for keeping that in mind. >> Council me I speak very short sentences but uh option one is attempt to plan for North Gateway. I don't think attempt is good enough. We need it's mandatory that we do that. So that's the direction. >> All right. Do you have any other places where you need more feedback or more you have more questions? I know this is going to be a long road. Um, pun intended to to get uh to get us there. So, we really appreciate it. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The other item this evening is to evaluate Ward 4 applications.

37:02 Uh good evening, mayor and council. I'm Mary Bridget Smith. I work as a city attorney and I'm here tonight to continue uh the discussion about filling the vacancy for uh Ward 4. So um this evening in your packet you have the applications for the people who have submitted applications to uh be the interim counselor. There are six applications um and the city manager's office has confirmed they all live in Ward 4 and our voters. Um the per we have plenty of time tonight to discuss next steps. You are scheduled for interviews on April 6th. Um and then we also put in the packet the interview questions from previous um council vacancies. and really looking for direction tonight if you need additional

37:48 information about the candidates and then how you'd like to structure and schedule the interviews and anything else you'd like to talk about for the process. And then I thought also it might be helpful to talk about voting a little bit particularly because you have a number of candidates and sometimes that's more complicated. So I'm willing to start or ready to start wherever you want to start. Uh, councelor Weber, >> I do have just one question I'd like to consider adding to the interview. >> Okay. >> Um, we've had counselor step down recently because of the work life balance. Um so I think we need to maybe be a little more clear in uh that it's not just Monday meetings for you know we need to

38:34 be more clear about what the uh the liaison component is there and and you know kind of how people feel about that that time >> time commit so time commitment for other committees in addition to just attending council meetings. >> Yeah. I just I think we need to be a little more transparent about that. Councelor Roley, >> I second that. I really appreciate councelor Rubber bringing that up because I think that's something that um folks come unprepared and we have lost some really great counselors because of the time commitment. So, I appreciate that. Um I am and I'm g I'm going to just say this in two pieces. I am in favor of interviewing all of these candidates and I will not be here on the day that you all

39:22 um >> but I will be watching to see how fantastic it is. Um one of the things I was thinking about with the questions and and I don't have a a specific thing but maybe as I sort of talk about it and you all jump in and say that sounds great or that sounds terrible. These are these are fairly general which I think is great and we have some very difficult challenges around say the budget that we are have to face and I know that we have some general questions about you know you're faced with a complex problem but it might be useful to think do we want to shape any questions specifically around some of the challenges that this person's going to have to help us solve on day one. So, I would say let's try to get through one of these topics at a time instead of

40:08 trying to boil all of them. So, if we can just get comments maybe on do we want to interview everybody and then we'll work through the questions. Councelor Buck. >> All right, I will stick to that question here. >> It's subtle following instructions this evening. >> Okay, I'll try it. >> Um, excuse me, Councelor Buck, before you um uh provide your input just for some context. Generally, the council does interview most of the candidates. I think one time in 2021 you had eight people and you did narrow down uh the list at that time but otherwise you generally do certainly though within your prerogative to handle it however you want. So recently, um, one of the things that we've really liked is that we've had applicants, right? Um, and it's not just

40:56 for for council positions. We've got committees and we've got all kinds of things that we want to encourage more people to pursue and consider. And I'll tell you, this is hard. like it it takes a lot to go ahead and decide I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to fill out the application. I'm going to go ahead and write the cover letter. I think we need to recognize that that's not an easy step to make. Um and the steps get harder from there. I think we need to I I feel strongly that it's it's important that every candidate that goes to the goes through the steps of giving us a complete application that we listen to what they have to say

41:43 and we we interview them. We give them that opportunity. >> Okay. Councelor Mo, >> they've taken the t they've taken the time to study and go through the application and I believe we should give each one of them time to talk to this. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? I think we're ending up with interview everybody. >> Okay. So, if um that's six Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Of >> the P of the folks in the packet, did we get complete applications on all of them? because, you know, I just wanted to make sure that everybody answered all the questions and everything was complete. Um, it appeared that might be the case, but I I just want to confirm that.

42:28 >> I believe that they were complete. Yes. >> Okay. So, I think we're saying interview everybody. >> Okay. So then if the choice is to interview everybody then you can look at the interview maybe um since you have a number of people uh to I mean certainly it could be an opportunity to look at it a little differently in terms of maybe less questions or questions that are structured a little differently so you might get different answers um more narrative answers or substantive answers in the interview or you can stick with the questions that you have knowing that um councelor Rodley will be gone usually what you've done is round robin each person asked so we can figure that out at the time. The questions in the packet were the same questions from uh the most previous vacancy for uh ward five and

43:13 certainly happy for any input you have on those um how you want to structure those. >> Do we need to guide you on time per person? Well, might be. We have schedule-wise, you have 40 minutes uh scheduled on April 6th for the interviews. And then since council Bradley is going to be absent, it would be most likely helpful to just do the interviews on that day and not slip into deliberation when you're missing somebody. But you do have 40 minutes at that time. Um, we might be able to see about April 13th if you wanted to try and that's a CEDA and a work session night potentially maybe 15 or 20 minutes on that night depending if you wanted to try and slip in there or

43:58 try and add additional night to April 6. It's a pretty April 6 has a lot going on. So, um, so let's do this. Um, can you make sure and write us a note when we start and remind us not to slip into deliberations without councelor Rodley here? I'm sure you will keep us on the uh you know going the right direction. Is it possible I feel I feel like we're not going to get this done in 10 minutes per person. Is it so if is it possible that we can we can get 15 minutes a person the sixth I would love to get it done in one sitting if we can so that we don't actually you know aren't carrying this thing over because we got to get it decided. >> Sure. So interview everybody on the 6th >> 15 minutes a person. 15 minutes a person >> and we'll have to keep it pretty tight. I know we're asking staff to just

44:43 manufacture time here which >> Alison won't look at me but yeah I think um go ahead push the discussion for the payroll tax because that's also on that same set. >> Yeah, we probably got to get that done too. Um okay so I Maybe we go to questions here and then we'll come we'll come back to this. >> Okay. >> Um but I think that I think the thing we want to try that I'm looking for head nods is does 15 minutes seem reasonable for everybody. Does anybody have a >> they've spoken a lot in their application. Now the questions that you're talking about are the ones that

45:28 you ask him during the interview. >> Correct. 15 minutes seems like good amount of time, but >> yeah, but that would cover us getting them up here and, you know, getting started. So, okay. Um, we'll we'll we'll work on the time piece and see if we can get it all we can fit it all in the sixth and give Allison a chance to look at it. Okay. So the questions >> one thing you could consider for the questions is having less of them >> but have them be maybe you know you could combine kind of what you're trying to get at with each of those questions and then people aren't asking like a there's not that chance that someone is um trying to respond to six questions. You know that can be a lot for people to do. So, looking at um

46:18 at the questions now as it stands, there's seven with the is there something you'd like to ask us? Um councelor Weber had talked about the time commitment. Uh also making sure and we can add um councilor Weber to that point. I can add information to the AIS on the six that kind of outlines a little more what the time commitment looks like and that information would be out ahead of time at least to give some context. I think that would help answer the question more quickly if that information was they were able to review it ahead of time. Okay. All right. >> So, are we obligated to it like an in like an employee interview to ask everybody exactly the same question? >> I think you're obligated to have a consistent process. Okay. >> So, what I would recommend is that the questions are the same for each candidate, but they're going to give you hopefully they're giving you some answers that you could spur with a

47:03 follow-up question and that could be different. So, just because you ask one con candidate a follow-up question, doesn't mean you have to be like, "Oh, now I have to ask the next person, >> but it's probably best if we give everybody the same general framework to start with." Okay. >> And often they're published in the packet anyway and then that gives people an opportunity to really look at that and decide how they want to look at it. >> That's still um may I propose to my fellow counselors that we strike question three only because this is not a elected position currently. >> It's councilors are elected by citywide rather than by ward. It's it I I mean just it could save us some time. That's all in terms of the >> three of the Yeah. Okay. Um are people okay striking three? >> Oh, yep. Go ahead. >> I'm totally okay with striking that and I will speak to the reason for it and

47:49 maybe there's a way to combine that with the the question six because I think what we're trying to get to is that folk because in some places folks are elected by ward. Um and so here the sort of understanding of you know who who the constituents are and how you represent them along with this understanding of what you know what the role of the council is what the role of city manager is that kind of thing. So but I am I am totally okay with striking it and is there a way that we get the same answer in another way. >> Go ahead councelor Buck. Yeah, >> I don't like the way count um question three is necessarily is worded um because it doesn't get it what I would feel kind of the important aspects of that general subject are. I mean,

48:35 >> right? >> And having gone through this process recently, um, I think it's really important that candidates understand like >> you really it's going to feel like you get appointed and you have to run for election 5 minutes later and it's going to be a whirlwind. there's a huge learning curve and with this much interest what that looks like and so um I'm interested to know there people's understanding of how that process works like you understand you'll be on the you'll have to try and get yourself onto the November ballot do you intend to do that um and and those kind of things because um that's that's all part of it because you get appointed it

49:21 you know we make a decision in April And then we have a budget process that you have to get up to speed. So it's going 0 to 310 in 5 seconds. And then you know we break for the summer and we come back and you have to be running a campaign. That's hard. That's really hard. And so I I want to make sure that people kind of understand what that looks like. and and so I I'm I'm fine with getting rid of coun with um councelor stout's suggestion of striking three, but I do think that that's an important piece. I don't know how I don't have any great ideas how we get to it, but I just want to put that out there. >> So, okay. So, we're saying combine three and six and some sort of combination question. Um

50:07 >> yeah, can I make a suggestion? >> Sure. So, I if I think part of what question three gets at is this idea that um you're elected citywide, but you represent a ward, right? And then then you're in this group of six people and a mayor and you're trying to make decisions that impact the whole city, but you're also responsible to your constituents, which I think four really sort of talks about in broader terms, right, collective decision-m and shared leadership. If it works for you, we could try and combine this concept, I think, three and four a little bit. Sure. >> In terms of combining that into one question about this idea about how do you work on a collective body when you're responsible to a certain group of people and a whole group of people as a whole. Um and then in terms of councelor

50:52 Buck's um uh comments about the fact that this particular vacancy um the way the timing is um is um can is something that people should be aware of. Uh we certainly will put information into the AIS um about reminding folks and also the community so they understand that oh yeah that's right this interim spot really holds this position for about a year and we're electing somebody new in November and um so people have that in their mind and that could be helping them when they're answering their question about being an interim counselor in their role there. So we'll definitely include that information. I'm not sure about asking a question about that because people um

51:38 you know they may not know I mean they I don't know what kind of answers you would get but we certainly could look at asking something about just your clarifying about time commitment and the time commitment of um this actual interim spot. >> So my my take is we shouldn't ask a question about it. >> Okay. I think if we put it in the AIS so that they know, but if we ask, right, we're going to weigh that to consider whether or not we we like whether or not we're appointing appointing folks. And I don't know what people want to do politically if that is something that we should necessarily consider. We've had that happen in the past where people have just had a desire to, you know, step in for a year until the election has happened. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> I agree with that. And being an interim

52:24 counselor gives that person time to, you know, experience the time commitment, the decision-m process, and all of the things that go with it. And I don't think it's, you know, I don't think we want to ask them in the moment that we're interviewing if that's something that they want to do in the future. I think they, you know, they deserve the time to to sort through that as they as they sit here for a little bit of time. >> Okay. So, I think do other folks have questions that they either want to change or maybe they don't like the question they're uh tiered to ask. Um, I do think getting a more specific policy question. >> Do you think that two could revising two maybe to get at what would be policy initiatives or policy things that you know we're more we're dealing with a general fund structural

53:10 imbalance and significant um budget concerns. What are some pol, you know, >> y >> you want to get out of there? >> Do we want to leave that as an open-ended question for them to drive it or do we want to give them three issues to comment on that we feel like we're facing? Oh, sorry, Council Rodley. >> I think open-end I think both. And um I like the idea of saying suggested as kind of I think and ultimately trying to get to um just making sure that people understand that they are going to show up and have to make hard decisions. I mean, that's really what I'm trying to get to is like right away I'm looking at looking at Keler Buck like right away you're like in the hot seat. Um, and so I'm okay with it being open-ended, but I like the idea of some suggestions. You know, you as you may know, we are facing

53:55 we're dealing with this, this, and this. And what you know? Yeah. >> Okay. Anybody else or other questions that you feel like we're missing? So, we added a policy question. we had, you know, we we thinned out some of the sort of, I guess, process questions. >> Go ahead, councelor. >> Um, just on the on this question of getting to specific um topics or or issues that we're facing, I'm looking at question number five, and I think it's kind of the same question just without like I think it could be combined. >> Okay. >> And maybe take, you know, take it down to one question that way. >> Five and two. >> Yeah. Okay. I think you're that makes

54:40 sense to me. >> Um, question one, the sort of what do you like best about Springfield and the get to know you question. >> I think it's a nice oral question. It's a, you know, it's a nice easy get everybody comfortable question. Councelor Buck, >> is there I'm curious. Um, it might be it might be interesting or or maybe not to kind of have a question in there or couple it with one of the other questions as to why um why you're applying for the position like what's what what's your interest that's drawing you to city council? Um maybe we don't want to ask that question. I don't know. Maybe it could be part of a warm-up question. I'm not really sure. Um, but you know, I wonder

55:28 if we want to ask them like what is your motivation here? >> Okay, >> it's just confirming. I just want to look at the application real quick. >> Yeah. >> Why do you want to be an interim is the application? >> Have that as one of the questions we ask folks. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Do you have anything else you want to add? >> Some of these questions are being >> Okay. Other questions about questions? >> Can I recap what I think I'm hearing? >> So, um it will be important in this uh AIS for the candidates in the community to add additional information about time commitment outside of just regular council meetings which particularly for

56:14 this person will include the budget process which will kick off pretty soon after they start and then other obligations for committees. And then also a reminder that this interim counselor position actually is relatively short. It's um less than a year and then there'll be an election to fill the second half of that term. Uh that will be in November which is something a little bit different so the public is aware of that. And then in terms of question councelor Buck did you okay >> just curious because if we're looking at questions that are in the in the application I think think is great. Uh question four is I mean it says right here. City council is elected to represent specific wards but their decisions affect the entire city. That's essentially what we're asking in four. >> Yeah. Okay.

56:59 >> So then um that's a good point. So then leading to the questions would be starting with the kind of a get to know you question. What do you like best about Springfield and why? And then two um which is now a general is there something you would want to change but changing that to be more of a policy focused question having a lead into that question about the circumstances and the choices that counselors are facing now. Um so combining a two and five into a more policy focused and then three um is one um that will get combined with um the relationship with six in terms of like a structure of

57:44 how council works and how a counselor works. And then um how about five would stay when you're faced with a complex problem or solutions. Do you want to keep five the way it is to get an idea of people's thinking or um can I jump in on that one? Um I was really perssprayed by councelor uh Rodley's and I forget somebody else said um uh the financial aspect is I think really important. So much of what we have to do is looking at what the limited resources. So I would want to give some color to that. Yes, there's a whole bunch of different aspects to a problem, but especially if there is a financial one, I'm open to my colleagues

58:30 suggestions um just for a little color. >> I I think five is fine >> unless you want to if you want to add because >> add something about finances or produce or money or funding >> maybe maybe an example. >> Okay, >> right where to think about the complex problems we're talking about. Right? Because really just having them talk about how they process information is going to is going to help. >> Right? So that would be four questions and then do you have any questions of us

59:16 which could help in terms of timing not having kind of a long list of questions for folks to answer. >> Does that work? >> Go ahead. >> Do we have time between now and then to see how these questions are reconfigured and and make sure that we are comfortable with the way we're asking them. Uh yeah, let me think about um how to do that. So the questions are um I think what we could do if you're give me the um okay to do this. Um I would we would reddraft the questions based on the direction that you have. We'll put them in the obviously they will be in the packet on April 6th. Time is kind of an issue on April 6th. So we don't want

1:00:02 to be spending lots of time like going over the questions again. Um, but if uh the council is comfortable with me reddrafting them, what I want to avoid is having some outside of meeting deliberation about what all the questions are. Um, and so you could probably what would be best is that you let me get that into the packet um on the sixth and then let me know at the if that um if those questions are appropriate and that way if they work otherwise we might have to try and you know you'd have to either have some kind of meeting or you could just delegate to staff to draft the questions um as per what you're talking about today.

1:00:51 >> Sorry. >> No, it's it's this time of year. We're running at a lot of different things at the same time. Um I think I'm fine with you putting them in the packet and then if we if we need to stop and modify, you know, we can stop and modify on the sixth. >> Okay. >> So, we're interviewing everyone. We're aiming for the sixth to have um everyone interviewed on the sixth. >> Um and we'll revise the questions to have a less number of questions. We will tell candidates I think ahead of time that time is um an issue on the sixth. Not that we're not wanting to hear people's input, but that um there's just, you know, trying to get through them all so they're aware. Um and they'll be published in the packet. So

1:01:37 that'll give them the opportunity to prepare for their um answers, which is always helpful, I think. So, I think we got the questions. Does that work? >> Yes. I think we're ready to do voting. >> Yes. Okay. So, if you are um I wanted to talk a little bit tonight about voting just to be thinking about um that because you have multiple candidates. It's always less um complicated when you just have a handful of people. So, there are a couple things you can do. You don't necessarily have to make this decision tonight, but I will ask you to arrive at a voting process before you actually really start deliberating because you don't want to be in the middle of a good conversation about deliberating and then try and back out and talk about voting. Um, there are a couple things you could do. you could keep all six people in the

1:02:24 pool, so to speak, and then we could just keep asking, you know, we would start on uh, you know, on the left side or with board one and be like, "Okay, who's your person?" And until you get to um a consensus in this uh situation, the uh charter says that um filling a vacancy is by a majority of the council. There are six people on the council. So I interpret that to mean you need four votes to fill the vacancy. So you could go by and say one person, one person until you get to and that's a lot of repetitive voting. Another option could be that you do a straw man ballot essentially where um you could put forward like you know three names and does everyone agree that these three names and then we deliberate on the

1:03:10 three names or the four names or whatever you decide to do and then you deliberate on that that set those folks. Um you could even go further to one or two depending oftentimes what you'll see I think is uh and what happened in the um election or in the appointment of ward one which is one where you had multiple people um that they got to cons they did they went person by person they got to consensus pretty quickly and they didn't have to do a straw man. So, one thing we could do is we start um we say the process will be we'll each see where we where each counselor is and then if you're not um if it looks like there's no consensus on one or two candidates that you want to move forward for further deliberation then you could try

1:03:56 and do a more formal straw man vote on um on a proposal for certain people. So, so if if we if we took it in steps, if we just took kind of a everybody do a temperature check and if somebody could get to four, we wouldn't have to do a straw man. >> And if we're all kind of have all lots of different opinions, then then we could kind of back then we could back out to a straw man as a way to eliminate the field and sort of kind of push us forward. >> Yeah. And just narrow the option down a little bit. Yes. >> Okay. And then we can use that kind of as an iterative process to work our way to a point where we're down to one or two people. >> Correct. >> Okay. Other questions? Councelor Buck. >> So I I wanted to clarify a couple of

1:04:42 things. So we'll do the interviews without councelor Rodley um here, but you'll be watching. Um but we'll we do deliberations that night as well. We're pushing that to when she's back with us. >> Push that to the 20th. >> To the 20th. Okay. And do we have time on the 20th to kind of go through this process? >> You have 20 minutes slated on the 20th and um on that time and I think um there's you know if it goes longer then it it takes the time it takes. You're having a good discussion. >> Got to get it done the 20th, right? because we need to get this person in place that by by the time the budget's happening. So, if we're going to start

1:05:28 probably start with this and if we get it done, we get it done. If we get wrapped around the axle, we'll just have to work it out. >> And by then, you'll have more information, right? You will have had, you know, you've had longer with the applications, you've had the interviews, you'll have more time, I think, to um let sink in what you're what you're thinking. >> Yeah. And this I feel like is a trust the process. By the time we have questions, right, and we start meeting candidates and doing all the things, it's going to we'll get through it in a reasonable amount of time. Other questions about voting. Okay. So, do we have to agree just us telling you telling you that we want to do you know one one initial vote and then a straw man and then another

1:06:15 straw man if we're still stuck. Is that enough on voting? I think that's enough for this. I'll put that into the information on the um next AIS so you can see that in writing. I'll do a process check check with you before we get going and you'll be like, "Yeah, that's what we want to do." Oh, I I want to do something else. >> And the magic number here is four. >> Magic number is four. >> Okay. >> Uh I have one last item. Uh and I'm just trying to recall. Um the council has the applications and you asked for an application on your form with a cover letter, I believe. And then I think it probably would be expected and we've received already sort of I think unsolicited letters of support for certain people and we're and I I would recommend we just send those to you like we would any other feedback that you get about any other issue that is before you

1:07:02 just like any other constituent but those are outside of the process and the packet in terms of what you had requested to evaluate candidates. Does that make sense? Okay. So, what should what I'm already starting to get letters from folks. >> Sure. >> Um, so what should our process be to make sure everybody's got the same content, >> right? >> Right. Yeah. So, it sounds like someone may be coming in through the, you know, public records portion CMO email address. And so, typically often that just gets sent out to everybody to say, "Hey, by the way, mayor and counsel, this came in for you today." because I think often on the website people see that email and they think, "Oh, this will get to everybody instead of sending a separate email." Um, so it would be my

1:07:47 recommendation we continue to do that. If you have um specific letters that you receive or emails or communication, you could send those to the city manager's office and they could distribute them that way. >> I I think that's probably the best plan because that allows everybody to kind of the CMO's office to kind of control the flow of information to make sure everybody gets otherwise it's just going to be a little bit chaotic. Yeah. >> Right. >> And that's that is happening. We are getting direct emails um in some cases calls about a particular candidate. So I like that that we have a place that we can direct that back to so that it is streamlined cuz my concern is that if constituents, you know, feel comfortable with, you know, me or councelor Weber or councelor

1:08:33 Mo, they're just going to reach out to them and give them their feedback. But but that kind of unbalances that process and and just like just like a lot of the things that we do, if we can kind of redirect those back to the city manager's office so that they that's all kind of streamlined and everybody has the same information. Um I think that's best. >> Okay. And then um and also it's always important um and I should have said this earlier, this is a public process done in public meetings. And so that way all that stuff routes back, you know, that'll either be included in the packet or it'll be sent to all of you to be considered. That way there's not a situation where um you know feedback's only getting to one or two counselors or something like that. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> I love that. I love that we're talking

1:09:18 about that. And I hope if anybody folks are watching um to weigh in because you know this is a it's a very different process than when you run for office and you're out there asking folks for the votes. Um, so I think that it gives people an opportunity to know that it's totally permissible. Yeah. To reach out and, you know, send us a letter or what I will I also have had phone calls from folks. Um, and I appreciate that kind of engagement and so it's it's totally within the rules. So please folks reach out. >> So that's helpful. So folks are encouraged to reach out. If uh we receive something to uh the CMO email, it will go out to all counselors to make sure everybody has it and or we'll get it into the packet and then if individual counselors receive something, they can route that back um to the city

1:10:04 manager's office to make sure everyone gets it. So, we're all dealing off the same set of facts or same information. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. Do you have anything else? >> Let me just look really quick to make sure my list here Uh, I think that's it. >> All right. Okay. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> We are adjourned. We will meet back here at 7:00 for the regular session.

1:10:49 I'm going to call the regular session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon >> here. Councelor Weber >> here. >> Councelor Mo >> here. >> Councelor Rodley >> here. >> Councelor Buck present. And councelor Stout >> here. Thank you. >> Please join me for the pledge of allegiance. >> To the flag of the United States of America. and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> There is one designated time for public testimony this evening under business from the audience. If you are attending in person, please complete the request to speak card located at the front of the council chambers and turn them into

1:11:34 the city recorder. If you're joining us online with a tablet, smartphone or computer and wish to speak during business from the audience, please use your raised hand feature in Zoom, the order of public testimony is as follows. Anyone in person in the council chambers and then anyone who has raised their virtual hand. First item, please. Mayor, the first item is the consent calendar. I'm sorry. The first item is Springfield upy. Item number one is the 2026 Women in Construction Week proclamation. Mayor, this is your item. All right, I've got the proclamation and we'll have you up to take a quick picture. Whereas the National Association of Women in Construction was founded by 16

1:12:20 women working in the construction industry in 1953 and was established in 1955 in Fort Worth, Texas. And whereas the work done by NOWIC chapter 77 has benefited the state through community development and educational programs. Whereas the Eugene and Springfield chapter has unceasingly promoted the employment and advancement uh of women in the construction industry. And whereas the construction community is represented by uh NAWIC chapter 77 has been a driving force in fostering community development through uh through renovation and beautifification projects, promotion of skilled trade careers and positive and a positive vision of the future. I, Sean Van Gordon, the mayor of Springfield, do

1:13:05 hereby recognize uh Nawick's chapter 77 and as many dedicated volunteers who work on behalf of behalf and support women in construction and proclaim March 1st through 7th, 2026 as Women in Construction Week.

1:14:41 right. Next item, please. >> The next item is the consent calendar. >> I move approval of the consent calendar with resolution 3A removed. >> Second. >> M. Could call a vote, please? >> Yes. Councelor Weber. >> Yes. >> Councelor Mo. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bradley? >> Yes. Councelor Buck. >> Yes. >> And councelor Stout. Yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Five yeses, zero nos. Next item, please. >> I think you got a call from me. >> You call for items removed from consent is the next item on the agenda. >> Okay. So, Corey, >> thank you. I I am the one who asked to pull this really just because I wanted to speak to this project. Um, I think it is an exciting project. I know we're

1:15:28 talking about restrooms here. Um, but I have been on council long enough to remember the process for this and this I think was a great use of one-time funding. Um I think it creates creating accessibility for restrooms and just like full disclosure um for 20 years I have been working on whether it's in the school district or in other um public buildings on creating accessible and single stall restrooms and it it makes it safer for families. It makes it safer for kiddos. It makes it safer for our trans neighbors. And I just am so happy that we did this project here at the for our library and it's beautiful. If you haven't used these restrooms, I've heard feedback from many of folk and seen them push strollers in and the whole thing.

1:16:14 So, I just wanted to to say how great and how happy I am that we did this project with this funding and now we can vote on it. >> Thank you, Council Weber. >> They are very very well done. Um, I move approval of resolution 3A pulled from the consent calendar. I will second Could you call a vote? >> Yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes. >> Councelor Mo, >> yes. >> Councelor Rodley, >> yes. >> Councelor Buck, >> yes. >> And councelor Stout, >> yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Five yeses, zero nos. Next item, please. >> Next item is business from the audience. >> I do not have any cards. Do you have any hands, Neil? >> No hands for this item. >> All right, then. Next item, please. >> Any uh business from the city council?

1:16:59 Councelor Buck. >> Yeah. Um, so in spirit of talking about transportation um, and our TS tsp earlier, um, I'd just like to put I just like to kind of put out there that, you know, when you're looking at, um, the the the boundary or it affects both councelor stats and my ward is is that Bob Straw area. And the issue um that I'd like to kind of put out there is kind of creating that vision like where do we see what do we see that long-term vision for Bob Stra right now it's a county highway um we're we have development going south either wave and in that 300 acre area there could be 1,00 to500

1:17:44 homes we already are seeing traffic we're already seeing crashes and so we can't plan for it if we don't know what we want it to be right So, um I just I just kind of want to move um move us in the direction of figuring out is that something that we want to reshape the vision of and how do we engage with the county on that if we want to leave that the county um engaging with the county on like what are you going to do with this? And so I think I just want to make sure the question is out there and we're exploring it. I know that council leadership has um kicked it around a little bit, but I'd love to have an idea as to where we're going once we get to that transportation planning because in 5 to 10 years when we have another thousand home homes out there, it'll it'll be a much bigger issue. So, um

1:18:32 kind of creating the vision and where we going with that is is an issue. I'm hoping that we can kind of figure out where we're going. All right, that's a complicated question since it's not our road. Um, I think I think I'm going to give you one one thing that you could do and frankly anybody that uh is um that is listening. Um I would raise a concern with with our county commissioner um about you know Bob Shro and the safety especially around Daisy. I believe that Daisy is a pretty high impact intersection right now. Um, and then maybe Nancy, you can help us with with two things is maybe get some additional give us some more

1:19:17 detail about like what we're actually seing seeing from uh the safety perspective on you know Bob Stro and Daisy. I don't know who's got that crash data if it's us or the county, but just getting a little bit more information would be helpful. And then I think I would be open to you know you guiding us on how we raise this issue with the county. If you want to do it at a staff level, that's fine. or if you want us to sign a letter uh to our our colleagues at the county commission saying, "Hey, we'd love to talk about this." That would be fine, too. >> I think councelor Buck has additional comments. >> Yeah. >> And you know, it is it is a complicated issue and when I have brought it up to county commissioners, they're more than happy to say, "Oh, I think we should just hand that over to the city, but they don't want to give us any resources to manage their road." And so it's it's

1:20:05 not a there's there's no easy answer here, but um I appreciate you taking into consideration. >> I'll I'll uh before I let Nancy dive in, next time they say that to you, just tell them if they bring it up to urban standards, then we'll take it from them. >> Go ahead. >> Speaking from my prior county experience, if a county offers to give you a road, it's never a good road. I'll just file that away for future consideration. Um I we can do some uh looking into some of the crash data in that area. I think that's kind of there's a multitude of like you said like the mayor mentioned there's a multitude of issues here and maybe an easier way to approach this would be to start with that and also look at if there are some context that our

1:20:51 transportation um and land use staff would have and maybe put that into a briefing memorandum for council to review and then we can look at next steps. >> Yeah, that that that would be great. And if um it's it's really hard when it's not our intersection to to talk about, but if it I think I've heard it might be our most dangerous intersection like in the urban area for on our side. So it would be helpful if the staff could weigh in on that because if it's our most dangerous intersection, that'd be something we'd want to know. >> Absolutely. We will look into that. Did councelor Scott have >> ju just one tiny thing which is also I would love to know like what is buildable and non-buildable in that general area that councelor buck's referring to for the growth and again

1:21:36 I'll reiterate what I said earlier which is if it's a pedestrian or a bike crash I am 10 times more interested in it than even just the vehicle crashes which are extremely important but that that's all. Thank you. >> Okay, I think we're good. Thank you Nancy. >> Thank you. Next item, please. >> Next item is business from the city manager. Item number one is the 42nd Street IP to Marcola Road acceptance. Stan Petro is here for this item. Good evening, mayor, counselor. Stan Petro, city engineer here. Um, I'll give you a little background on the project. Um HB House Bill 217 allocated $12 million or so in a jurisdictional transfer where ODOT gave O uh 258 over

1:22:25 to us. Um as we were mentioning they need to add money when we have jurisdictional transfer so we can bring the streets up to standards. Um these projects take a long time because there's an amp like uh Emma was mentioning earlier at all the interchanges. That's a long process. Also, the levy, um, we were kind of waiting to see what was going to go on with the levy because we didn't want to do a $12 million project and then have the levy come along and cause us to have to change the road. Um, and meanwhile, the pavement was getting really bad out there. So, we basically came in and dug out full depth in some spots where the pavement was really bad, replaced subgrade, put all the pavement back, replaced the striping, replaced all the signs, and then legally we had to upgrade the ADA ramp. So, we did some ADA improvements, and project's all done now, and it looks good. uh cost us about two million I think. So we have about 10 million left over and we're just kind of

1:23:10 waiting for the levy project to progress a little further before we'd move that project forward. >> Yeah, it looks outstanding and um I will tell you a brief story when when it got done when I walked into uh when I walked into Rotary one day, a business owner down 42nd Street came in and gave me a hug and said it said that it was a life-changing level of infrastructure. >> Yeah, it was pretty bad out there. >> Yeah. And it's and if we if when we first start start started talking about uh bonding for roads, this was one of the places the council at the time made a commitment to get repaved. Um and this is what like meeting that commitment, you know, okay, looks like for us. So, I really appreciate you bringing it up. Does anybody have questions about this?

1:23:55 All right. >> I move to adopt a resolution accepting the public improvements for the 42nd Street overlay. IP to Marcola project P21195. >> Second. >> Could you call a vote? >> Yes. Councelor Weber? >> Yes. >> Councelor Moon? >> Yes. >> Councelor Rodley? >> Yes. >> Councelor Buck? >> Yes. And councelor Stout? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Five yeses, zero nos. >> Next item, please. >> Any other business from the city manager? >> No additional business. Thank you. >> Any business from the city attorney? >> No business. Thank you. >> And we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.