Springfield City Council — June 1, 2026

0:04 Call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Vang Gordon >> here. Councelor Weber here. Councelor Mo >> here. >> Councelor Rodley >> here. Councelor Quadras >> here. Councelor Buck >> here. >> And councelor St here. Thank you. >> Right. We have one item this evening. One is the business license code update with Robin and Jeff. >> Thank you, mayor, and thank you councel. Jeff Pascal, community development director. Um and with me I have Robin Holman who is our business licensing um administrative person. And so tonight we're here to give a presentation on the business licensing and ask direction on proceeding with an update to that code section. Um one thing just to note is is that section is in really um in real

0:50 need of update and so that's why we're here. And then one of the other things that Robin has put together in the work that she's done is some recommendations on moving forward with adding some different things like business registration and that sort of thing. So I'm going to turn it over to her and then I'll wrap it up. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for allowing us time to present this evening.

1:44 There we go. All right. With this presentation, we're asking for your guidance on updates for Springfield Municipal Code, Chapter 7, Business. The code is overdue for updates. These changes will help better align with the Springfield Development Code, improve clarity, and streamline administration. Because our current language is not easily interpreted, we often seek clarification from our city attorney's office to ensure the correct understanding, which emphasizes the need for updates. Additionally, we're seeking your guidance on proposal for the creation of a citywide business registry. Here's a list of our current licenses. They're not structured or grouped, and several licenses are outdated or rarely

2:30 used, such as dance halls and other highlighted license types. Our proposal is to restructure municipal code chapter 7, remove outdated licenses, and implement a business registry. Under the proposed new structure, all businesses would register either annually or have a temporary registry. A temporary business registry could be used in place of a separate Christmas tree and fireworks sales along with a transient merchants for those conducting business in Springfield for a short duration. Our licenses could be grouped as such. Property related license types would still include an alarm system license as

3:16 part of police's response to notification. Additionally, rental properties would include the adoption of short-term rentals into our municipal code. Substance groups would include liquor endorsements and marijuana. For the community group, we're proposing on combining our carnival and circus license with the special event licenses one and keeping our door-to-door solicitors. With this proposed structure, all remaining license types identified on our previous slide would transition into a business registry. Why establish a business registry? In the past several years of coordinating the business license program, many businesses have asked me

4:02 whether the city has a business registry or a license requirement. The request for documentation at a local level has been asked to serve the need of obtaining loans, meeting insurance requirements, and facilitate facilitating product procurement. Our current response is to guide them to utilize their Oregon business registry. However, this high level of interest in local approval has prompted staff to research the potential benefits of a business registry. There are several positive outcomes to creating a business registry for Springfield, including validating businesses with proper documentation. Rather than licensing a small portion of our business community, it would include all businesses.

4:51 It would create a historical record of businesses in the city to support planning efforts like change of use requirements, fire and life safety inspections, and economic development. It could also increase confidence among residents and consumers by providing city oversight of local businesses. Additionally, staff can collect and analyze businesses analyze data on businesses within Springfield. While researching the benefits of a business registry, we've learned how other municipalities operate. We've compiled some data presented to you on these next few slides using cities that are similar to Springfield's population size. Here you can see which cities have a registry or a license

5:36 requirement. These next two slides are detailed and data heavy. However, they illustrate how complex fee schedules are in other municipalities based on factors such as employee count and prorated fees. Complexity can make compliance more difficult for business owners and may also create administrative challenges for staff. Our proposal is for businesses to have a registry with a simple fee structure comparable to the city of Ben's program which features a straightforward design that makes it easy for all to navigate

6:22 and it is manageable by our current staffing level. The proposed new fee structure would include an initial application fee and a reduced renewal fee. Nonprofits would also register with proof of nonprofit status at a reduced fee. If council's guidance is to move forward with this proposal, the actual fee amounts would be presented and discussed at a later date in time. For all renewals, we're proposing shifting from a fiscal year expiration to a renewal month based on when the registry or license was first issued. This would help distribute staff workload more evenly throughout the year. If a business does not renew

7:08 within a six-month period, the initial registration process will start again. If a code enforcement action were to occur due to non-compliance, the account would be flagged and staff would complete a review and reapproval during the renewal period before issuing a new registry or license. Our thoughts for implementation approach include existing licenses would transition to a business registry and any new businesses would be applying for a registry to establish their business. Outreach notification could include social media mailouts and continued partnership with the Springfield Chamber of Commerce. Here's our proposed timeline.

7:55 Um so tonight we're here seeking guidance on just moving forward with the updates. So looking for the head nod or consensus that yes, move forward with the um up um updating the municipal code. Um our plan would then be to work over the summer um roin and the city attorney's office on updating the code. Um, one thing to note, we have initially met with the chamber with staff from the chamber to present this. Um, and with that commitment, it was really just the presentation that the council saw tonight is what we discussed. Um, the real goal would be getting that direction from the council tonight, working on a draft um, amendment, bringing back those details. the council would see them again in the fall, have a chance to react and and give direction on that draft, and then the goal would

8:42 be to adopt sometime next year in the winter so that we could then implement July 1. Since we're already on a fiscal year, it would be just easiest and cleanest to go through the process, have it adopted with implementation goal of July 1 next year. >> Councilor Ronnie, >> thank you. Thank you for the presentation and for all of the work that went into this this um process, this propos proposed process. Um one of my questions is just around the transition. Um often we make these changes and they look really efficient and they can be burdensome and cumbersome for the businesses. So I'm interested in what that looks like. Like I would hate for people to have to start over or fill out a whole bunch of new paperwork or like and also I don't want

9:28 to put a whole bunch of burden on the staff, but it's like what is the transition look like in terms of actual like here's what people are going to have to do in order to do that if that makes sense. Any of our current existing licenses I'd be able to change within our program and then they'd just re receive a renewal notice just as they do now with the new fee. Uh, councelor Mo, >> what is the potential income revenue for the city? >> I think councelor that depends on the fee we set, right? I think what was bend is a hund $100. And so >> I just said potential. >> Yeah, potential. So I mean I I think the goal would be really to fund the program which is about one and a half FTE is

10:14 what I would say. So the goal would be around 200,000. I'm not I I don't have the numbers right now of what we generate in business license revenue. Um I think um our goal is really aside from revenue and it's really just funding the program is just providing that database um re responding and reacting to some of the questions and and queries that Robin gets. And also I think um regardless of the business registry cleaning up the license type so that gets rid of the outdated licenses and moves to a month that they apply is their renewal month rather than fiscal year because right now is tonight we have the master fees and schedules schedule on the um public hearing and adoption. So, as soon as

11:00 that's adopted, starting tomorrow, Robin's going to start generating the n hundreds of letters that she has to get out and because everybody has to renew July 1. And so, it really will um be more effective for staff and moderate that workload because it spreads it out over the year rather than just putting it into this uh two month, three-month window of getting all of those letters and processing those. So to answer your question, the revenue really we can come back with more numbers once we have that conversation on fees and we can get an idea >> and councelor Buck. >> Uh thank you very much for the presentation. Um I I think where I'm hung up at the moment um in terms of moving forward on this is is really

11:47 understanding what the businesses are going to benefit out of this. I see what the staff I see the staffing piece and I see all of those kind of things. But if we're going to ask for um additional fees from from our businesses, I want to get I just want to have a little better understanding of what the value to the businesses is is going to be. I mean, I I get the timeline, you know, the month that they apply and and and that's that's certainly a benefit. And I'm not saying that there's not others, but I want to make sure that that we're really clear that this is a win-win. Um because I know the business community, especially in Oregon, has has just continually felt that it's it's one-sided and their side isn't really seeing the benefits. So, if we're going

12:33 to go forward with this, it has to be a win for the business community and the businesses. And I and I not saying it's not. I'm just saying I'm not seeing it yet. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> St. I I I kind of agree with uh councelor Buck on this one and as a small business owner, I'm just not sure what I'm getting out of it. That said, I don't disagree with reg with having licenses for various things which require and I I think the big question we have to ask is is there a reason to license businesses that have a disproportionate impact on services um certain kinds of establishments, one runs versus another. So that's the question I have in my mind. >> Okay. Anybody else?

13:20 >> Council Quadras. >> So I I think there's two two things. I think regardless and in the council have more opportunity to discuss this business registry and we can do more um survey feedback as we work on that code. I think that there's two things. There's the existing code language which requires certain subset of businesses out there in the city to have a business license for whatever purpose, alcohol, um, you know, marijuana, that sort of thing. So, I think we need to update the code regardless. So, that that piece is getting that direction would be good. I think getting direction on ex continuing to explore a business registry. I don't the council's not setting that code tonight. that would be further exploration and and current and and co

14:07 discussion on future fees. So, I think kind of separating that out is that one, we do need to update the code. It's outdated. We have a lot of things in there that just aren't used and and we it would be helpful to simplify the process for the businesses that are currently required to register and then continue that discussion. And I think really we're just getting kind of feedback is is the council is a whole um interested in moving forward and still exploring a business registry based on the like I said the feedback we get which is there are certain businesses that come in and say I I would like a business license but you don't require one. Here's why I feel like or I I need one. And maybe it's it's still another subset. I I don't know but that's I

14:52 think we continue that discussion. >> Council Quadras I feel like you touched on what my question was when you answered this question here, but I guess my feeling would be that we wouldn't I wouldn't be interested in creating any barriers. Um, and with that said, um, really would be interested in considering pathways for non-English-speaking businesses to get here and do that also in a in a as as pain-free, barrierfree um, possibility. And I don't see that at the city now. And so I would be curious that that continues to be included or that is included.

15:38 Uh, councelor Bradley. >> Thanks. Um, so, uh, to your two pieces, I support moving forward with more exploitation on this and to cleaning things up and making them more efficient. Get rid of rid of things we don't use. I really appreciate councelor Cuadra's calling that out. And I think that I would love to see that be part of this too is, you know, to add in that inclusive and that language access piece if we're really going to overhaul the system. I think that's a great idea. Okay. Anybody else? All right. So, I think Oh, council, >> I'm really curious about the real def definition of a business as we go along. Like corporations, is that a business or

16:24 assume business name? Things like that. There's a lot of them out there and I'd like to know more about it. I I think I'm supportive of modernizing the code that we have today and that's going to take you over the summer for folks to work. Um you could get me there on the registry, right? This has been a little bit of an onoff topic through throughout the city. Um I think taking time to go out and talk to the business community and make sure we have the value proposition for what everybody's going to get out of it and and I'm not concerned about revenue or recovery of the cost. Um, right now I think we just have to we just have to really get clear and define if we're going to do it. Does it is it easy to access? Do we have the data available that makes our business

17:09 climate more competitive? And what does that actually look like? I think that's an important part of the conversation. I'm fine with you continuing to have some conversations with the chamber, continuing to work on it, approaching it with a sense of curiosity. um that could be a very easy way to get the regulatory burden down across uh across the uh the set of businesses, right? Because it just simplifies everything. But I think we just want to keep this conversation going a little bit um just based on where where we've ended up historically wi with the business community, right? Because this is not a source of revenue. This is about gathering data and simplifying the regulatory environment so that we can be more competitive. Okay. Anybody else? Do you have do you

17:54 have enough direction? >> Yeah, I think we have what we need. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. We are adjourned. We will reconvene at 7:00 for the regular meeting. >> Hello everybody. Hello everybody. I'm going to call the uh Springfield City Council regular session to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon >> here. Councelor Weber >> here. >> Councelor Mo >> here. Councelor Bradley >> here. >> Councelor Cuadros >> here. >> Councelor Buck >> present. And councelor Stout >> here. Thank you. >> Uh please join me for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it

18:39 stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. All right, we've got uh looks like I'm may be missing a part of my script. So, there's two chances to give public testimony tonight. One is business from the audience and one is >> I was going to get it on my own. >> This was a test to see if I passed. So, there are two times for designated uh designated for public testimony for this evening. Public hearings and business for in the audience. If you are attending in person, please complete the request to speak card located at the

19:24 front of the council chambers and turn them into the city recorder. If you're joining us online with a tablet, smartphone, or computer and wish to speak to us for either of those times, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. The order of public testimony is as follows. anyone anyone in person in the council chambers and anyone who has raised their virtual hand. First item, please. >> Mayor, the first item is Springfield Upbeat. That item is the 2026 Springfield Heritage Awards and this is your item. >> Excellent. Actually, I don't know where Emily went. Before I read the citation for Judy Herald, I asked Emily just to make a couple comments um about the significant amount of librarians that are in the in the room because she was excited like we

20:11 were getting the band back together. >> Okay. Good evening, mayor and counselors. I'm excited to um have the former full squad of the library here tonight to celebrate Judy's award. So um when I started in 2009, this group of librarians had been working together for 30 to 35 years, many of them. And so we have here this evening Brad Sergeant Jenny Peterson, Cindy Dustrude, Patty Buff Bear, our honorary guest and award winner, Judy Harold, Barbara Thompson,

20:56 and did I miss anybody? So, these folks were the ones that um stewarded our li for many many years and uh they're here to celebrate one of their colleagues for her award. And I should introduce Ben Harold is also here with his with his mom. >> Well, thank you for doing that, Emily. And thank you for joining us. It's good to see you all. Um we really will get the band back together right right after this meeting. So, for the 2026 History Maker Award goes to Judy Herald. So, I'm going to read the citation and then Judy, I'm going to have you up to get the award and get a picture. In recognition of her decadesl long commitment to literacy, intellectual freedom, and inclusive

21:41 community service through the Springfield Public Library, we're proud to name Judy Herald as the recipient of the 2026 Historymaker Award. Serving as the children's services librarian from 1980 to 2006, Judy transformed the library's youth services department into a welcoming and innovative space for children and families of all background. Her work helped generations of Springfield's youth discover a lifelong love of reading while ensuring the library remained a safe and accessible uh accessible community resource during periods of significant economic and social change in our region. Judy's impact extended far beyond traditional library services. She developed outreach partnerships with local schools serving low-income families, helped establish

22:26 the nonprofit first book program to provide books to disadvantaged children, and expanded Spanish language collections and multicultural programming to better serve Springfield's growing uh Latin Latin community. uh a strong advocate for first amendment rights and equitable access to information, Judy became a statewide voice for intellectual freedom during a divisive period in our local history. Through innovation, compassion, and unwavering public service, Judy Herald has sh helped shape a more inclusive and culturally connected Springfield. Congratulations,

24:02 It says very nicely. >> Oh, thank you. Okay. >> All right. The second uh the second uh award is the preservation excellence a excellence award uh for illuminating indigenous roots in recognition of its innovative and collaborative approach to uh cultural education and heritage stewardship. We're pleased to present the 2026 Springfield Heritage Award for preservation excellence to the illuminating indigenous roots

24:47 educational program hosted at Thirsten High School in April 2025. The full-day program engaged more than 12,200 students and teachers through immersive presentations and workshops led by the native cultural leaders, educators, artists, and advocates. designated to uh designate uh designed to align with student learning outcomes and curriculum standards that been explored indigenous languages, traditional foods, music, arts, oral history, and contemporary native identity through a wide range of classroom lessons and hands-on experiences developed through partnerships between the Springfield Public Library Museum, Springfield Public Schools, Lane ESD's Native Youth Wellness Program, Native Student Organizations, and local cultural leaders. The project created meaningful

25:33 opportunities for students to engage directly with indigenous voices and traditions connected to the region. Highlights included indigenous druming workshops, first food education, uh, language instruction, and the creation of a community mural gifted to the school's Native American student union by centering native perspectives and fostering ongoing relationships between schools and indigenous communities, illuminating the indigenous roots made a significant contribution to preserving, sharing, and honoring the culture, cultural heritage of Springfield and the surrounding region. Congratulations. Mindy's here to accept it. Uh we had a couple folks that could not make it

26:19 tonight and we will uh we will arrange a second time to thank them.

27:23 All right. Next item, please. Mayor, the next item is the consent calendar. >> I move approval of the consent calendar. >> Second. >> Could you call a vote, please? >> Yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes. >> Councelor Mo, >> yes. >> Councelor Rodley, >> yes. >> Councelor Quadras, >> yes. Councelor Buck. >> Yes. >> And councelor Stout. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Uh motion passes. Six yeses, zero nos. The next item, please. >> The next item is under public hearings. Um Mayor, this first item was inadvertent inadvertently noted as a public hearing. So it would be up to the council if you'd like to still hold the public hearing or just vote. >> I don't think we have any cards. You have hands for this item. >> All right. But that first item is the proposed text amendments to the Glenwood

28:09 Employment Mixeduse District of the Springfield Development Code and certain sections of the 2014 Glenwood Refinement Plan. This is a second reading. >> All right. Does we have any questions before I think we're I think we're ready. Councelor Weather. >> I move to adopt an ordinance that amends text of the Springfield Development Code and the adopted 2014 Glennwood Refinement Plan. >> Second. And y'all, could you call a vote, please? >> Yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes. >> Councelor Mo, >> yes. >> Councelor Rodley, >> yes. >> Councelor Cuadros, >> yes. >> Councelor Buck, >> yes. >> And councelor Stout, >> yes. Thank you. >> All right. Before we call the next item, I do have a public public hearing uh outline. Um so before we begin this evening, I'd like to take a moment to

28:54 outline the protocol and expectations of the public hearings. First, I want to thank everyone for being here tonight and for taking the time to participate. Public input is an essential part of our decision-making process and we value the opportunity to hear from our community. We have one public hearing tonight and one quasi judicial hearing this evening. The first is the master fees and charges update. The second is the quasi judicial hearing for annexation of two vacant lots at 500 and 700 international way. Tonight's public comment period is specifically dedicated to the topic of these public hearings. I ask that all remarks stay focused on the item before the council. This helps maintain a clear and productive record and ensures that everyone's time is respected. If you wish to speak and have not yet signed up, please complete a request to speak

29:40 card and handed to the city recorder. Speakers will be called in the order in which they've signed up. Once your name is called, please come forward to the microphone, state your name for the record, and then begin your remarks. If you are online, please raise your virtual hand. Each speaker will have three minutes to address the council. We ask that all speakers and audience members maintain respectful conduct throughout the public hearing portion of the evening. This means no interruptions, no applause, and no verbal reactions, positive or negative, while others are speaking. This ensures a safe and fair space for every participant. Offensive language or disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. With those guidelines in place, we look forward to hearing from each of you. Uh, next item, please.

30:26 The next item is master fees and charges update. Jeff Pascal is here with this item. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you. Um, tonight you're being asked to hold a public hearing on the master fees and charges. Uh, you have reviewed all of the various fees in a series of work sessions in the month of April. um the copy you have, there's no significant changes from the time you saw it um in the end of April to now. One thing to note is that staff has been doing research working with the city attorney's office, especially on the credit card fee charge. One thing I'll say is it's a lot more complex to just add a fee. It's not just as simple as add a fee to the charges. So, what we're

31:12 asking is to kind of get direction tonight. The recommendation is uh 3.2 2% will go and continue to do the research and then we'll be back to you later in the fall with more of what that entails to add that fee. Um I think then also at that direction at that time we'll have more time to put into place and do some research on is there a cap like does it start at 500 a,000 and then you pay this service charge. Um but again um we took council's direction it's just a lot more complex. Each credit card has kind of a what I've learned from the city attorney is it's each credit card kind of has a separate agreement what you can can't do and so it's just going to take a little bit of time. >> All right. Thank you. Are there any questions?

31:57 Okay. I'm going to open the public hearing. I don't have any cards for this item. Neil, do you have any uh hands? >> It doesn't appear we have any hands for this item. >> All right. I close the public hearing. I move to adopt a resolution amending master fees and charges schedule sections 1 through 11 with an effective date of July 1, 2026. >> Second, >> yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes. >> Councelor Mo, >> yes. >> Councelor Rodley, >> yes. >> Councelor Cuadros, >> yes. >> Councelor Buck, >> yes. >> And councelor Stout, >> yes. Thank you. Motion passes. Six yeses, 11 nos. Next item, please. Uh the next item is the annexation of territory to the city of Springfield, annexing two

32:42 vacant adjoining parcels comprising approximately 17.99 acres in the north north gateway area of Springfield. Subject parcels are located to the north of International Way between properties addressed as 500 and 700 International Way and to the east of the former Royal Caribbean Call Center. Andy Limhurd and Christina Kra are here for this item. >> All right. This matter is a public hearing continued from ear an earlier meeting on May 18th. Before we hear the staff report, the assistant city attorney will provide a statement regarding the procedures for tonight's hearing. >> Thank you, Mayor Council. The annexation hearing tonight is characterized as a quasi judicial hearing. Quasi judicial means that the applicant and public are entitled to certain rights in this process. These rights include the right

33:27 to notice, to present evidence, to have a written decision based on standards, and to an impartial decision maker. Oregon law requires the council act as an impartial decision maker. Counselors must disclose any exparte contacts that have not already been disclosed. Independent knowledge of relevant facts or conflicts of interest related to this matter. And as a reminder, conflicts of interest must be declared at each meeting, even if they were already declared. A conflict of interest is a situation in which the decision maker, his or her family, or their business would or could suffer or benefit by the decision maker's decision. An exparte contact is a communication to the decision maker that includes substantive issues regarding the application and occurs outside the public venue. Independent knowledge of relevant facts

34:13 is information known to the decision maker about the application from a source outside the public venue, such as a visit to the site in question. Mayor, please query the council about any conflicts of interest or new exparte contacts or independent knowledge of relevant facts and state any you may have as well. >> Uh, councelor Mo, you want to start? >> I have no conflict of interest or anything. So, >> I I think you also need to say if you have any expert contacts, too. >> Well, that's what I sort of meant. Just I haven't talked to anybody. What do I say? Yeah, that's fine. Uh, Council Buck, >> uh, I have no conflicts of interest or

34:58 um, uh, real or potential bias. Um, I did have a conversation in in passing with councelor Stout about agenda items. We didn't really specifically talk about this item other than to mention that it was on the agenda um, for tonight, but we it did come up in our conversation. I get to start all over again. Um, I have a potential conflict of interest as a property owner in the gateway area. Uh, also have a potential conflict of interest as I work for Health and Human Services for Lane County. I am not in the same division. Um, and as I said last time, I have been inundated with um, many meeting topics and emails and information about this project for the

35:45 past year plus. um that does not I don't know anything that anybody else doesn't know. Also had lots of exparte contacts as we were moving through the legislative process around the um the super sighting bill and just around the this particular property. I do not have any additional exparte contacts since our last meeting. And I'm looking at Christina's face. I think I did it properly. I feel like I get a gold star. Thank you. Um, councelor Riley, tonight you only would need to disclose any exparte contacts or independent knowledge of relevant facts that weren't disclosed last time or that were new from the last meeting. So, anything from >> Nothing new. >> Yeah, >> same conflicts but nothing new. Same potential conflicts but nothing new. >> Um, I don't have any additional exparte

36:30 contacts uh or contacts. I do have a potential conflict of interest. My employer is a health insurance company that is United Health Group. uh they do business um with Peace Health. >> I have no potential conflicts of interest. I did have one very quick conversation with a commissioner uh a couple days after our last meeting on this topic and nothing was said that has not already been publicly stated. >> Sorry. And were those public statements in the record um for this? Are they in materials from the applicant or materials from the property owner? Uh it was really around um kind of more the process of the of the annexation request.

37:15 >> Okay. >> And just I mean there was nothing I don't think substantive about it. It was just a very quick >> kind of a recappy thing of what we talked about at the last meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. I think the last meeting is in the record. So then the subject of that ma subject matter was the last meeting then that would be already in the record. So no new conflicts of interest exparte contacts or independent knowledge of relevant facts. >> I have no conflicts of interest, no new exparte contacts or new independent knowledge. >> All right, we got through the first step. Um we will now continue the public hearing. Well, we got to do staff report

38:00 first >> and you get to hear from me again um because I provided you um the only new material for your packet tonight, which was a council briefing memo to try to address some of the questions that you had last time. Um I thought I would start with a um maybe a framework for your decision-m as you're starting to get into that um part of the process. The oftent times criteria of approval for applications are independent from each other. Um, and it is true that all of them have to be met in order for you to approve an application. What I think is really helpful about the annexation criteria of approval is that the order they appear in the code, which is the order they're laid out in the staff report, is a decision-making framework for the council. So, you can think of each criteria getting sort of slightly

38:46 more specific or a different threshold that depends upon the prior criteria. So the first one is is the property even legally able under Oregon law to be annexed? Is it contiguous to city limits and separated you know and part of the urban growth boundary? Yes. Like that's not nobody has disputed that criteria in this application thankfully. Um the second is then is the annexation consistent with the comprehensive plan policies? If you decide it's not consistent with the comprehensive plan policies, we don't need to go further into the analysis um of the public facilities and services and fiscal side of things. Um the analysis kind of stops at the plan. If you find that it's consistent with the overall plan um

39:33 policies, then it might um you would next look at well is it going is the proposed annexation um going to result in a boundary? So after that property is annexed, will the entire boundary of city limits provide the minimum level of key urban facilities and services um in an orderly, efficient and timely manner? And then if you decide that the city has appropriately planned for and will provide those services in an orderly, timely and efficient manner with this annexation context, then you would move on to okay well what are the fiscal impacts on the city for providing those public facilities and services and is there an annexation agreement or another mechanism in place to appropriately

40:19 mitigate those? So, it's it's I think going to be helpful for the council to think of those sort of in the order that they appear. Sometimes an criteria of approval can be just like pick one and go with that one, but I think this case is complex enough that will help the council to think through and the order that they're in in the staff report. Um, in the council briefing memo, then in your packet as attachment one, there were a few questions that um I wanted to briefly hit on. The first was h a question that was of some dispute between the applicant and prop adjacent property owners who testified in opposition um and the staff report which is how does the city council consider the applicant's future intended use of the

41:04 property future development plans when you're looking at the annexation. The applicants argued it's irrelevant. Um the um neighboring property owners have said no it's very relevant. Um there was discussion in the comments received that were sent to you via email from the neighboring property owners about the cases cited and the um county of peace health's comments from the 18th. Um so the CBM uh explains from city attorney's office perspective what the case law really says is the council has to look at your criteria of approval for annexation. you would not use the site plan review criteria of approval as your basis to decide um if this annexation, you know, could be granted or not or the flood plane, you know, review criteria.

41:51 You have to look to the city's criteria of approval. But the city's criteria of approval for annexation does require some consideration of the future proposed use of the property. Um, that's our recommendation and that's based on the specific wording in the criteria of approval and in the comp plan policies around urbanization. The Springfield's comp plan is set up to say is it consistent with the city's plan for development and are there um orderly, efficient, and timely key public facilities and services. That phrase orderly, efficient, and timely requires the council to have some idea of what the proposed future use of the property is because clearly orderly efficient provision of water service to a single

42:38 house is going to be a smaller size pipe than to a um you know brand new shopping mall with a hundred public restroom stalls. Just you know the the size and location and all of that is going to be different. And the same thing goes with wastewater, storm water, traffic, police services. Um the applicants talked about somebody can come in single family home with failing septic with, you know, no plan to redevelopment or they can they could develop vacant property and that definitely does happen and the city doesn't require a specific development plan, but you do require a utility plan. And that utility plan needs to be informed by potential future development. Typically, if there's no specific ID or plan in mind, that's just what's allowed in the zoning and what's

43:24 a reasonable assumption based on the underlying zoning. This annexation is unique because the applicants have been very clear that they don't intend to pursue the uses that are allowed in the underlying zoning. They're in by the city's code or the city's um zoning map. they're intending to pursue a use that's allowed by state law that may have different impacts on those public facilities and services. So, that's something that the council needs to weigh and consider is how does that different plan than what's in the zoning then relate back to those criteria. Any questions on that? I think that was kind of a big um a big point of contention that if you know we can provide advice on that it will help the council move forward. Um I think the way

44:10 that then the way that supersiding applies to the annexation is it changes what those likely proposed future uses are to um not just the campus industrial uses but the idea that it would may qualify under um the state supersiding law for a different set of uses and so the council can consider those different set of uses and applying your criteria how and then there's questions around the conceptual street map and the TSP. I think that the key this kind of shifts from those comp plan policy criteria down into the orderly um timely and efficient provision of services. Fundamentally, that's what the TSP is intended to do. It's intended to provide the transportation network that guarantees the orderly, efficient and timely provision of streets, public

44:55 transit, um bike ped facilities. If you can conclude that the application is consistent with those TSP policies and those planned projects, then it would, you know, it would show that for streets and transportation that the it meets the criteria related to those public facilities and services. The conceptual street map shows some planned local collectors. I think what's important is it doesn't show local streets um and doesn't create specific um lines on a map for where local streets can go. So, the city council's free to require a local street connection um in a location that you believe will provide orderly, timely, and efficient local street service to a property without needing that to be

45:41 shown on the conceptual street map because the conceptual street map doesn't show local streets. Um I think that's a key point um to call your attention to. And then similarly, gateway belt line, the TSP establishes several projects that are needed. Um, and the council's given direction that you'd like to prioritize a study project over pursuing any of those specific projects. Um, you know, right now and so we're you're looking at a study project for gateway belt line. That's through a separate work session. You provided that direction. the um applicant has given transportation data that shows that tries to show it's consistent with the TSP to annex this property for these specific uses because the traffic patterns are not too dissimilar or or

46:26 too much or overall less impactful I would say than if the property annexed under the campus industrial zoning which is what the TSP was based on. And then um they've um we've staff have proposed that one option the council could go with is that the applicants would pay for that transportation study which would then be the the way that it fiscal impacts are mitigated and happy to answer more questions on that. I know you got more information on that traffic analysis very late and I don't expect that you've looked at that. Um, we would I you know definitely would like to have the transportation um our transportation planner um and transportation engineer look at those numbers a in a little more detail, but that could um we can talk about that

47:12 in the app in the staff response or rebuttal when we get there. That was a really quick overview of the content in the CBM. Um but I'm happy to take questions from the council now or you can ask them later during the rebuttal time. >> Are there any questions? Council Mo, do you have specific questions? >> You've talked about the the local streets that aren't on the map yet and that the council should be deciding what they are. I don't think we're qualified to do that. So, how would we do that the proper way? So, the um city staff have made a recommendation on what the street network should be following a plan that was in a 1998 agreement and then

47:59 subsequently shown on the partition plat for the property based on um and we've analyzed on the staff report how that matches to the criteria of approval for local streets. Not because those criteria of approval apply to the annexation, but because those criteria give a good basis for establishing what's orderly and efficient. Um, the applicants have proposed a different alignment of the street and they have their own reasons that they believe that that's more orderly and efficient and I think the council will just have to make a policy decision on what factors are more important to you. Um, and which street alignment would you prefer to require through an annexation agreement if it gets to that? >> I didn't realize it was that easy.

48:44 I mean, I think that there's definitely a lot of expertise that goes into those recommendations, but you've got you've got the universe of information in front of you for the facts that have been provided, and I think you get to make decisions based off those recommendations and facts. >> All right, other questions? All right, I think we're going to be ready for the applicant. Thank you. We're going to now continue the public hearing. The applicant will present first. And I'll note for the public, the applicant is not subject to the threeminut limit. >> Mayor, >> uh, you've got to hit the button until it goes green. That you're on. >> All right. Good evening, mayor, city

49:29 council. Again, for the record, my name is Mike Reer. I'm an attorney representing Peace Health and Peace Health and Lane County as co-licants have asked me to uh present this evening and um this important annexation request and the related annexation agreement. Uh as uh first of all, I'd like to thank staff and your city attorney's office for the good work that they've done. Uh their diligence and professionalism really shines through. Uh it's been my experience as a practicing attorney um that the city of Springfield's planning department and your city attorney's office does a first rate job in representing the the interests of the city. Uh they dot their eyes, they cross their tees, they're very professional. Um

50:16 the tradition I think start I don't know if it started with Joe Lehey but it certainly continued with Joe Lehey and uh because of that uh we appreciate the professionalism that uh staff and the city attorney's office has provided. City of Springfield has a well uh earned reputation for fostering a healthy business environment and we understand the need for this body to carefully consider the concerns and the opinions of highly respected business folks. Uh in Oregon and in other states throughout the throughout the United States when it comes to land use decision-making there's often a collision of interests where there really is no bad guy. And in our polar polarized world, uh, sometimes

51:01 the standard operating position procedure is to find a bad guy and find a villain. Um, that won't happen tonight. We're here to ask uh basically two things. One, that the city council approve the annexation because the annexation request meets the criteria for approval. the four criteria A, B, C, and D that was outlined by uh your city attorney. And uh thi this is the same annexation uh criteria that was um that has been in place for all annexation applications since the Lane County Boundary Commission was disbanded by Senate Bill 417 in 2007. We're not asking for any

51:49 different consideration than those other applications for annexation. The second thing that we've we're asking this body to do tonight uh or or when the time is appropriate is to direct staff to draft an annexation agreement with terms. Let me back up. It's my understanding that the the vast majority of the terms for a draft annexation agreement um have been agreed to between the applicants and city staff. I think what's remaining for the city council to decide is the street configuration as depicted by the in the applicants maps that we'll talk about tonight and also a provision for transportation contribution of up to $321,000 for the

52:34 study of an alternative to the couplet for the beltline gateway intersection. So together, the applicants have offered, they've stipulated to pay that $321,000 for that study to help the city find an alternative to the extremely expensive couplet that we all are concerned about. From the May 18th hearing, it's clear that there's at least three issues that are not necessarily directly related to the criteria that that the council has. I will try and address them before getting into the criterion for approval. And the first one is the super sighting bill, the why and whether it applies. And the second one is why this location and not the riverbend campus. And then

53:20 I'll get into the third in a second, but these are kind of two biggies. I'm actually going to start with the the second question because I think as I as I worked with my client to answer this question in detail in detail that will give you the comfort that you need to make the decision to approve the annexation I think will be helpful and let's see if I can work this here.

54:07 >> Yeah, that's intuitive. Thanks. Thanks, Andy. Okay, so this is you've seen this before. The Lane County property is in blue. The Peace Health property is in green. FedEx is to the west of the Peace Health property. Royal Caribbean is west of the Lane County property. Okay. So, why this location versus the Riverbend campus? So, as discussed in the May 18th hearing, uh, Lane County and Peace Health analyzed the entire community for all potential sites within the Eugene and Springfield UGBS. Peacealth specifically analyzed other peacealth owned properties including the Riverbend campus and the Riverbend annex which is the old Sony property. None of those properties were adequate for these

54:52 two facilities. While certainly not a criteria for approval is clearly an issue on the minds of Richardson and Gg Group. Let me start by saying that Peace Health has a 100red-year plan for the Riverbend property and we're 25 years into that plan. Peaceelf came to Springfield and acquired what is now the Sacred Heart at Riverband campus in order to fulfill that 100red-year vision. It was a vision that could not be achieved at the landlocked university district in Eugene. Expansion there was not an option. So, Peace Health purchased the property in Springfield because it supported the long-term goals and growth projections. At the time, the CEO of Peace Health, Alan Yordy, stated, "We're building for people we we never know will never know.

55:37 people who will long outlive us. We are determined to do it right, to do it once and not to find ourselves constrained and la landlocked 50 years from now. So for this particular use for peace health, the behavioral health unit, our services started in 1969, the Johnson unit. 40 years later, that unit needed to be updated. And today we have 30 35 beds when the need is at least 96. And in 2020, Peace Health started looking to expand the unit again to be to better support the community needs. The goal was to increase capacity to 96 beds. Peace Health looked at repurposing several buildings, existing buildings, and this was before the partnership with

56:23 Lane County or the idea of lane uh lo co-locating these services. Peace Health looked at re renovating the main tower, the university district, the ancillary building, the medical education research building, and other buildings in the UD campus. Peace also extensively looked at repurposing the annex building here in Springfield. All of those uh potential solutions were not solutions for a variety of reasons, but mostly because of the need for seismic upgrades and other federal regulations. It became clear that Peace Health needed to find a new they needed land for a new facility to meet the goal. We looked uh at new development, the Riverbend campus, annex property. They they were all heavily analyzed. And like most

57:08 developers, we use several metrics for evaluating land to help us guide us through the highest and best use. One of those metrics, and this is important, is providing direct support to Riverbend's specialty programs that I'm going to talk about in a second. This is the same process that we used when analyzing the location for the new inpatient rehabilitation hospital that's was also in the campus industrial zone. And you will remember we we went through a plan amendment zone change process at that time because that particular hospital even though it has the term hospital is not a hospital for tertiary life saving 24-hour care. The Oregon Health Authority regulates hospitals and there are 46 of those hospitals in the state

57:54 of Oregon. The inpatient rehabilitation hospital is not on that list and neither will the Timber Springs Hospital. It's it's not that type of hospital that requires collocation with uh a a level two trauma hospital. In other words, the this use does not need to be adjacent to the Riverbend Hospital. So, uh, from the Oregon Health Authority, trauma hospitals, which the Riverbend campus is one, and the inpatient rehabilitation hospital is not, and the Timberring hospitals will not be. Trauma hospitals are distinguished from other facilities in that they guarantee the immediate availability of surgeons, anesthesiologists, physician specialists, nurses, ancillary

58:41 services, and resuscitation life support equipment on a 24-hour day basis dedicated to the care of trauma patients. Trauma facilities are designated or categorized as level one, 2, three, or four with level one and two centers offering the highest levels of care. So again, Oregon has 46 of those hospitals. There are other specialty hospitals that don't don't do not fit that category. Riverbend is unique. There there are only four level two trauma hospitals in the state of Oregon. They're all in Portland. There are only five level I'm sorry, did I say two? Level one hospitals in in uh Portland. There are five level two trauma hospitals and Riverbend is one of those. It's a unique, highly performing level

59:26 two trauma facility. and it's one of the largest hospitals between Portland and San Francisco. So it the the the opponents asked the question, well, what are those uses that need to be near uh the Riverbend on the Riverbend campus? Those include comprehensive stroke center, certified primary stroke, cancer care, heart and vascular care, neuro and spine surgery, robotics, hyperbaric center, sleep center, wound care, infusion, pediatrics, beriatrics, osteo I'm sorry, orthopedics, child birth and neonatal care, advanced ICU, obviously the emergency department, gamma knife and imaging. Again, we have a 75 we we're we

1:00:13 have 75 years left of the 100red-year plan, and we only have 21 vacant acres of property on the Riverbend campus that is designated and set aside for uh medical services. The other property that's available is medium density uh residential. So, I mention all of this because it helps illustrate the value of the Riverbend campus as a community resource. Riverbend. The the Oregon Health Authority regulates hospitals in such a way that there are regions where the the level two hospitals have to provide a certain type of service to communities and there's there's a map and we're we're in

1:00:59 uh there there's seven regions and we're in region three. So, Peace Health has made a commitment to this community to provide that level of care for the next 75 years. and beyond. And to cannibalize the Riverbend campus for a hospital that does not require adjacency to the Riverbend campus cuts against that uh vision. This means that future expansion on the current footprint of the Riverbend campus is the only viable option. Population growth in Eugene and Springfield has increased 23% in the last 25 years. We are less than a quarter of way into our 100red-year vision for that process and and we were landlocked in the UD district in the U district after 50 years. So the criteria

1:01:45 for development needs to be focused on providing direct support for all of the specialty services that I listed. The clear vision makes the decision process easy for the BHU. It doesn't provide direct support to specialty services and therefore does not need to be located on the campus. The land left at the Riverbend campus that's zoned for these future medical services that require adjacency, as I said, is 21 acres. This site is 18 acres. If we were to swap, even if it didn't require that entire 18 acres, it would take a substantial amount of very valuable property value valuable not just to Riverbend, a nonprofit, but for this entire community. And that's why we still feel so strongly about this. So, you will remember that on in January

1:02:30 of 2024, the city council approved the plan amendment zone change for the inpatient rehabilitation hospital. At that time, the city council took 5 acres from campus industrial and changed it to medical services. At that time, there was no opposition. Richardson didn't show up. Group didn't show up. And in fact, we received we received a response from many of the city councilors or a couple of the city councilors wondering whether we should have asked for more a larger plan amendment zone change. Staff has had characterized the CI zone as a zone in transition with the early colonizers and si site occupiers of the gateway CI zone leaving Semantic, Sony

1:03:17 Disc, Royal Caribbean. And then it was characterized that this trend of those col early colonizers leaving as being an evolution towards healthcare in this area and other related uses. So I want to just transition really quickly to the why the h uh house bill 2005. Oh just this is just for uh illustration purposes. the subject property there is uh in blue on the north and then the inpatient rehabilitation hospital the five acres that was uh reszoned is there adjacent to the Sony an uh the Riverbend annex the old Sony disc property and then you can see at the bottom right

1:04:02 corner is the hospital and the riverbend campus just give you an idea okay so uh why why house bill 2005 well the intended use of the territory to be annexed is a unique use to Oregon and uh very rare in the United States. You received a lot of testimony on May 18th about the characteristics that are in the intended uses and how they work together, how the how the Timber Springs and the stabilization uh center will work together. And you heard a lot of testimony about the serious uh health crisis fa mental health crisis facing our community. A stabilization center coupled with a behavioral health hospital is a relatively new concept in use. The nature of our statewide land

1:04:47 use system provides the opportunity for opponents to challenge the city's determination that the proposed use is an allowed use in the in the particular zone. Even if we think that it's an allowed use, opponents could take a different TAC. In order to clear the way for any ambiguity about whether this new use was an allowed use, our state partners felt it advisable to seek certainty from the state legislature. and why I believe the intended use is an allowed use in the zone some people could take uh issue with that and so because mental health crisis because mental health has a certain stigma associated with it and because it's such an important issue that's facing not only the state but this community it was it was felt that it was important to um set us on the right track and and the

1:05:32 superersighting bill was an attempt to do that. So, examples of supersiding or where the federal or the state government takes over some local decision-making, it's it's pretty it's pretty common at the federal le level. There's the Clear Water Act where the federal government will regulate uh wetlands. There's the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and and as I said last time, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. those uh federal laws in part are meant to help clear away the local opposition to uses that are disfavored. Examples at the state level are more numerous but include the needed housing act, middle housing laws, and other

1:06:17 so-called supersiding laws, including the state psychiatric hospital in Junction City. At the city council public hearing on May 18th, several counselors voiced displeasure with their belief that Lane County in particular had not been forthcoming with its efforts to seek passage of the supersiding bill. In 2025, the Oregon legislator legislature adopted the extensive bill relating to behavioral health. As part of that bill, the legislature adopted what is commonly referred to as the supersiding provisions. And that bill that that's section 60 and 61 of that bill. This bill and those provisions in particular were high a high priority for the governor's office as she recognized the dire need for improvements to the state's treatment of persons with behavioral health conditions. The super sighting section was considered by both

1:07:02 the governor and the legislature as needed a needed component for the overall recognition that these facilities need to be built in short order. The pro procedures for gaining approval needed to be streamlined. Federal law has long recognized that certain facilities and institutions with persons with disabilities require extra protections because of the stigma that's attached to them. As early as March 17th, 2025, attorneys for both Peace Health and Lane County met and shared with the city attorneys a legislative concept which was well before the superiding bill was provided to any legislators. The county and peace health attorneys initiated these meetings with the city because there was an awareness of the sensitivity of a supersighting bill that would supersede some of the city's authority over citing these facilities. And on and uh on March

1:07:48 20th, 2025, county council sent an email communication to the city attorney's office acknowledging the city's concerns about infrastructure standards and indicating that the county's lobbyist would be revising the bill to address those issues. And you see those in sections 61 and uh 60 and 61 of the super siding bill. Again, that in-person meeting was held at city hall on April 4th, 2025 before the bill was submitted. As a result of this collaboration, the adopted bill contains requirements for public facilities and services in direct responses to the city. Again, as I said, the city's uh city attorney's office looking for the well the well-being of the city of Springfield to which the city's attorney's office should be commended.

1:08:35 So, the question is is whether uh whether and when the House Bill 25 uh 2005 applies. As I said before, we do not believe that House Bill 2005 applies because this is an application for an annexation, but there was questions about that. Yes, there is an intended use. Obviously, we're talking about it. The question arose by some, well, why are you talking about the use if you're telling us that the annexation you can't the annexation criteria doesn't require it? Well, there's a couple of answers for that. One is the annexation agreement that the city city staff is um requiring that we go through looks at use. We were told to

1:09:22 look at the use and so we did. We hired Kelly Sandow of Sandow Engineering to provide a comprehensive transportation planning rule analysis to show the potential impacts to the transportation system. What's important to understand about that is that the TPA that analysis is typically done for a plan amendment zone change like the one we did for the inpatient rehabilitation hospital. When you are doing a plan amendment zone change, state law requires that you show that you don't have any significant effect to the uh transportation system. Annexation doesn't have that same responsibility. The the criteria is different. it's much more toned down. So the reason why we did it was out of an abundance of

1:10:07 caution and to show that the CI zone, if you were to annex the property, if we were to come in with this wasn't Peace Health or Lane County, if this was just a land owner, say it's the the Rices or some former owner and they said we want to we want to annex this property and the zoning is CI, we don't have a plan. We don't know what we're going to do. They wouldn't be required to do a TPA. They wouldn't be required to do any of that. It would go through like many of the other annexation applications that I researched in preparation for tonight's meeting. It would just be assumed this is how it's going to work under the current zoning. The super siding bill doesn't change that in that you still have your criteria for approval. Criterion A,

1:10:53 which uh Miss Kratz talked about, which is fairly easy, B, C, and D. Well, those that criteria for approval has been met. We showed it in our application. We showed it in the transportation planning rule analysis. What's important to understand is that the CI zone is already the the the potential uses in the CI zone has already been uh analyzed by the city when you adopted your transportation system plan. When you adopt the transportation system plan, you have to take the the allowed uses in the entire urban growth boundary and you have to analyze those to determine whether or not your facilities will will meet the standards of the city within

1:11:38 that 20-year planning horizon, which is 2035. So in this particular case, if we if we wanted to develop this property for CI uses, we wouldn't have to go through a transportation planning rule analysis because it's already baked into the cake. Now, out of an abundance of caution, we provided a transportation planning rule analysis. And what that analysis shows is that this particular intended use, should it be proposed and developed, will actually improve the intersection at gateway belt line because of the because the way that the city analyzes transportation there's there's overall traffic. So we would be reducing overall trips, but also the P PM peak hour trips will be

1:12:23 reduced. And so the level of service or I'm sorry the yeah the level of service V over C I'm sorry not the this the Oregon Department of Transportation V over C ratio. Okay this is right here shows that under a worst case scenario for the CI zone you'd be at 1.01 and the the lower the number the better and with the proposed use it's 98. So the overall the actual uh proposal the use will generate a total of 197 fewer trips and uh they will significantly there will be significantly fewer PM trips through that intersection.

1:13:08 Notwithstanding that fact, the applicants are still willing to pay the $321,000 uh to pay for a study to to help mitigate the problem that already exists there at Beltline and Gateway. Okay, let's look at the criteria. Criterion B, the proposed annexation is consistent with the applicable policies of the Springfield comprehensive plan, metro plan, and any applicable refinement plans in the plan district. We we have shown that we meet the criteria for the comprehensive plan. What's important to understand is that it's the proposed annexation,

1:13:54 not the not the intended use or the anticipated use, but it's the annexation itself is consistent with applicable policies of the Springfield comprehensive plan. And then uh annexation criterion C. The proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimum level of key urban facilities and services as defined in the Springfield comprehensive plan can be provided in an orderly, efficient and timely manner. key urban facilities include transportation where applicable and then D is where applicable fiscal impacts to the city have been mitigated through an annexation agreement and as I've stated before the applicants have agreed to again the vast majority of the terms

1:14:40 that the city is demanding for an annexation agreement including the $321,000 and what we are asking this the city council to do is to give direction to the city attorney's office to include terms in the annexation agreement for the applicant to provide the transportation network that we're proposing. And in this slide, you'll see in yellow, we're proposing up to 49 ft of a local street from International Way to where it where it terminates on the Lane County property and turns orange. Lane County would then dedicate and construct a local street in orange. And then the jog north would be the green would be dedicated by Lane County

1:15:27 for the future installation of minor collector consistent with the transportation system plan. So if you you can see in this slide in green is the city's adopted transportation system plan showing minor or showing collectors on and we've just overlaid it on on this map here. So what what we're proposing is that we would that Lane County would provide a north south connection for a minor collector alleviating the burden from the Royal Caribbean property owners. you see there in green, that is the location shown on the the city's transportation system plan. We would shift that over just a few feet onto the Lane County property. So, we would be we would actually be uh implementing the

1:16:12 city's ultimate policy choices regarding transportation. Now, as much as I respect uh uh the city attorney's office, there's obviously oftent times where we disagree. Where we disagree is that the city does not have the discretion to tell us where a local street will go. The transportation system plan is meant and we we we've gone over this on the May 18th. It's meant to provide certainty to land owners. You know where the city wants to put the the the collectors, the arterials, the highways. Local streets are not on that count that that conceptual plan. And I find no I I find no um support for

1:16:57 the statement that the city can just ad hoc impose local streets on these particular properties. So if that were the case, you wouldn't need the 1998 Rice Agreement that originally provided the city with the ability to uh have a street go through the middle of the Lane County property. that would destroy this the Lane County's property for either for Lane County's purposes or for a future owner for future development consistent with the CI zone. And so the uh and and think about this for a minute. If the city could if the city council were to dictate the location of local streets, well, first of all, you don't know exactly what's going to be developed there. So dictating where local streets goes would be you you

1:17:44 don't have the expertise uh to do that. But the developer, so for example, if this property were residential and a residential developer wanted to develop to residential standards, the city wouldn't through an annexation agreement require where the local streets go. There would be no basis for that. So, with all due respect, I I respectfully disagree with uh with that suggestion that you can just require as part of the annexation Lane County to have the the the street go through the middle of the property. But more to the point, in 2005, the city already took that off the table. In the 2005 agreement, which by the way did not come from us. It came from the good work and the due diligence of your city attorney by looking through the files

1:18:30 and finding the unrecorded but lawfully executed 2005 amendment to the Rice agreement which was provided to us just, you know, the Friday before the Monday hearing. Um, and again, there was no there was no mischievousness about that. It was just it was happened to be in a file. Okay. Uh nobody nobody knew. We we had suspicions that there might have been an agreement because we talked with the the former owners of this property and the former uh uh uh the folks that had an interest and and helped develop that 2005 amendment. But we did not have a copy of that execut ex executed agreement until that Friday before the hearing. So, it wasn't a lastm minute surprise uh on purpose and it didn't and didn't come from us, but it did establish the fact that the city has already made the decision not to go

1:19:16 through the middle of that property. So, at this time, I want to make sure I've covered everything um that you have asked regarding uh uh regarding this proposal uh for annexation. Uh I just want to highlight a couple of things. when the city was contemplating um their transportation system plan back in the early 2000s when we were uh accommodating Royal Caribbean, a for-profit enterprise, the city made the bold move to vacate uh a portion of that uh of that already built road um and relocated showed the location of where

1:20:02 the minor collector would go. We would like to help with that and basically finish the job by moving that minor collector over onto the Lane County property and I think that would be beneficial to not only the community but also for Royal Caribbean and for the future development of that property. So there are some legal issues uh that were raised by the uh opponents and by uh the city attorney today. And the question is whether or not the comprehensive plan policies require you to look at the uses. And last time I provided you with a a luba case that um

1:20:47 stood for the proposition that annexations require you to look at the annexation and not the use the territory to be annexed. There's been other cases that I have uh that we've we've analyzed that have been cited by Mr. Gelardi in his material today. I've reviewed those letters. I've I mean those uh cases and we are drafting a letter to respond to those. But the importance is that the other case, the Woodburn case, that's a case where the code uh the I'm sorry, just versus Lebanon, city of Lebanon, the code, the local code, it was different than our code here. It specifically required the city to

1:21:32 analyze a proposal for development before annexation. So the city had already determined when they had when they adopted their annexation code in that particular city, they said, "You've got to come up with a plan and before we we annex you, you you have to show that there's a key level of urban services." what the city said, the city tried to interpret their code differently and the the the developer wanted the city to and they they got overruled by Luba and and Luba said, "No, no, your code, if you look at your code, your code requires a development plan." That same language is not in your code and it's not even in your comprehensive plan policies. Those comprehensive plan policies that are

1:22:17 pointed to by Mr. Gelardi and by this by the city attorney's office are more general in nature and they're not as specific as requiring an applicant to provide a plan or even intended uses. And the reason why is because those intended uses can change. I mean heaven heaven forbid this these projects don't go through the property still should be annexed and still allow the city to collect taxes and when development occurs to um to uh exact system development charges. So, at this point, I'm going to um ask if city council has any questions of me and then reserve uh some time for rebuttal.

1:23:04 Does anybody have any questions? Uh you said a lot of material. Does the city attorney have that material? Uh the city attorney has uh most of that material, but some of the material that I cited to was it was was in response to what we received from Mr. Gelardi and also in response to the material regarding the uh 2005 agreement. We will get that to you in writing. >> Okay. Uh, I've got more questions, but I think I want to hear from everybody else first because I'm sure we will all uh be ready for a lively discussion. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. I've got a handful of cards. Um, I'm going to call them up in

1:23:52 in order. So, we're going to do the the uh people who support uh in favor of the proposal first. Melissa Glass. Could you state your name for the record? It's got to be green when you're ready to go. >> Good evening. My name is Melissa Glass and I am a citizen here in the city of Springfield. I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of someone who no longer has a voice. My son Ethan, who died by suicide at the age of 31 after years of struggling with his mental health.

1:24:38 Ethan first spoke to me about his mental health when he was 14 years old. He talked about his continual sadness, struggles with sleep and concentration, and feeling like he didn't belong. He began counseling and a low dose of medication at that time. Once in college, he excelled in his studies and from the outside was happy and healthy. It was on the inside where he was broken, suffering, and exhausted from fighting. He began to use illegal drugs to mask his mental illness and like so many others, flooded his body and mind with drugs, creating a perpetual cycle of addiction and mental crisis. Ethan spent years going between inpatient add addiction rehabilitation and behavioral health inpatient services. His last visit to an inpatient

1:25:24 behavioral health unit was in February 2023 when he admitted to me that he had suicidal thoughts and a plan to end his life. I drove him to the behavioral health hospital, hugged him, told him I loved him, and watched as he walked away alone and scared. After a 72-hour mental health hold, Ethan was discharged with new medications. I had always checked in with him daily and he shared with me that the new medication seemed to be working and he was feeling more helpful hopeful. He then began the daunting process of searching for a psychiatrist who could take on new patients and be able to refill his medications which were going to run out in 30 days. My husband and I found his lifeless body on March 30th, 2023.

1:26:09 His medications had run out and he had been unmedicated for 6 days. Taped to his refrigerator were two business cards, one for a psychiatrist, one for a counselor. Both appointments were scheduled for the following week. He had been able to get those if this facility had been re had been built. Then lying on the bed next to his body was his journal and his last words written, "I am tired. The voices just won't stop." He did the best he could until he couldn't any longer. He didn't want to leave us. He just didn't know how to stay. Ethan was more than his mental illness. He was brilliant, brave, kind, and curious. He was a loving son, brother, uncle, and grandson. Had a bright future, a family who loved him fiercely, and a disease he could no longer battle.

1:26:56 Looking around this room, I wonder how many of us are in the same boat. I cannot bring my son back, but I can stand here and tell you that there are other sons and daughters in this room and in this community who are struggling to stay afloat. We owe it to them and we owe it to the memory of those we've lost to build a community where help isn't just a hope but a reality. And I am asking you to choose to invest in saving lives. My son suffered silently so no one could tell. If you see me smiling, know that my son taught me well. Ethan, I love you more. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And we're so sorry for your loss. Thank you for sharing that with us. I have Amanda Wberg.

1:28:03 >> Hi. Um, I'm speaking in opposition to this being built because as I stated last time, like I've had multiple people tell me pretty much horror stories about this hospital. And I have one recorded. I omitted the name to protect the privacy of the victim, but I'm going to play that for you guys. And also, you should know that this is they're trying to build this on the I5 and Beltline quarter. That is where all the child trafficking happens. When you're in these facilities, you don't have like the HIPPA laws that are supposed to protect us. They're what make it so you can't reach the outside world. If you get put in there by a negligent foster parent that doesn't that doesn't want to take care of you, that wants to make a quick buck, no one's going to know what happened to you. And I'm going to play this for you now.

1:29:01 >> peace health um psychord in Springfield and being there they had I had also been to the one um that used to exist at University District in Eugene and being there they had stripped me of my clothes and they had um injected me with medicine to the point where I couldn't um walk and I couldn't, you know, would basically go straight to sleep. And to me, the way that they had yelled at me and said that I was bad and the way that they had um completely abused me physically and stripped me of my

1:29:46 clothing, I just have a a strong idea in my head that they had raped me before through either my procedures done by um a ENT doctor or through the psych word when they had stripped me and they had given me medicine and made me fall asleep. Um, I do believe that it is possible that I have been raped because of Peace Health and the employees and there are people out there who have most definitely been raped by the Peace Health employees and doctors.

1:30:33 The point is, um, I know you guys make money from this hospital and stuff like that, but at some point, we need to put children's safety ahead of corporate interests, especially when the corporations are not helping. They're not protecting, they're further traumatizing people that are probably there already because they're traumatized. We need a community that's safe for the kids, that's safe for teenagers. We don't need more cages for them. >> Amanda, could you state your name and address? Amanda Wahberg, 275 South Garden Way. >> All right, thank you. Odell Wixs.

1:31:20 >> Hey, council. Um, um, my name is Ardell Wixs. I'm the chief financial officer at Richardson Sports. appreciate you continuing the hearing and and letting us as we find out more information about this to continue to comment. Um we uh as we stated last time uh no one at Richardson Sports uh feels this office shouldn't these projects shouldn't be built. Uh we definitely need them. However, we are continue to be very concerned about the location as the um city staff report indicated that as part of the annexation agreement, we're supposed to look at the how does it match the uh overall plan and uh consideration of the comprehensive plan and the plan districts. Um I'm not an

1:32:05 attorney, but it doesn't seem to match if we're having to override rules or get waiverss for them. Um um I appreciated the applicant's uh discussion about the much of the available land uh there at the hospital, but I'm still perplexed as to if land is so scarce, I'm surprised that we're selling the 45 acres or they're selling the 45 acres of MDR land. Um, if we're needing to change and override zoning, I would think that we would be talking about changing the zoning of that MDR land um to meet the needs. It's closer to the hospital and

1:32:52 um we believe more consistent with with the overall zoning. Um, also, uh, just a another comment, when we purchased our property, um, only there were a few acres, the back parking lot that was not annexed into the city. And as we went through that process of looking at development and that we had to go through an annexation prop pro process negotiating where the city looked at our uses and made sure that they were uh properly zoned and um approved. And then we also had to do a discussion and uh negotiation with the city offering up uh compensation land um

1:33:38 to help pay for the portion of the uh transportation needs for the area. And just from a back of an envelope standpoint, it doesn't appear that uh what we paid per acre for the annexation 10 years ago is uh is being offered up um as part of the annexation of of these close to 20 acres. So again, I appreciate uh you're hearing us and listening and and making these tough decisions that you have to make. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Michael Chardy.

1:34:27 >> Good evening, Mayor Counselors. Again, Michael Gelardi, legal counsel for Richardson Sports. Um, I I put a package of materials into the record today. There's also a letter from the the president of Richardson, Kelly Richardson, I urge you to read. Um, we talked last month about how there's two layers of issues. This is consistent with what Miss Kraz said tonight. The first layer is, you know, a threshold legal issue as to whether the annexation can go forward given that the use isn't consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Uh, the county and peace have not offered an effective legal argument on this. They cited one case out of the city of Woodburn. Doesn't say what they say it says. There's other cases that are on point. Um, that's the city attorney's analysis. I agree with that analysis. Group's attorney, Greg

1:35:13 Hathaway, agrees with that. You can read more about it in our letters. The fact is the city's own comprehensive plan policies that are specifically about annexation require you to look at the proposed use, whether it's permitted in the zone and if it is, if there are adequate public facilities and services. That's the standard. So, we stand by our argument that this annexation can't go forward because the use isn't consistent with the comprehensive plan. Furthermore, the applicants have not offered you a compelling reason to change the city's long-standing policies. Um, I I appreciated the discussion about Peace House Land Holdings. We have our own map of Peace Land Holdings. Um, what I think I understood Peace Health's attorney to

1:35:58 say is we got a 75 year plan for the 20 acres that are undeveloped around the hospital. So they're saying in 75 years we might build something that's more important than this facility that everyone agrees is needed. Now that's just the 20 acres. There's another 40 acres to the west that are undeveloped. It's mixeduse zoning. That zoning allows hospitals. Their arguments about the location don't add up. Moving on to that second layer, the streets issue. Councelor Mo, you asked about how do we decide where the streets go? The city decided this in 1999. It's in the conditions of the partition approval. It's in the plat. This discussion about the 2005 agreement and all the other streets, it's a red herring. Those streets are in addition to the north south FedEx road. Finally, the traffic

1:36:45 issues. What you heard from the applicants last month was our traffic argument is better than the opponent's argument because we have an engineer and they don't. That's not true. We have an engineer too. There's a letter from him in the record today. Also, our analysis is based on or excuse me, our arguments are based on their traffic analysis. Their analysis shows that the beltline intersections either currently don't meet standards or very soon won't meet standards. And so, as a matter of law and as a matter of good policy, they have to fix those intersections before this facility can be operational. Also, to meet the city's obligation to ODOT under the intergovernment agreement, no one's talked about that yet. Finally, look to the city of Corvalis. the city faced very similar situation to you're having. Uh the hospital there made the same arguments. Corvalis didn't accept

1:37:30 it. Look to Corvalis. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um if we have questions for Mr. Gerardi is do we need to go through the application uh the applicant's rebuttal first and then have him back up? Yeah. >> Okay. >> I'm going to talk slower. >> Thank you. >> So, I had a couple questions and then I'll let other folks jump in if they've got them. Um, could you help me understand this uh this question that you guys bring up consistently about peace house other property? >> Is that an is that a criteria of approval for the annexation? They feel

1:38:15 like they're different conversations. I know that it's politically interesting, but is it a criteria? How should I consider that? That's a great question, mayor. It's a crit it's not an official criteria on on the face of the of the city's rules, but what the comprehensive plan says is that you have to evaluate whether the use that's proposed is a permitted use. And we know that it's not a permitted use based on the HOA proceeding that we that we went through last year. and and when the city council decided that hospitals and uh you know emergency medical facilities wouldn't be allowed in the zone. And so what the city attorney is telling you is maybe there's a way you can interpret your comprehensive plan to sort of get around

1:39:01 that discrepancy. And what we're saying is you shouldn't do you don't have to do that legally. Number one, because House Bill 2005 doesn't apply and you shouldn't do it because there's not a compelling reason for you to change your policies, for you to change the way you've interpreted your own rules given all this other land that's available to Peace Health. That's our argument. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and I think the other question that I have is could you help us understand from your client's perspective? I don't think they gave testimony for the rehab hospital which had a had a zone change if I remember correctly attached to it. Could you help us understand the discrepancy in their opinion in these two in these two issues? >> Absolutely, Mayor. In that proceeding,

1:39:47 they went through a plan amendment and a zone change. They're trying to avoid that process. They're trying to avoid all the planning and the scrutiny that goes with that process. That's that was the purpose of the super setting law was to get around them having to go through that plan amendment and zone change process. When they were first discussing acquiring this property, they assumed that that was going to be the case and apparently they decided it was too difficult and so that's why they did the super sighting to try to shortcut so they wouldn't have to meet the standards that are required when you go through a plan amendment and a zone change. So that's the that's why our position is different now than it was then. Also, this is a different kind of facility than was proposed there, which we think, you know, has the potential to have greater impacts on the neighborhood.

1:40:32 >> And then could you zoom back to the trans kind of the transportation issue? Because we're still having this conversation about where exactly the road should go from your perspective, why why does the original map I don't know if it's matter support, like why the original why why the original road location? The city determined that that was the proper location back in 1999 and you heard from the city staff last month that they still think that that's the right location. They still think that that's the right street plan and we support that because we want to see Maple Island Road be built out in an efficient way. Richard, as you heard from Mr. Wix, you know, Richardson has reserved land for that. We want to see that street get built. We we agree with

1:41:18 the staff that this is the best way to do it. And my last question, I promise I know people are eager to get get into this. So when you think about the two, and I know this isn't a resone, but when you think about the two uses, could you talk to me a little bit about why your it sounds like your opinion is that sort of medical uses in a campus industrial zone is not is not compatible with a campus industrial zone. Is that accurate? We don't believe it's compatible with campus ind well not all I mean we certainly had this debate last year and we had a lot of discussion about what kind of medical uses would be okay and we worked with you know all the parties worked together we had a robust debate and at the end of the day we all decided to to abide by the council's decision

1:42:05 which which was a compromised decision. So we think that was a good compromise in terms of what kind of medical uses are compatible and which kinds are not and we asked council to stand by it. >> Right. Thank you. Wait, did anybody else have any other questions before I let you go? Oh, councelor Buck. So, um I'm going to need a little bit of help with some of the legal interpretation cuz I I don't quite understand it. So, can you help me understand um the conversation around House Bill 2005? You know, obviously peace health counselor says that it it it doesn't apply and you're and you're saying that it does

1:42:51 I'm not understanding the argument and so help me out here. >> Sure. I I yeah I hate to speak for Peace Health and their team. Um you know our argument is that House Bill 2005 does not apply to this annexation at all. And I think I've heard peace sort of echo that. um this the city attorney's position is maybe a little bit different and and and certainly Miss Kra can can speak for herself on this. I mean >> the the the plain language and legislative history of 2005 which we we've put in the record shows that it doesn't cover annexation at all. Okay. So, we're asking you to apply the city's normal annexation policies. And our

1:43:36 argument is those policies require you to look at the use that's being proposed. Is it a permitted use in the zone? That's the first question. And then if so, okay, do we have adequate public and facilities and services plans to deal with that potential use? We think it's clear based on the HOA proceeding that the crisis center is not an allowed use in this zone and therefore it's not consistent with comprehensive plan. And and then the second the second question that I had um you know and I guess I have I have the same same question for for peace health um to kind of so when we look at when we look at that beltline gateway intersection and

1:44:23 if if if we say that it's it's problematic now whether it's it's meeting standards the city has said that it doesn't meet the city standards in terms of intersection performance. So that's going to be true regardless of the outcome of this. It's it's not performing well. Even if that land stayed vacant, that that that's not performing well. Part of the annexation, as you comment, is to bring intersections up so that it mitigates mitigates the problem. And I'm wondering what your interpretation then is is it's an already existing problem that this annexation didn't cause. Um it's

1:45:08 not going to necessarily I I I can't I'm not sure if it's going to make it worse, but it certainly didn't cause. It's an existing problem. So is is is your position that peace has an obligation to fix an existing problem? I'm just wanting to clarify that piece. The legal, thank you for the question, counselor. The the legal standard is that there has to be a minimum level of public facilities. And there's particular definitions around that when it comes to traffic and roads. And what the applicant's engineering analysis shows is that it doesn't meet the standard and it's going to be worse if the crisis center is

1:45:55 built. And so therefore, as under the annexation criteria, those that situation has to be rectified. The intersections have to be fixed so that they meet minimum standards before the crisis center can operate. Basically, it has to be fixed while it's being developed. We're not saying it has to be fixed today. And that was the Woodburn situation, right? City of Woodburn said, "We don't like this subdivision for whatever reason." and our criteria for a planned unit development, which is a type of subdivision, say that streets have to be a certain way. Today, the streets aren't that way, so therefore we won't approve it. That's not what we're saying. We're saying by by the time that it's developed and is operational, those streets have to be fixed. That's that's the legal standard. And so, they have to

1:46:42 do their share of that. Now certainly there's there's takings law there in terms of how much you can require an applicant to do but the applicants haven't done the analysis to or at least haven't shared with you the analysis of what would be required what it would cost how much of it they should be responsible for and and this is the Corvalis situation so you know very similar there are intersections on highway 99 west that are problematic but were going to be worse after you know good Samaritan annex the and and expanded their campus. Good Samaritan said very similar to what Lane County and Peace Health are saying, "We don't have to make any off-site improvements to these intersections because we're we fall under this particular exemption to the state transportation planning rule,

1:47:28 which is a term that you've heard bandied about a lot by the applicants." That was their position. Basically the same position that the county and peace out are taking here. That was two years ago. The city of Corvalis said, "No, we don't agree with that. We think our annexation standards are different and require more. Certainly, that's Richardson and Group's interpretation of Springfield's uh standards as well. Corvalis didn't accept Good Sam's position and they're still negotiating that two years later. So, we think that that's something that Springfield should at least study and see if there's something we can learn from that. >> All right, questions. Councelor Cuadras. So, I hear you talking about traffic, but I I do want to hear um some of the

1:48:15 other primary concerns that your employer has regarding what you stated earlier is the impact to the neighborhood. >> Sure. Well, you know, you you mentioned certainly traffic is one certainly um you know, creating a a business climate where people want to come and work, where people are safe to work. Um, you know, Richardson employ, this is in the record, Richardson employs hundreds of people. They work oftentimes odd shifts um where they're leaving work at night. We want to make sure that um you know they feel comfortable coming and going from from work every day. Um so certainly the the public safety emergency response services are part of it. That's one of the public services that apply to annexation. There's a case

1:49:01 out of Cave Junction that's specifically about this. the applicants haven't addressed that at all. We think that's one category of public services that needs to be addressed that hasn't been addressed. Um, and there are also particular issues with this site in terms of it being in the flood plane and in terms of the drainage. It sounds like they have a a storm water plan that's different than what Richardson has had to do than what uh the Temple has done and that they want to discharge storm water to Maple Island Slooh. you think there's potential environmental issues there and they haven't been addressed at all in terms of, you know, having a plan for how you would deal with those. So, those are some examples of of the of the, you know, the impact type issues that we're concerned about.

1:49:52 All right, other questions? Thank you for coming up for additional questions. Sure. Thank you. All right. Uh, the next uh I do have a staff response to any testimony. And I will note for the sub folks, it's probably going to be a while still. Um, you're more than welcome to stay, but I know you're, you know, we we could reschedule the the the time to present your material. I guess just a quick comment from planning staff's perspective. Um, I did receive testimony that I passed along to the city recorder and hopefully it made it uh to council um right at the end of the business day today. Uh so needless to say staff has I I guess personally had a chance to review it cursory. Um but our transportation planning engineer

1:50:39 um has not been copied on that information. Um so there will be additional staff analysis required before we can kind of wrap up the staff report and provide a comprehensive analysis of all the testimony that we've received which is right up until now essentially. So um and there will be probably more to come um tonight. So, um, that constitutes staff's position. Right now, we're kind of waiting for the end of testimony before we can kind of summarize and, uh, formulate recommendations. And I'm I'll see what Christina has to say do. >> And a couple things I wanted to try to clarify because both the applicant and the testimony from U. Mike Gelardi for Richardson touched on this point. Um my recommendation is that House Bill 2005

1:51:25 or the the now codified ins does not apply directly to the annexation. Where I think it comes into play, not legally applies but comes into play is that without that law being passed, the contemplated proposed use for this property probably wouldn't be the um crisis stabilization center. So, um I think that the lawyers all agree that House Bill 2005 itself does not apply, but it's clearly context for the intended development of the property. And I think you heard where we disagree on that and how you consider intended development. I can address many of the comments um the applicants and and opposing council made um if that's what council would like to hear um but I don't want to use the time if that's not

1:52:10 um going to be helpful to you tonight. >> Uh no, I think it would be I I think it would be helpful. Okay. Um, there was a comment from the um I think first going to the the land need. Um, I'm I'm not sure that it's directly relevant to the criteria of approval except that the gateway refinement plan does talk about medical services and I'd be happy to dig into more on policies around uh, you know, planning for a major medical facility as it was discussed in the GL in the sorry gateway refinement plan. Um, I have not been able to locate any Oregon Health Authority rules that require specialty clinics like um, for example, sleep center to be located near

1:52:57 a level two trauma center. So, that might be an area where the council could use some more information. Um, there are requirements for within a level two trauma center. Um but my understanding is that there are special types of specialty clinics that it is desirable from a property owner rent collection economic perspective to have located near the hospital because they're higher um profitability margin uses than mental health treatment that tends to have a fairly low Medicare Medicaid reimbursement rate. Um, but that's not information that we have documented in the record and I would if that's something the council wants more information on, I'd like to be able to get that to you if that's something you're you think you should consider.

1:53:44 Um, the um the TPR, transportation planning rule, that's discussed in more detail in the council briefing memo. Um but I did want to talk about the comment from the applicants that the criteria under the transportating rule um that the annexation criteria are much more toned down. I don't necessarily agree that that's the difference in analysis. I think that the transportation planning rule requires a detailed look at significant effects on planned or existing transportation facilities. the annexation criteria requires you to provide timely, orderly, and efficient provision of services. And so I think in some cases that can be a more general review and in other cases it's going to be more detailed. And it's going to

1:54:30 involve case by case um look at what does timely, orderly, and efficient mean for a particular annexation. Um so I just wanted to I I don't think there's a hierarchy of analysis. I think it's a different analysis. Um there was discussion about the city council from the applicant that the city council does not have discretion to state where local streets must go. Um there was a comment that the council does not require residential streets in certain locations at the time of residential annexations. Um the city council in fact does regularly require the location of residential streets for annexations. There was a very recent annexation off 19th Street where the annexation agreement provided specific key local street connections that would mean need to be made upon um a certain

1:55:16 level of intensification um of use of that property through a subdivision or additional development of certain number of units. So um that is just factually inaccurate for how the city council's traditionally applied your criteria. Um, and then you do, I believe, have discretion to determine where local streets go in the context of applying the criteria of approval. And those are laid out in the staff report. A few of those criteria are the TSP policy one, um, that I can pull up and read, you know, back to you, but it's in the staff report. And then the industrial element policy 7 in the gateway refinement plan. Both of those have to do with providing um efficient transportation networks and it does not distinguish between those collector streets or or say only for collector

1:56:01 streets. It talks about the entire network and of course local streets are an important part of the entire transportation network. Um I also don't agree with the applicant's read of just versus the city of Lebanon. Um and I I think that this may be in the um Mr. Gelard's written comments, but I haven't had a chance to read those in detail. I was hoping I could just um read to the council from that case. This was an Oregon Court of Appeals case. This is actually not land use board of appeals. Um Lebanon's criteria of approval included there. They were they had annexation policies. We call those urbanization policies, but they're essentially the same type of policy for the same purpose. The city of Lebanon

1:56:46 shall require proof that urban services are available or can be made available to serve the property considered for annexation and the additional demands that would be placed on those services will not overburden their present capabilities. Public right ofways necessary for safe and efficient movement of traffic, bicycle and pedestrians shall be provided with annexation and without obligation to the city of Lebanon. and the parties involved in seeking annexation or who may be included in the annexation shall initiate a program to upgrade any urban services and/or public facilities within the area considered for annexation that do not meet standards as may be established by the city of Lebanon. While those are ve, you know, different wording and maybe slightly different legal standards than the city of Springfield's criteria, they

1:57:31 are very, very similar to your criteria to provide for the timely, orderly, and efficient provision of public facilities and services. And to mitigate fiscal impacts on the city, the court of appeals stated that the policies I just read to you um oh sorry, there's one additional policy. The city shall consider impacts on community facilities before building reszoning or annexation requests are approved. Um and the court said those policies contemplate the city will consider a specific development proposal. They require the city to consider the impact of the proposal of public facilities and services. and the impact of the proposal on public facilities and services when the city makes its annexation decision. So, I'm I wanted to just provide you the I think

1:58:17 some relevant information from that case because you're hearing a lot of different people's opinion on what the case stands for. I think the court of appeals was really clear that certain types of policy language have an implied obligation to look at the impact on public facilities and services of a more detailed land use proposal than just generic zoning. I think the council has to when no specific propos proposal is required, you have to make findings about what's likely future development or the annexation agreement has to set boundaries on what that development can be and it's often included as a requirement to go through site plan approval where you apply the normal criteria um for that. Um and then

1:59:12 I think the um Mr. Gelardi um discussed your question um is other property a criteria of approval. So I think I touched on that. Um it depending on how the council wants to look at or apply the gateway refinement plan. I think that's where that would come into play is looking at the gateway refinement plan as a detailed area plan and looking at how this proposed use fits in within that um gateway refinement plan. Um the um I I am not sure that I think this is where we would Andy like Andy said we would want more comments. I'm not sure that the 1998 road location makes a mark market mar marketked difference on

1:59:57 whether Maple Island Road itself gets built out more efficiently. I think it more impacts the way traffic moves efficiently to Maple Island Road, which may also be what what Richardson's interest is, but I thought that was a slightly nuanced position. And I wanted to be clear that um we'll have to follow up with you on how where your local road goes, how that might impact whether or when Maple Island Road gets built. I'm not clear on that right now. So, we'll have to work with um Michael on that. And then um the impact to the neighborhoods. So, public safety and emergency response is discussed in the staff report as one of the issues around um provision of police

2:00:43 services and medical services to this property. Um when I've spoken with um Springfield Police Department staff, command staff, the they acknowledge that if the facilities are operated the way that they have intended for them to be operated, that they could provide a net benefit and decreasing demand on Springfield Police Services as compared to current responses to the emergency room because it may offer a more efficient way to um for SPD to inter interact with people who are undergoing a mental health crisis. Um but there's also the possibility that it the facility over time or for reasons outside of um expectations now the facility may not operate in the way it's intended to be operated. And so um we could also explore a um good neighbor

2:01:29 type agreement that would be a little different than a traditional good neighbor agreement in that it would talk about the ways the facility will operate to reduce the impact to SPD and police response. Um, I also think that providing access to trans to transit um will be a key element could could be a key element of what the council wants to look at and hasn't been discussed yet. This um proposed crisis stabilization center and the um building for the mental health hospital will be much further away from a bus stop than either of the existing emergency rooms are in Springfield currently. I do not know about the university district hospital and where it's located relative to bus stops, but um the existing bus stations are within a few hundred feet of a bus stop on a um frequent transit network or

2:02:17 pretty close to a pretty close to that in terms of service frequency. And just based on their conceptual site plan of where buildings would go and where LTD's at currently, it would be um a quarter mile or more walk to that nearest bus stop. So I think that proximity to transit um is another aspect that you may want to look at. >> Any other questions I can answer? >> Councelor Buck. >> Uh so to clar clarifying um on something you'd said Andy and then um just kind of a process and point of order for you Christina um question. So you so the existing staff report that we have, you're saying that the staff um staff

2:03:03 report um that you haven't uh hasn't had a chance to contemplate new information and you're kind of waiting as staff to kind of gather all that, close the testimony before you can consider, okay, let's respond one time to all of it in a staff report to kind of um wrap this up. That's am I hearing you correctly there? >> That's correct. Okay. So, Christina, what are the what are the rules and the mechanisms available to us as a council for how to how to proceed so that we give time for all all of the the public comment and all of that to come in, but also have like a cut off date? Should we maybe wait and

2:03:48 let the applicant uh have their turn to close, make their closing comments before we figure out what to do next? >> Well, I'm curious what the procedure optional, but Okay, >> I'd be happy to talk about the procedural option at like a really high level now so that if the applicant has a preference, they can say that in their rebuttal. Um, >> yeah, I think that's fine. And I just I want to avoid us getting into deliberating the next >> real real details. But the the general options are you can close the hearing tonight or you can continue it again. Continuing the hearing gives you the benefit of being able to engage in direct question and answer. At this point you could continue the hearing for a a smaller set of um issues or questions you um I don't think need to have it wide open if you don't want to. If you want to say we'd continue in it

2:04:33 and we want to be able to hear about or talk about XYZ, that's an option. You can keep the record open for um additional information. I think the record needs to be left open for seven days because new information and testimony was submitted for this hearing. So under state law, you have to leave it open at least 7 days for response to that material. You could decide to leave it open for longer for other like for for all comments. Um if the council's interested in reviewing an annexation agreement before your next deliberation, staff would like to be able to put that into the record, for example. Um, so those are the general we're not recommending that you close both the hearing and record tonight. Um, so either the hearing's continued or the record's left open for some period of time and then we can get into more detail later on the exact timing and

2:05:18 procedures. Ultimately, the applicant has to have the opportunity unless they wave it to have the last review and response to any new information. >> All right, great. Are there any other questions for the staff before we have the applicant back up? Uh, councelor Stone, >> I was just curious about the fiscal impact on the on the revenue and the taxation side. It doesn't need to come out now, but um more mostly curious on like the net taxable impact um you know with considering measure five and compression and all of that. >> Um I did do a little bit I did a little bit of um research. So, Riverbend is subject the hospital is subject to property taxes. Um the um for Timber

2:06:04 Springs Peace Health had to file what's known as a certificate of need. Um and I can get that uh excerpt of that into the record. They stated they included a high level almost like a proforma for that and estimated a million dollars per year in um taxes that were not income taxes. I'm not sure um if that was 100% property taxes, but I think it gives some ballpark on what the property taxes could be from that facility. If the million dollars per year is all property tax payments, then um about 25% of the property tax payments in that area are what goes to the city's um general fund. That's generally not enough to address the structural deficit. No one property in Springfield can really annex and

2:06:50 develop and solve your structural deficit. So you heard some comments in the original hearing that you know annexing and taxing property or SDC's would pay for or mitigate financial impacts. I don't think that's accurate because of the structural imbalance the city has and the cost of providing emergency services. And then coupled with the fact that only a portion of the gateway belt line um projects would be paid for with system development charges and that's potentially something that the applicant could provide more information on. Unlike most development applications, tax revenue from the proposed project can be relevant to this decision um where you wouldn't look at that in a plan amendment zone change or um development code amendment or discretionary use permit. >> All right, other questions?

2:07:36 I think we're ready for the applicant. It's >> real clear. I'm going to move back over here so I can answer procedural questions if they come up more easily. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Your microphone on. You'll be a pro by the time you you're done with this. >> You have more faith in me than I do. Thank you. Okay. Uh thank you uh mayor and city council again for the record. Mike Reer u I want to uh just go through the uh rebuttal in the order that it came in because I think that makes much more sense. Uh but there's some things we're going to talk about that are a little more pressing uh for you tonight.

2:08:23 So, first of all, uh, in regards to I I missed her name, but the second speaker who testified in opposition, I just want to make clear we will follow up try we will attempt to follow up with her and find out what's going on there. Uh, there were some serious accusations uh made that we want to follow up with and we're sensitive to that. Um, next I want to uh respond to Mr. Wix's comment that uh the question about well if land is so scarce around the Riverbend uh hospital then why why not the why not reszone the MDR property well it's because we have two crisises we have a mental health crisis we have aging population and we also have a a a housing crisis and those

2:09:08 are all interrelated medium density residential you have already made the the ultimate policy you've heard me say this over and over again, but that's what land use attorneys talk about. Your ultimate policy decision is that this property that is over 40 acres of developable medium density residential property be developed for resident uh medium density residential housing which is sorely needed in this community. And in fact, it would be it will also have the dual effective if if and when it is developed for housing in the near future be a benefit to the community because care providers will be able to locate close to the hospital. And not only do you need the square footage, the 1.2 million plus square footage that we have

2:09:53 at Riverbend, and we're going to need more in the future, but you also need the people to staff that square footage. And this is a this is a comprehensive plan. We didn't just think of this last year. This has been this planning framework has been going on for decades. Um so there there is an answer to those questions about why not Riverbend. Um I understand that Richardson did help pay for some of the infrastructure with the uh with their annexation agreement uh in 2012. uh so did the previous owners of this property. So as you I don't know if I can pull this up. I'm not confident I can pull up my PowerPoint, please.

2:10:43 Um m the Maple Island Road, we haven't even we as the applicants haven't even talked about how that has already been given up. Uh that property has been the the Lane County property to the north is already carved up with Maple Island Road. uh dedication and that was the previous property owner that Lane County has the same type of obligations that Richardson and Haw and others have given up. Thank you so much. What would I do without you, Andy? Okay, let's see here. Let me quickly go there. Okay, you see the dotted green on the north part of the Lane County property? that is required to eventually be dedic or be developed on Lane County's property. So all of the dedication and

2:11:28 construction of property uh on Peace Health and the Lane County property in addition to that is also goes to the good of the order goes to the Springfield community. Um I want to address um Mr. Gelard's comments. He said there were two layers of issues. There's the first the threshold legal issue which he doesn't say explicitly but which is really saying you can't approve the annexation because this isn't allowed use in the CI zone. That's essentially what the argument boils down to and that cannot be. So, we have stated for the record and I will state it again that House Bill 2005 doesn't apply to annexation because annexation doesn't allow the

2:12:14 city council to deny the annexation based on the comprehensive plan policies that were identified by city uh attorney's office and by uh Mr. Gelardi. But if they did, House Bill 2005 would kick in and and because the specific language of House Bill 2005 talks about the fact that local governments in in in urban growth boundaries shall approve these uses without the need for a comprehensive plan or zone change. So if if Mr. Jelard's um position was correct that uh that the comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan policies could somehow prohibit this use because it's not con it's not an allowed use uh in

2:13:00 the CI zone or the comprehensive plan policies kick in to prohibit it then house bill 2005 would kick in by it the very terms. So yes, H House Bill 2005, nowhere nowhere will you see the word annexation. What you will see in section 60 is within an urban growth boundary. So it could have said within a city limits, but it doesn't. It says within an urban growth boundary, which this property is, a local government shall allow a crisis stabilization center as defined by the statute. Within an urban growth boundary, a local government shall allow a mental or psychiatric hospital licensed under the statute and may not require a plan amendment, zone change, or conditional use permit for the property on which the facility is cited

2:13:47 if the property is on property owned commercial employment or industrial land. So even though it doesn't talk about annexation, it also says that you you shall allow this use on this property without us having to go through a comprehensive plan process. So that's the plain terms of the language of of of the provision of the supersiding bill. So we also heard that I I I actually heard conflicting statement. He said Mr. Gelardi said when it comes to re uh using this property for this use, you shouldn't do it. But then he says uh why not why why not oppose the plan amendment zone change? He said well

2:14:33 because that was a different process. So which is it? Is it a concern about losing campus industrial land or not? And I'm not sure which that is. Um he also mentioned that this is a different type of facility. Okay. So this this is and and talk about the impacts. This is this is the reason why we have federal laws such as the ADA and the federal fair housing act and the religious land use in institutionalized persons act is because those are seen by the federal government through experience throughout the states as disfavored uses and you're hearing that tonight. So to the extent that those

2:15:20 impacts of the clients of a stabilization center or a behavioral health uh unit can be uh even if you could even if you could take that into account in this annexation application which you can't federal law prohibits you from doing that. Okay, the real headscratcher, the 1998 the 1999 uh land division for this property. In 1999, the city said as part of a condition of approval for the land division that the applicant will provide for a potential future north south connection potential future. It did not require a dedication. So Mr. Gelard's issue with

2:16:08 it's totally irrelevant. The 1999 land division has no bearing on where we put the road and in fact in 19 in 2005 the city already made the decision not to do it. So I I am really struggling to understand why the city staff is pushing for this north south uh connection. Um, I know I understand why someone who opposes this particular intended use on this site would want it because it would be problematic for Lane counties uh because of our our proposed our our intended use of the property and the location of the facility. So, if you want to gum up the works, but in terms of a transportation strategy, I just don't see it. And the city council, as

2:16:53 I've exhaustively explained, has already made the the ultimate policy choice of where those minor collector roads go. And this is not that. Okay. So, if you go to the annexation criteria, It says uh let's get to see the proposed annexation will result in a boundary and that's the boundary the territory that you're intending to

2:17:38 annex in which the minimum level of key urban facilities and services as defined in the Springfield comprehensive plan can be provided in an orderly, efficient and timely manner. Minimum has meaning. Oregon state law OS 1740 requires that we give meaning to all provisions of your code you have to include me minimum. So when Mr. Gelardi and when the city says that the transportation planning rule requires that these facilities be I think I I think I heard Mr. Gelardi say this, but if I'm incorrect, uh, please forgive me, but that if the if the beltline gateway intersection isn't

2:18:23 fixed, then you can't approve that. If that's not what he's saying, I apologize, but if that's what he's saying, that's not that is not accurate. Minimum level of services mean, is there a street? Is there a way to get to the property? Is there water? Is there sewer? Is there storm water discharge? And I might add, we're not proposing to when this property is developed to discharge into the Slooh. Just want to make that clear. But it's minimum level of services and that that minimum must have meaning. It can't be we'll upgrade it uh upgrade something that has been a problem for quite a long time and it's going to continue to be a problem until there's a solution. And the applicants propose a way to help with that solution, which is $321,000 to provide a study for experts to figure out how to

2:19:09 un un uh not that intersection. That's so problematic. Mr. Gelardi talked about a a a case in Corvalis. That was a plan amendment zone change. There was not annexation as far as I understand. I we just received that today, so I haven't vetted that in detail, but that's what I understand. And he's talking about how they've been negotiating it for two years. I'm sorry, we we don't have two years. Um you don't treat crisises uh in two-year time frames. There was discussion about needing to have Mr. Joel already talked about needing to have people safe at work. Well, this is a public safety proposal. We are we are proposing uh that the

2:19:55 intended use will help with public safety. You you heard that on May 18th that it's going to help reduce uh the times where uh the police have to wait uh for the discharge of someone who is going to the stabilization center and it will it will be impactful for the entire community. uh related to what I was talking about with uh the transportation planning rule. Um staff said they don't agree with the distinction. Uh she talked uh Miss Kratz talked about the transportation planning rule and having significant effects. Well, we've we've already demonstrated that there are no significant effects to the annexation.

2:20:41 And even if you were to take the intended use, we in fact will mitigate the planning year horizon level of service and VOCC ratio for that intersection. So in actuality, we're we're improving things, not making it worse. Miss Kratz is correct. And she correct. She I told you they're good. They cross the the city attorney's office. They cross their their tees, dot their eyes. They're very thorough. It's correct. Uh

2:21:26 a sleep center does not need to be located next to the hospital. I misspoken for that. I apologize. the other uses that I listed, the other however many dozen or so uses, those those are required to be adjacent to a tertiary center. So, you know, one out of 12 is uh is my my my error and I apologize for that. Okay, let's talk about uh the most important thing that I think is here is is before you, which is can you consider these comprehensive plan policies? Okay. And uh the the just decision that Miss Kratz talks talks about has a very important distinction that's critical in this case and that is in the city of Lebanon. City of Lebanon had a comprehensive plan policy that

2:22:12 specifically required a development plan. The plain language of the comprehensive plan said that you have if you go if you're going to annex the property, you have to have a plan. There is nowhere in the code or the comprehensive plan that I can see that talks about a plan, a a development plan. And so what what what the what the city did was the city aired in that case by saying, you know what, we know you don't have a plan. We're going to annex you anyway and and and we'll hold you to that. We'll hold you to a plan later on. Well, Luba and the Court of Appeals said, "No, you can't do that because the plain language of your code specifically says you c you you can't defer it. You can't wave it. You can't defer it." That's not the case in this particular case. So,

2:22:58 the case law is supportive of the applicant's position. And I'd like to just uh further uh nail that down with uh the fact that we have we have briefed this. we will provide that briefing to you in a comprehensive way so that it's easily digestible because it sounds like we're going to be keeping the the record open. One last thing that I want to say uh regarding Mr. Gelard's comments regarding the transportation uh transportation issues. Well, at the time of the hearing on May 18th, Mr. Gelard's client had not engaged or he had not provided anything to us. It wasn't until until today when we received a two-page

2:23:43 memo from Mr. KO about about the um transportation system uh analysis and that and we we've actually had we've actually taken the time to respond to that. Miss uh uh Kelly Sando is here to respond to to that if necessary. But let me just this June let's see June 1st letter everything that Mr. Clomo says can be is is addressed. So, first he talks about a TIA, a transportation impact analysis. That's not in the record. That transportation impact analysis was done well before the application and it was part of the due diligence. It was not the transportation planning rule analysis that's in the record and that we're relying on. So, that's the first thing. The second is

2:24:29 the first thing that Mr. Cleo talks about is he talks about the couplet not be he doesn't give credit for the couplet being a fix. Well, you as a city council, you've already determined that the couplet is a potential fix. It's part of your planning horizon. You're you're um receiving SDC funds to make that fix. We all recognize that it may not be a fix, which is why we're planning to pay the $321,000 for the study to do something in the alternative, but for the time being, that is part of the transportation system plan, and we as an applicant have the right to rely on the transportation system plan. Uh and then uh the intersection analysis we've already we have provided documentation to show that the

2:25:15 intersection at belt line and gateway will be improved and we do not have to go through and say you know what can't annex any more property because you have this problematic intersection. You that's not part of the criteria for an annexation for approval. and it would really hamper any other development in the the north part where you've already brought in property for employment large lot employment on the north uh on the north part of your property. And if anybody ever wants to do a plan amendment zone change, they'll be going through the you know such as the Royal Caribbean property or any others you're going to be having to do that analysis. So, uh with that, I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> All right. Does anybody have any questions? Okay. I've got I've got a couple. So my

2:26:01 question is really um so you refer to the conversation around in different places where you want us to defer to our policy choices the council already made. So like with the MDR zone, right? And um and in in some cases some of the transportation choices. How do I weigh that with the fact that you like that both the supersiding bill and you know the position of of your clients is that you want us to defer to policy choices we made in some cases but not necessarily defer in all cases. That feels inconsistent to me. >> Yeah, your honor, that's that's a great

2:26:47 question. So, first of all, I I I don't >> Honorable mayor, >> that's okay. It's late. >> You don't have to call me Esquire. I want uh no. So, that's a good question. So the the uh issue before you is uh that okay the ultimate policy decisions are ultimate policy decisions that this body can and has made when the state or the federal government supersede your ultimate decision policym you we all know this you have to abide by that. So

2:27:33 it's not inconsistent for us to say hang on to your ultimate policy decisions that you've made that you've that require going to the planning commission being adopted by ordinance by the city council being noticed going through all that having public hearings for transportation system plans and for comp plan amendments and all those things and also at the same time saying well by the way you got to abide by state and federal law. I mean it's it's no different than saying you have to abide by the amendments to the constitution. It may not be in your code, but you still have to do it. So that's >> Okay. And what happens if we require the road to go essentially through the middle of the property? Is the project untenable at that point? >> Uh well, okay, let me Yes, but you in development you just

2:28:21 never say never and you don't want to back yourself into a corner, but essentially yeah, you're destroying Lane County's the entire plan. There's really other negative consequences that you know as an attorney I don't really get into but the architects and the civil engineers have assured us that no that's you do not want the road going through the middle and if you pull back even if we don't have the intended use let's say this intended use never gets developed and later on it needs to be developed we still think it's a bad idea to put the road through the middle of that because it's just it's carved up uh with Maple Island Road and then if you put a T right through it you're really making it very difficult for any type of reasonable development on the Wayne County property.

2:29:07 >> Okay. And I I think I've got one more question. Well, it's at the crux of this, right? You you mentioned it in your opening, you know, sort of comments was that campus industrial has been a challenging zone for a long time, right? But that is a but that is an area that we have invested heavily and that's been a long time a vision of you know and we have plenty of um we have we have plenty of businesses and community stakeholders that are very valuable to the city of Springfield that are up there and the crux that I'm trying to kind of work my way through it is when you describe it it's sort of like the end of campus industrial as we know it right and that that choice is kind of being given to this community opposed to us choosing our future. So, how do I balance those

2:29:54 two things? >> Yeah, great great question, your honor. Uh, you Richard Babcock is called considered the godfather of zoning and his mantra is change is the name of the game in zoning. We are much we are much different community. We are much different state and we're a much different nation than we were in 1992 when the campus industrial the light medium industrial zone campus industrial yes the city is invested heavily uh the the land owners have invested heavily but you need to ask your qu your yourself this question what is the well first of all the property has been vacant since you know since forever but since 1992 and what is going to be the harm for

2:30:42 this use for the neighbors. How is it is it really incompatible? I would posit no. It's it's a very compatible use. Uh people may have a stigma, you know, related to people who are suffering mental health crisises, but this is to accommodate that and to help the community. But if you were looking at this for, let's say we were going to use a use, let's say it wasn't mental health, maybe it was the inpatient rehabilitation hospital, maybe we needed another one. Would we be talking about the uses? Would the neighbors come out in opposition? I think not based on their testimony today.

2:31:28 >> All right. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you. I guess we have to choose a path forward here. >> Yes. So, I think the first question is is are there topics that you're wanting additional verbal presentations on or back and forth on? I think that's the first sort of threshold question. Are we wanting to hear more from folks and have the chance to ask them questions >> and could Oh, councelor >> like in real time. >> Thank you. Um, no. Um, that's my brief answer because I'm have no filters. Um, I I don't think that I need to hear from people, but I did read through the staff

2:32:14 report a couple of times. And I think there are some issues that I think we need to dig into and that came up here tonight around the traffic, the public safety, the whatever those three words you had for whether or not, you know, we're going to be able to serve the property in the ways that we need to serve the property. And it looks like that's an underdeveloped area. I don't need to have people tell me about it, but I think that's part of that we need to address that. Um, and just since in case I don't want to talk again, um, I support the like closing the hearing, but keeping the record open. >> Well, I think that's the first decision we've got to make. So, is everybody comfortable with me closing the hearing? Okay. I'm hearing I'm seeing head nods. Okay. So, I'm going to close the hearing for this. And then and then do we have

2:33:00 to choose a date when we want to keep the record open, too? You do not need to choose a date to leave the record open. If you want to leave it open indefinitely until the next time you meet and then decide what to do with the record, that means the next time that you meet, you likely can't make your final decision. Um, I do believe the applicants are eager to have that decision made before the summer recess. So, that's something for the council to consider. >> I given the amount of content here, I think I feel like that would be challenging. Um, if if we leave if we just go with the 7-day period, is that going to give the staff enough time? >> I would need some really clear direction from the council tonight on which findings you want um to make um and would need to spend some more time this evening walking through the staff report and those each interpretation of a

2:33:45 policy and all the issues that have been raised. So, um I I think staff will rise to whatever bar you set for us um and make every effort to, but it would be a challenge on the council, I think, both this evening, and we would be challenged as staff to do that, but um we work for you. >> Well, let's I appreciate that. Um we don't need to set any uh city set any Olympic records for staff work tonight. Um, so I'm going to I'm looking I I think if we're going to have we're going to need more time to work, can we could we do it this way is that we leave the record open um and then you know we do additional work because you're going to ask a ton of questions of you know of us

2:34:30 and I'm going to see everybody turning into a pumpkin tonight. um if we schedule more time in June to go through some of the some of those questions so that we can get get the record closed. Is that possible? >> Yes, that's certainly one of the options. >> Okay. Do we have to choose a specific date to do it again? I would I think it would be helpful to let all the parties know the next date you intend to schedule the item for so that they'll have assurance of when the at least the record will be open until um I I would feel more comfortable making that decision on the record of when you're going to hold your third reading so that everybody knows the minimum time the record would be left open and we can

2:35:15 talk about what further record per open record period would be needed at the next meeting depending on again what new material materials we get. >> Okay. So, um >> and then the other question I would have for you is you do you want the record open for any and all new evidence or do you only want the record open? So, there's a couple things you could do. You could decide on a date to keep the record open until when the next time you meet. You could say we only want the submitt of responses to issues already raised. Um we don't want new information or arguments or evidence. We just want responses or elaborating on things that were raised tonight. Um, if somebody submits something outside that threshold, the council would then have to decid consider next time you meet whether to reject materials, um, which I

2:36:00 think you have authority to do if it's outside the scope of what you leave the record open for. And then we would have to have some opportunity for the applicant to provide a final um, analysis or rebuttal of that in writing before you could close the record. So you'd either provide that seven days um leading up to when you're going to meet or you'd provide it after you meet if you're going to want the record open even further. >> So from a process perspective, right, we come back, we do a third reading at some date that we're going to decide. >> Um if no work on the on a potential annexation agreement is gets done until the record's closed and then we give some direction on where to go. I would recommend that we leave the record open at least at the at the very when you're ready if or when you want to look at a

2:36:45 proposed annexation agreement. I would recommend that the record that that we allow an open record period for the public to respond to the draft annexation agreement and some time for final applicant rebuttal. Um because I I want to heir on the side of caution that the draft annexation agreement I I don't want anyone to argue on appeal that there was a procedural issue because the draft annexation agreement wasn't available for written response. Go >> ahead, councelor B. >> So just kind of commenting um Mr. Mayor and and Christina, it's it sounds like the way we have to do this is is is a couple of steps. We have to leave it the record open for you know

2:37:33 whatever is going to come and then um take a look at that and then and then the next step is if there's what if something new comes then there can be a period for response to that and then the record is completely closed. So, we're going to have to kind of do it in steps so that if new information that the public or the applicant or um the the folks opposed want to bring, there is a period of time to do that. Then we close that part of it. Give a period for response and then the record is completely closed. I think that's how we have to do this if I'm understanding it. But I may be missing something. Okay. So, go ahead. The legal minimum is at this point seven days for anyone to

2:38:19 respond to things raised at the hearing. That could be elaborating on things they've raised. It could be responding to documents that came in or testimony tonight. Then that 7-day ends and then we have to give the applicant 7 days to respond to that stuff. Um that's the minimum requirement. Um the council can do more than the minimum requirement. I guess um go ahead, Council Redley. I >> I think that we need to give staff a chance to respond in there. So, I'm hoping till like a third weeks or so. >> I I'm thinking I'm looking at the council agenda calendar right now. I'm I think maybe we look at the 29th. It is a fifth Monday. We'd have to come back to this, but this is going to be a significant amount of time.

2:39:04 Is every would everybody be okay coming back the 29th? Is that in? >> I don't think I'll be here. >> Okay. >> If um if it matters to the council, I will be on vacation on the 29th and would need um to talk with my spouse and family because >> let's not do that for one. >> Do do we have to choose a time tonight? Can we can we >> You do not have to choose. I think it just be helpful to say we're or I don't even think you need to set like time and place certain. And I think it just be helpful to say we're considering this date or no earlier than this date so that folks have an idea of the minimum time they have on the record. I just want I want people to know when they're,

2:39:49 you know, when's the next time you're going to meet that you could potentially close summer part of the record so that they get their stuff in before that and they're not watching council agendas every Thursday to figure out if this is the week that they got to get it in. >> We want all these folks to come visit us every time. Um I then I would say the 20 then I would say the 22nd if that's going to if that's going to work for work for folks. We we're going to have to move some things around on the agenda um to make to make room for that. I'm just looking at how much is there. But would everybody be good to 22nd? >> Okay. >> Do we need do we do I need that in a form of a motion? >> No, I don't think it needs to be for the motion. To be clear, you want just the record left open at a general level. any new evidence argument, you don't want to be looking at does it respond to stuff from the hearing or not. I think you can

2:40:34 ask folks to limit what gets submitted so you can make a good um analysis of it, but um I just want to make sure I understand what you >> Yeah, I think we're wanting to keep it as open as possible, understanding that people should use their um best uh judgment about what would be open. And frankly this, you know, if stuff comes in Monday, you know, 5 minutes before the before the hearing, it would be challenging to read. >> Yeah. >> Right. And um so I would encourage people to get m additional material open uh to us earlier. >> Okay. So I think if you're going to leave it wide open, then there's no action to take because there's no change in the status quo from how it is now. If you were going to limit it, then you would need to take a formal note. >> Okay. >> Formal. Is everybody good with that? >> I'm seeing I'm seeing head nods. >> Thank you so much for working through that with me.

2:41:20 Thanks for keeping us on the on the on the right path. All right, then. I think we're good with that one. We do have a couple more items. Um, so I'm going to give anybody I don't know if you don't want to hang around for the rest of the items. Give about two minutes for you guys to exit. You're more than welcome to stay. Could I call the next item, please? >> The next item is business from the audience.

2:42:05 Okay. Uh, I've got a couple cards. I'm going to call Dave Willis and Jeff Nelson if you want to come up with him. We have two seats. My name is uh David Willis and I serve as board chair of Springfield Utility Board, a community-owned utility with a mission to deliver safe, reliable, costeffective water and electric services to the residents and businesses of Springfield. A key part of that mission focuses on being good stewards of rateayer dollars. One of the questions subboard members hear mo most often from rateayers and stakeholders is how sub as a rateayerowned utility balances request to invest in the

2:42:51 broader community with one of sub's core commitments which is to keep rates cost effective. Sub is a community-owned utility. We operate under the charter of the city of Springfield but we are managed independently and led by an elected five member board of directors. Like other representatives in government, SUB's board is directly accountable to the people of Springfield and so is the utility itself. SUB is somewhat unique in how we are funded. Unlike municipalities, SUB doesn't receive a share of property taxes. And unlike private utilities, we don't operate to make a profit or focus on generating returns to shareholders. Instead, as a community-owned utility, we operate on a cost recovery basis. What this means is that Sub relies almost entirely on the water and

2:43:38 electric rates our customers pay. That makes the utility very conscious of the fact that Sub's money is not actually Sub's money. It belongs to rateayers. Sub uses a good portion of these funds to build and maintain a significant portfolio of infrastructure and operational systems that support this community every day. And our rates reflect that responsibility and investment. One of the most important and visible ways we invest those dollars is through the infrastructure we build and maintain. Reliable, resilient water and electric systems are foundational to everything this community wants to achieve, from housing to business growth to public safety. Projects like the Glenwood substation and the McKenzie River Water Supply Project are good examples. These are long-term investments that expand capacity,

2:44:24 strengthen resilience, and help physician Springfield to meet the community's needs as we grow. They may not always be thought of as traditional economic development tools, but they're essential to making economic development possible. In addition to those large-scale investments, SUB contributes to the overall health and success of Springfield in other meaningful ways. Each year, SUB provides an inlue of tax payment to the city totaling nearing 3 million. These are rate pair funds that can be used wherever they are needed most to support city priorities, including economic development. At times we hear suggestions that rate pair of funds should be used more directly to support development with the assumption that future revenue will make up the difference. In most cases that mass simp simply doesn't pencil out. The payback period for many of these ideas is 150

2:45:11 years or more. In practical terms for rate payers that means the return is never realized. Sub rateayers also support our most vulnerable neighbors through SUB's project share program which has been in place since the early 1980s. We provide more than 250,000 annually to help low-income Springfield residents keep the lights on and stay safe and comfortable through cold winters and increasingly hot summers. Thank you. >> Thank you, Chief Nelson. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Jeff Nelson. I'm general manager of Springfield Utility Board. I provided a packet of information for you. I've also emailed the city manager a copy of our audit report. sub uh is pleased to provide that audit report for the council's review. I would just ask if

2:45:57 you have any questions on that. I'm not going to go through that in detail. If you just uh direct those questions or work with Nancy and then we can respond to any questions you might have. I'll just highlight a few things. Uh one is um just responding to questions that I've gotten or comments I've gotten from city council people. They're very curious and I appreciate that. Um this in part has to do with in le of tax and so just as a reminder for history because some council members have changed over time. You might recall that a couple of about four years ago I went to the subboard because I saw that our move tax payment to this city was low. It was not in in alignment with what I'd seen in as an industry standard. So um sub uh sub's board approved me working

2:46:44 with the city to increase what we we paid the rateayers paid to the city for in loop taxes and it's almost doubled since uh the time uh that existed prior to that point. Uh so we came to that agreement. At the same time, uh we do charge the city for u sewer and storm storm uh water uh billing services. And so that rate we I had kept lower until we reached this agreement to rebalance and reset and make the in le of tax appropriately higher. So a matched more the industry standard and the payment that the city pays to sub for those billing services increased at that same time. So there's there's a story there that is is tied together. But what I

2:47:30 really appreciate about this community, it's about trying to do the right thing and if things are a mismatch, uh we we try to step forward and have a conversation, explore explore interests together and I appreciate your curiosity. And with that, I'll stop. >> Thank you. Uh I have two more cards. Skyler Koy, I do not see Okay. Uh Nicholas Louch. They must have already left. We believe they left. Correct. Uh Neil, do we have any uh hands raised? >> No hands for this item. >> All right. Next item, please. If there's no business from the city council, >> I think we are good. The next item would

2:48:15 be the payroll tax ordinance, and that's Nathan Bell's item. I'm sorry, Nathan. Um, there's no ordinance here. I can read it real quick. Um, this is an ordinance adopting the Springfield Payroll Tax Code by adding section 7.12000

2:49:02 through 7.1216 to the Springfield Municipal Code, adopting a separability clause, and providing an effective date. >> Right. Uh, good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh the item in front of you this evening is a request to uh conduct a second reading and adopt a notadopted ordinance uh adopting a Springfield payroll tax. Uh in a regular session on April 20th, uh we conducted a uh first reading and public hearing uh this is the second and final reading. Uh before I turn it over to you, are there any questions for me? Uh >> does anybody have any questions? All right.

2:49:50 I'm half asleep already. I move to adopt an ordinance adopting the Springfield Payroll Tax Code by adding sections 7.12000 through 7.1216 to the Springfield Municipal Code adopting a severability clause and providing an effective date. >> I will second please. >> Yes. Councelor Weber. >> Yes. >> Councelor Mo. >> Yes. Councelor Rodley, >> yes. >> Councelor Quattro, >> yes. >> Councelor Buck, >> yes. >> And councelor Stout, >> yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Six yeses, zero nos. >> Any other business from the city manager? >> No further business. Any business from the city attorney? >> No. Thank you. >> Thank you everybody.