Springfield City Council — June 22, 2026

0:04 I'm going to call the special regular session to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon here. Councelor Weber >> here. >> Councelor Mo >> here. >> Councelor Bradley >> here. >> Councelor Quuadros >> here. >> Councelor Buck >> here. And councelor Stout >> here. Thank you. >> Uh could you call the first item, please? First item is community wildfire protection plan adoption. Hannah Schaefer is here for this item. Believe it. No. I don't see anybody from fire here. >> Well, we'll hold that item for a moment. We can go to the next one. >> Very good. Next item, please. >> Uh, the next item would be approval of the fiscal year 27 property liability and workers comp insurance renewals. Jamie Abboa is here for this item.

0:52 >> Good evening, mayor and counselors. My name is Jamie Eboa. I'm the risk manager for the city and I am here to request that you authorize the city manager to be able to sign and negotiate all of the necessary documents to renew the city's insurance coverages for FY27. That includes liability coverages, property, and workers compensation. There's information in your packet, but um of course if anybody had any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them. Are >> there any questions? All right. >> I make sure I'm on the right line here. I move to authorize the city manager to execute agreements necessary to renew

1:37 the city's property, liability, workers compensation, and related insurance coverages for fiscal year 2027. >> Second. >> Further discussion to the motion. Council Bucket. Um, I'm I'm definitely supportive of the motion. I just want to also put in there that um the the current environment right now should be favorable to the city in terms of of giving um rating and pricing. And so I would encourage uh I would encourage us to make sure that we've requested all all the things that we can do to get the the preferred the the preferred rating tiers um uh from from risk mitigation standpoint which I mean

2:23 you know all the you know all those those tools just we should just make sure we ask the questions this year because we should see some some improved improvement in rates. >> Yes. And we have a long-term relationship that goes back many years with our broker, Brown and Brown. Um, and we work very closely with them. They have a great risk management consultant that I work closely with. And we actually had a reduction in our premium from last year to this year uh for liability and only a slight increase for property and that was due to um building appraisal values went up. So um we're constantly work working on that and working closely with them. >> All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Neil, could you call the vote, please? >> Yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes. >> Councelor Mo,

3:08 >> yes. >> Councelor Bradley, >> yes. >> Councelor Cuadros, >> yes. >> Councelor Buck, >> yes. And councelor Stout, >> yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Six yeses, zero nos. Next item, please. The next item is amending the architect contract to extend and add additional services to support the final phases of the pre-construction services for the city hall deferred maintenance project. Jeff Pascal is here for this item. >> This feels like we was just here. >> I know. Uh hello again. Thank you. Uh so this is the architectural design team contract. So, uh, we've been working under a contract that was approved in 2024 to get to the point we're at now. Um, one of the things that we need to do is add for the upcoming uh, final phases

3:57 of pre-construction and through um, any sort of construction phase. And so that's what this um, contract amendment does. adds all of the specialty um extends all of the specialty sub subs as well, which is those engineering specialties um and then gets us through the end of that project. And so that's what this phase is or this amendment is. So >> So this gets us really from like 75% design to the finish >> to Yep. >> Okay. And >> and so it'll be in phases, but this is the whole contract at this time. And and really when I evaluate this and when I look at when we're talking about, you know, upwards of a a 12 to$15 million project, this contract is really a good value. And so I I recommend us going

4:42 ahead and and approving that >> and this has no impact on what we do from the bidding model. Correct. >> Correct. It may be and I don't know that I would have to come back to council to do that. We just may have to restructure some things depending on which direction we go near the end. >> That means future us to decide. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any other questions? >> Okay. >> I move to approve the second amendment to contract number C3746B with Ral Broka Architects, Inc. >> Second. >> Is there any other discussion to this motion? Okay. Neil, could you call the vote? Yes. Councelor Weber. >> Yes. >> Councelor Mo. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bradley.

5:27 >> Yes. >> Councelor Cuadros. >> Yes. >> Councelor Buck. >> Yes. >> And councelor Steph. >> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. Motion passes. Six yeses, zero nos. Next item, please. >> The next item is the city hall deferred maintenance construction manager general contractor contract award for pre-construction services. Jeff Pascal is here for this item. Uh so this motion tonight is asking the council to authorize the city manager to finalize negotiations and sign that contract. We haven't done all of that yet. Um that'll be while council's at recess. Um and so one thing to note is the um the the successful proposer Swinton their cost for the preconstruction phase is less than $30,000. Um, the other thing I I wanted to note

6:13 as I was thinking and sitting there when when we talk about, you know, I I'm concerned about cost and bringing a fully um baked cost to the council when we move to that construction phase so that we all understand what we're doing and there's there's very little surprises at the end. Um, is really the schedule and the reason I I and the phasing of that schedule because we're talking the magnitude of that schedule is like a year of construction on this building. And so that's why when I think about that, that's when I I really am like making sure that all of those parts and cogs and everybody's on the same team and we're all coming from the same place with the same goals on the project. And so that's probably one of the biggest concerns with me and one of the biggest reasons and and why I um support moving forward with the CMGC.

7:03 >> All right, other comments or questions? We got to give them some direction here about what we want what we want to do. So I think our options are we say yes to this, we say no to this or we ask for some additional some additional information. >> I do want to clarify that because of the timelines with RFP, saying that you need additional information and not making a decision tonight does probably effectively cancel the RFP. So, I think your options for tonight are move forward with the RFP award or don't move forward with the RFP award, which means that we need to um restart because it's closed and proposals are only good for a certain amount of time and you're on recess for the rest of that time. >> So, when when are they good to >> I will pull that up right now. >> Okay. Well, then I'm going to go to somebody else and and give give you a

7:49 chance to look that up. Councelor Buck. >> Um, you know, I I I definitely want to chime in here. I mean, all of my my previous concerns are kind of there, but I also get Jeff that I appreciate the work you did on risk mitigation. Like that's important, right? And we also have to recognize that like we're at a spot right now where if we so it's a tough tough spot because if we say no and we say we want to we want to come back to the table here and do this do this differently. Now we have a timetable issue and the HVAC could last another two years or it could last another 20 minutes and and and we and

8:36 really it's a coin flip as to which one that is. I mean we know that it's failing. We we don't know how much time we get out of it. And and again, my concerns have nothing to do with uh the hard work that staff have put into it and understanding that we're kind of at a place where if we say no, we we definitely take a risk. I mean, I I still am very concerned that that we're here and and we're jammed up in in this spot, but also I wanted to just say I I get that saying no means we're probably cons possibly putting this to the fall and we may not have that time. >> Let's be clear. I don't think the HVAC is going to last two years, right?

9:21 >> Right. No, no. No. it it's re realistically are we going to have a problem in July if we don't do something today we we won't have till September but >> councelor Riley >> well I also um I also wanted to say I appreciate all the work that staff has done I appreciate how far we've gotten in this process and um I don't think we've got the process right and I hear the risk also you know we don't know how long it's the pre-esign is going to take and all of that. So, we're still we're still, you know, we're still running behind as we are with many maintenance um issues in the city of Springfield for everyone to know like we're way behind all the things. So, um I hear that and I

10:07 also really appreciate all the work staff's done. I appreciate the clean process. I appreciate the attorney's perspectives and I don't know that this is the right process for Springfield. >> What's over here? >> Okay, Christina. >> It um it is longer than standard. It's a firm offer for 180 days. However, the RFP as it's as a body of what the proposal is on is done and the scoring has been done. So the council can request more information about the process to arrive at the um selected firm, but the council's not part of the evaluation committee. Um and so if you were to say we want more information

10:52 about how you set the RFP up, that's really what then that is functionally is a direction to reissue the RFP differently. Um, and so while the offer is good for 180 days, at this point procedurally there's not a lot that we can do other than look at did we follow the RFP. So if council's got concerns about if we followed the RFP as we set it out, then we can stop and look at that. >> Council Weber, >> does asking for more information about the process include uh the ability to look at the scoring model and how that scoring was done? The scoring was very explicit in the RFP. Um, and I uh we drafted a really restructured scoring mechanism. The scoring sheet um followed

11:39 very strictly the RFP scoring. Um, and I believe that staff did review to ensure that those sheets were properly filled out and followed the RFP. But I personally um reviewed and and helped revise the scoring sheet so that it was verbatim from the RFP. Um, so other than a calculation error, um, I don't know that there's much to review um, on how the scoring was done, but the c the in a reissued RFP in theory, the council could look at did we ask the right questions and score the right things and were the points, but the way the points are done, the way the scoring was done was all very detailed in the RFP. >> So, I think that's part of my question is I don't know what the questions were, >> right? And I I had a an overview from Jeff which which I'm sure is very like

12:24 like I'm sure it's very thorough. >> Um it's just I don't know because I like we don't we don't see it. Um so I think for me in the situation we're in today where we have our local construction community really concerned about their livelihoods and the livelihoods of the families that they support through employment. I think for me I feel like we owe that, you know, at least that second look at that piece of it so we understand it better like how we arrived at this at this decision. >> Uh councelor Cuadras, >> will you read that list of criteria for us again please? >> Yeah. So the first question or the first criteria is the CMGC background and that's just a pass fail. >> Um read the questions. Do you want to

13:10 read the questions that go with each one so they know the specific details of what was being looked at? >> There's there's three questions that were asked under each of those headers because I think the headers by themselves are not disruptive. >> Get to the top. So, um, does the proposer demonstrate the minimum requisite capacity, firm stability, and relevant experience to provide CMGC service to the project? Does the proposer have adequate bonding capacity for the project? and are the proposer safety programs and working screening processes adequate? Um, the next was personnel experience. Um, and under that, how relevant is the proposer's experience with CMGC public projects in a similar context to the project to our project? How qualified

13:57 are the proposed key personnel and how clearly are the roles defined? Um, how well does the team structure and level of staffing commitment align with the project scope and constraints? And how likely is the team to successfully deliver the project? And then pre-construction services approach. How well does the proposal address collaboration, constructability review, and design integration? How well does the proposal address cost estimating, value engineering, and budget alignment? How well does the proposal address scheduling, phasing, and long lead procurement? How well does the proposal incorporate approaches to risk management and participation by COBID certified entities? Um, pre-construction fee. Is the

14:44 pre-construction fee reasonable for the scope of services? Is the fee proposal clear and complete? And how well does the fee proposal align with the proposer's staffing plan and the level of effort? How well does the proposal address coordination with city and subcontractor management? So, this is under the construction services approach. How well does the proposal address schedule control and delivery? How well does the proposal address site safety and cooperations in an occupied facility? And how well does the proposal incorporate approaches to QAQC and risk change management? Um, next is construction fee. Is the CMGC fee reasonable for the scope of services? Is the fee proposal clear and complete? How well does the fee proposal align with the proposer's staffing plan

15:29 and level of effort? Um, and then the final was communication protocols. How clear are the proposed communication protocols and meeting structure? How effective are the proposed reporting and documentation practices? How well does the proposal address issue escalation and coordination across project phases? And then the final for the tiebreaker or the competitive was just reference checks. All right. So, look, I don't think we're ready to do this tonight. I mean, I the you've got, you know, a you've got a uh, you know, basically a protest letter from from chambers that it would be nice to give about half a beat before we respond

16:16 to and get them a formal get give them a formal response. Um, you've got several other pieces of feedback that I think would be valuable. I think the problem I'm running into is trying to reconcile the fe like the the staff piece with the feedback we're hearing from the construction com uh industry and some of those pieces of information just simply don't match. Right? So you've got chambers out there saying good process RFP was written poorly and I want to think about that a little bit. You've got Highland out there saying that this is the wrong process and there's just frankly a lot of noise here. And so I I think it would be help to see the scores. Um I don't know how much you can send this. >> The scores are posted publicly online

17:01 and everybody can see the final scores. They were I will say they were very close. Um there wasn't um there wasn't in the scoring I think a clear preference to larger out of area firms. That just happened to be the way the scoring played out. Um so the they're posted publicly online. The council can see them. What we don't disclose are individual um scorers scores. So we and that's because they're >> scorers scores. You just say aggregate. >> Yeah, we post the aggregate score. Yeah. >> Go ahead, >> Mayor. I would just add that um if you wanted to access this information. Um it's in our development public works website. Um where we have a notice of intent to award. um you can put that in

17:46 the search feature and you can actually go read the entire RFP. It gives all of the scoring um for each um uh submitt and I can send that to this link. I will send this link to all of you council um tonight so that you don't have to look for it. Just check your email. Could could we also get a staff like I don't know response for lack of a better word about the two different models and what the pros and cons between those two models are. >> So are you asking for different information than we shared in December when we asked for approval? >> December was almost 6 months ago. >> Okay. The the same information would be right would be fine. I think the thing that

18:32 and I'm looking for everybody else to jump in here. The thing I want to think through is do we have the right model? Because when if I read the input that we're getting, I'm hearing three distinct things. One of them is are we using the right model to get this thing done. The other one is this this issue about local contracting and whether or not we pre like whether or not we sort of preference firms. And then the chambers piece when that letter came in and I just had a chance to scan it, right? But it's similar to issues that are going to sort of drive up drive up the cost. And so I'm kind of thinking through those three things. >> Same model issue. It's essentially an argument that the structure of a CMGC contract. And the way that you propose a a fee for the the CMGC fee that's proposed for the award up front is a

19:19 percentage of the final cost. So the way that you get to that GMP is you take they have to propose what their upfront percentage cost is going to be. And then what we negotiate in the GMP is where what all the cost features are. Then they apply their percent fee to that for their revenue. Um so that we're not surprised at the last minute negotiating that GMP by well now they want a 10% um markup on cost. So they propose their markup. So the um the chambers argument is that that structure um under the G CMGC method is inappropriate and likely to lead to cost savings. Um, so it is an argument with the it's it's very similar in substance to the arguments that were ra have been already expressed to you. Um, and it's a little nuanced off of

20:05 that. It's a slightly different um approach to making that argument and why it's um unlikely to benefit the city, but it is not an argument around the the way that this RFP was written differently than other CMGC RFPs. It is an issue with CMGC. They all have that in common. and it's a fundamental structure of CMGC. >> The Chambers the the the Chambers letter seems like it's relatively pro uh CMGC for this uh for this project, right? And again, it came in late, so I had a chance to glance it, so I could be reading it wrong. So, I think that's, you know, that's that's the question that that I've got saying that it could be the right model, but set up incorrectly. Go ahead, Councelor Buck.

20:51 Um, I have not had a ch I I didn't see the chambers letter yet. I mean, I last looked at my email at uh 4:00 today, so I don't >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure there was in the last hour, but I had to get get here. I do want to say that the the strength of the the CMGC model really comes down to how the RFP is structured and and and so um Chambers's concern it sounds like is there's they're concerned about the the how the RFP was set up and if this and if there was concerns with the RFP setup then it it it's like a a poor foundation um to a house of cards kind of thing.

21:36 The whole thing's going going to be shaky potentially if that if you don't get that right. And I think that's the basis of the argument based on what I'm hearing is it it really is important and Chambers is saying h I don't know that the RFP questions really really answered that is would would be my interpretation there. I think that's what they're saying. I I think that the concern here is are are we really assessing are we getting getting the best value for this and and does this process answer that question? And I and I'm and I don't know that that it does. >> Go ahead, Council Rodley. >> Thank you. Um and and I support your synopsis of it and saying that it doesn't feel like we're there because I think I would I would be a no on this

22:22 tonight. Um, and I just want to reiterate that I I do appreciate the cost savings and the risk management. I appreciate that and I appreciate when we say what's best for Springfield, but for me it's a bigger story. It's not just what's the cheapest for us as a city government, but what's best for Springfield means like how many people are we employing with this work? How much money is staying in the community? How much lumber is being bought at the local lumber yard? I think for me the what's best for Springfield is is bigger than a bread box as I have a tendency to say a lot and I am very interested in seeing how our procurement processes reflect those values if in fact other people share those values in terms of

23:07 like what it is we're trying to yell to. Thank you. >> All right, anybody else now the question is have we given sort of clear direction here? I know you got to get this done, but I guess having a chance to look at some additional information is going to be helpful. So, if we can get that information, go ahead, Nancy. RP um processes have a very specific legal structure within them. And so I guess I would request that the city attorney answer this question because if we are trying to modify an existing RFP structure or add to it or or um kind of steer away from it, it's almost better

23:53 to make the decision now to, you know, to throw the entire thing out and start over if you have if you have significant concerns. But I I feel like the city attorney would be the better person to ask him that question. Um, yeah, I want to understand what the council's direction is. Are you asking to cancel the RFP and not make any award? Um, because I don't necessarily recommend that we just stall an award until fall. Um, under this model, I think that has some risks. um not only in the council I mean the council essentially in fall then can't provide any feedback the feedback you would need to provide

24:38 is really just did we follow the process we outlined in the RFP it sounds like your concerns are not related to that you have different concerns so if you have different concerns I think that the maybe the next step is does the council want us to reissue the RFP with different criteria or does the council want to move forward as Jeff said with a design um process >> is it going to be easier if we cancel like that that could be that could be the answer. I don't know what I don't know. >> I know there's enough in that public comment that's giving me a ton of questions and considering how fast that it came in and I'm looking up here and saying nobody's read all the material yet. >> Is it an option for the council to try to answer those questions tonight? Well, I mean, if we want to do this for another, you know, we'd have to give

25:24 some of these folks a chance to actually read read the material, the emails that came in at, I don't know, like 4:30, >> but I think that's that's what it would require. Like, you know, not everybody's read all the public comment that we've got got in. >> Yeah. I'm I guess I'm highly concerned with taking 3 months and not moving making any forward progress on this. So, if um we don't get a firm decision from the council tonight about whether you want us to reissue the RFP over the summer with changes um or you want to pursue design and then a a bid process, then we are essentially dead in the water for 3 months on the project. >> I I think the timing issue is probably a different is probably a different issue.

26:09 We can fix the three-month issue, right? because we can control the calendars. But I think the question for the council is, hey, is more information going to help, right, on how we process all the input we get from the community. Are we just saying that this isn't it and we need to go back, we need to go back to go back to square one. My sense of it is that if we read the, you know, that I don't know what I don't know yet and if, you know, I had a little bit of time with all the material, then I'm would be better set up to actually make a decision about whether or not I want to go forward here or not. >> Okay, good. >> You can um yeah, I think that um I'm going to wrap this in as much sugar as I possibly can since there's 40 people watching. Um, I think because of the way

26:57 this has unfolded and all of that feedback and then being here tonight, like I'm feeling like we're being pushed and pressured to to do it. And like I'm prepared to make a motion to not authorize it if that means it's dead in the water. But I would like to give us if you're willing to work with us. If you're not, then if we what we need to do is is um is end whatever we've done so far and start over then I'm prepared to do that because I'm feeling pushed. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Mayor Council. Complicated topic. I you know I was getting I was trying to describe a legal process that's well known in the construction industry. Um but let's back up a minute. Um because I think one of the uh context is important here. This is a really

27:43 complicated project. Um, we know from other things that we've tried to do in this in this building that um, we don't know what we're going to see when we get in there. Um, I personally think that it would be nice to have as much information as possible going into this project. Um, uh, sort of frontload what the current concerns might be be. It sounds like there is an opportunity to come back to this body once we've gleaned that information um with the assistance of a contractor and then and then making a a different determination on how then to bid that out. So, you know, we could still make some progress on scope, scale, complexity and then issue bids in a

28:30 different manner. We don't we don't have to be committed to the full CMGC for the uh entire duration of the project. Maybe that's kind of splitting the baby a little bit. >> Go ahead, Councelor Buck. I I I think what I'm hearing is is two kind of pieces here, right? And I and I don't think that there's necessarily a right or a wrong on on any of them. And and I I get the complexity. I mean, I get the issue of the complexity of the of the job and we've done work on the building. We've gotten feedback from those from those contractors who who've kind of experienced what is it like tearing into into the building. And so there there is that side of it and that's leading staff to say

29:18 this is the scope of this project is such that we want to make sure that we try to uncover as much of that stuff as we possibly can to protect you know the city's interest the staff who have to work in the building all the things. It's it's it's there's a lot of moving pieces and and I think that that's what council didn't understand they were voting on in in December because we didn't have this level of conversation in December. It was presentation sounds good. Here we go. And I think that this is a function of of council kind of starting to learn there's there's some complexities with this. Um, but the other side of this is what Christina is saying is there's also

30:04 a legal process that we've put in motion. We've said in December we're doing this and so we kind of either have to go forward or we kind of have to back because there's some legalities here. So it's not as So I don't know that there. So I'm wondering is is there room for something other than a let's cancel or let's go forward because I'm not sure I'm hearing there is. >> I think there's a few things we could do. Um I think that if the council approves the award, then that only takes us through pre-construction. So, it's less than $30,000 for the services of a construction manager to tell us the best way to finish designing the project. Um,

30:51 and the council can look at it that way. We can also share the feedback around subcontracting. We did not include any pre uh qualification requirements because we wanted to keep it open, but we can talk to Swinton about developing the general the guaranteed maximum price based on trying to get as much local participation as possible. I think that there's room to have that discussion as a negotiation. Um, and because the council would be directing negotiate the city managers to negotiate on your behalf. Um, I think we could have that discussion as a negotiation around how we're going to go about choosing those subcontractors. Um, the arguments that are being raised or the valid points I think are for council are

31:36 how do you know that the guaranteed maximum price is the best deal? And that's certainly what Chambers is saying that you don't know based on what was in that proposal that the guaranteed maximum price is going to include all the costs or that that's actually going to be the cheapest for the city. Um, and I think that that is a valid point. We do not know based on a percentage alone that guaranteed maximum price is the best value. And that is one reason why we would come back to council definitely with enough time so that and and planning it out so that you're not if you were to approve it that you're not feeling like the timeline and the legal requirements back you into a corner. I understand that concern and that um that feeling I I wish that the RFP process was more flexible under state law. Um but we you know wherever we flex from

32:21 the pre-published requirements and schedule we just create we might solve for one risk and create 12 more somewhere else. So um I I apologize if my advice is feeling like it's pressure to make a decision. I'm trying to keep you in line with the contracting code, but you know, at the end of the day, it is your decision. And I just want to make sure that we I think one of our interests as staff is because of the risk inherent in the building itself continuing to exist in this stage, we want to make sure that whatever the council's direction are, we know as staff what we can do to keep moving things forward. Um, another option could be to reapproach the RFP, but continue with design in the meantime. we're not getting the benefit of those construction manager services, but maybe there's an opportunity to add that in through another CMGC process later on. Generally, industry advice is to include a CMGC as early as you can in the

33:07 process because you get the most value that way, but it's not the exclusive means to do that. So, um I think there are other options here, but they're not broad. Um and they're not as broad as certainly I think the council would prefer them to be or that you have in like other um or that I would want you to have in other contexts. Let me just add one f final note. Um I'm I'm always loathed for elected officials to feel pressured into making a decision first of all. So apologies if that is the case. Um I certainly um I think I feel like the city has really tried to take this building as far as it can in the least expensive way for a very long time. And you notice we have two portable air conditioning units that aren't really working that well. Oh, I

33:52 don't know how the audience is feeling, but I'm I'm warm, and if I'm warm, it's probably roasting in here. So, the building itself is conveying some urgency to this decision. And I I I I I'm really reluctant um to postpone it any further because I'm I'm really afraid that this whole thing is going to go down. Then I would have to close city hall, tell send in it would be like the the shelter in place time during the pandemic would be the equivalent of what we do. And I think I'm trying to get to this issue before it becomes really expensive. As somebody that just had to do this in my own home, cheaper, before it becomes a problem, I just want to add to councelor Buck's comments earlier. Um, in December, we

34:37 also did not have all of the feedback from the construction community, which gave us a lot of information that I know I didn't necessarily understand, and I've, you know, taken that to heart. Um, and one of those components included the fact that the construction industry right now is really slow and they have crews and and people sitting at home and families that they'd like to be supporting. So I don't know to your point Christina about uh whether the GMP or whether the price we have is the lowest based on percentages. We don't know that um because we didn't open it up to the how I'm understanding is this. We didn't open it up as broadly as we could have in another different type of process. But and I could be misunderstanding

35:22 that. >> I think that's a little bit of a misunderstanding. So what we what we asked for is a number on pre-construction services a guaranteed maximum not to exceed price. So all the proposal proposals except one responded to that by saying for before we get to construction here's what we're going to charge you for the showing up and giving you our advice talking about scheduling talking about risk mitigation. Then what they do is they propose for us to score on um how they're going to develop the guaranteed maximum price. So part of that is narrative, but part of that is also what is their markup. Um, and so what we don't know, what I think Chambers raised in their letter, which is a very good point, is that markup applies to a number that we don't know yet. So we can evaluate whose markup is lowest, but we can't evaluate how

36:07 they're going to get to the number. We can't numerically, I would say, we were trying to substantively in criteria evaluate that. Um, but that's where the council will have an opportunity to come back and look at what is that number they're applying that percentage to and can give full scrutiny to how many subcontractors did you look at, who were those subcontractor bids from, how many were local, where are the supplies coming from. Um, and knowing that that's a concern for council, I also think it's possible to build in um, more time and discussion with council to get into those details because ultimately the part that we're asking the council for tonight is a is the it's a critical piece from city staff's perspective to move this forward to get a contractor to

36:53 give us their expertise. Um, the the big construction work where the crews get put to work does not happen until that construction phase is awarded. And so that happens. That's a later decision that the council still gets to make. And we're not asking for any um predetermination on that at all. It's well known in CMGC field that that is an escape route that this process provides that design build does not provide typically without having to go through um some specific contractual remedies. So, I think um I do think I want to be really clear with the council what staff is recommending is really moving forward the pre-construction piece and we can follow up with as much information as the council wants on how we get to that

37:38 guaranteed maximum price and we can try to negotiate into the how we're going to get to that guaranteed maximum price things that will keep in line with what we're hearing from council and what we've heard from the industries. um because there should be ample subcontracting um opportunities. If the council's not comfortable with that, there are other options that we can pursue too. >> All right. What do you folks want to do? But your recommendation is that we not wait that if we do if we want to do something else, we pull the plug right now. Right. Like your like just I want to make sure I'm clear. Your recommendation is we can't even wait a week. that we got to decide if we're if we're going to decide something, we got to decide it right now. >> My recommendation is that you do not wait until fall. So, it's up to the council if you want to have another

38:23 meeting or reapproach this. I think staff can provide you as soon as you need it. Whatever information you need, we can make that a priority. Um, I don't want this waiting until fall because of the risk in the building just magnifies. But that's at council discretion. >> Look, I got no issue addressing the heat in this room. Um but the uh but I would like all the information before I make that decision. Councelor Buck. So, I I think what I'm hearing the value is and and what you're really wanting right now, I know we keep talking about subcontractors, but upfront the value that that staff is

39:08 asking for is we want to bring a we want to bring a contractor in that can give us some consultative services, which the CMGC, that's kind of the value of that initial pre-construction. they can look at what the architect has to say and um then you can kind of consult and say here are some options because you want to be able to understand the scope of pro uh the scope of the project as clearly as possible before you before we get to that construction phase and I understand there's another opportunity with this process to okay that we've done all of this this is what the advice is this is what this this is what we've gotten out of that those services. Now

39:54 what do we want to do? Um I I think that if you if you go down this road there's there there is inherent in this project if you start doing those consultative services with the the firm we selected then um I think it's going to be challenging to to then switch streams because they've consulted and they've kind of given you a maximum price on on on work they've done. I wonder is there an opportunity to get that same value if if we were to back out of the this process if we were to back out of this process and could could we still get those consultative services? Could we still hire or or go ask for bids to have that

40:41 those consultative services and do that work over the summer and then take that feedback and then say, "Okay, do we want to what do we want to do with it?" I mean, there may be a way to get the same result for staff without committing us to a process that will be hard to back out of later. >> So, the city can hire a consultant. Um, the way that CMGC is set up is that what the contractor gets out of that, they they typically charge a lot less for those consultant services. I mean significantly less for consultant services for preconstruction services because what they're doing in that investigation process is lowering their own risk for a CMGC eventual award. Um the guaranteed maximum price structure includes um a different allocation of

41:27 contingency risk to where um normally in design bid build there's a certain certain type of risk that the contractor takes on without all the information. But if it that risk comes from the plans, we bear that entire risk. It's differently allocated in a CMGC. So yes, we can do that. It will be more expensive um to get those consultant services. I I don't think we could get someone to come on board in for to provide six months of consultant services for $20,000. Um just based on all of the other consultant services we pay for right now. I think it would be significantly more expensive. Um, and then we wouldn't realize any cost savings from that in the sort of built into that guaranteed maximum price if

42:13 that makes sense. >> All right. Are there other questions or we got to give them a decision because we got we still have probably nine hours more on the agenda. >> You can skip my item and go. I'm just kidding. >> Okay. So, do you guys want to try a motion and then we and then we vote and see how we're doing? Does somebody have a sense of kind of what they want to do here or do you want additional information and then we come back to it probably next week remotely? >> You all can second turn it down or whatever. I move to not authorize the city manager to complete the construction manager general contractor CMGC procurement process, negotiate final contract terms,

42:58 and award and execute a preconstruction services contract for the city hall deferred maintenance and modernization project. Second. >> Any discussion to the motion? Okay, so let's just clarify. Yes is really no here because you to make sure everybody's really on the same page. Okay. >> And then then we're gonna still have to provide the city manager direction what we want to do next after after this is after this is done. Mo, could you call the vote, please? Yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes. >> Councelor Mo, >> yes. >> Councelor Rodley, >> yes. >> Councelor Cuadros, >> yes. >> Councelor Beck, >> yes. And councelor Ste,

43:43 >> yes. Motion passes. Six yeses, zero nos. Okay. Now, we still have to give some additional direction. Councelor Quadras, >> I feel comfortable giving my direction. Um, and I'm just going to put it out there because I wasn't here in December, so I get to do that. Um, I'm comfortable with the CMGC. I get both sides of that. Um, I feel like you intentionally evaluated only technical qualifications and cost, and I would like for us to reflect uh our council's economic development and community investment goals, aka local. Um and I do feel like that we can uh package that with um criteria like local office presence, ability to

44:28 respond quickly, knowledge of local conditions, relationships with local subcontractors, workforce utilization plans, and economic inclusion goals. That's my position. I don't think it's got to be an Oh, I don't know that we got to give it a motion to Can we Anybody else got feedback here? Have feedback here? Councelor Buck, >> I I think that um I I share a lot of the things that Councelor Cuadro says. Um since here, I I'm I'm not a fan. Um, I'm not supportive of the CMGC process. Um,

45:15 because I I think it still leaves questions on the table, but I guess my my feedback would be I hear staff saying that they we need to move the ball forward here. And so if if if we're coming back and saying let's do another another RFP, basically what we're doing is we're saying start over. and and we can do that, but my concern is if we're going to do that, then how do we not end up having the same conversation down the road? I mean, how do we how do we get to where we're we're comfortable? And I think what the staff need is as much clarity as they possibly can about the project. And so I guess I would be curious to

46:02 you could very well be right Christina that um it would cost more for the consulted services and things like that. I I would encourage staff to maybe maybe explore that though. I mean I I I wonder I wonder you could be right but we have local contractors that have experience working in the building and and working with the building. So maybe we can get into those consultive services um at a better price than than we traditionally have. Um especially in this particular environment. Uh I I just I wonder about that. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just I'm just saying like should we should we check and find out?

46:49 Anybody else? Okay. Um Nancy, are we giving you enough direction to Yes, absolutely. I I believe the city attorney has a question first. Go ahead. >> I um so I think what I'm hearing is I want to make sure this is accurate. If we reissue the RFP over the summer with more um council quadrat was really helpful because while we can't do a points preference in that way, framing it in terms of the types of substantive things that could be reviewed to get at that criteria is super helpful. If the council has any other feedback on that, that would be very helpful. we can craft a scoring criteria and try to build that in. The other thing that I would ask for and this is less for the council if that's your direction. We got protests and feedback from the construction community after the deadline for solicitation protest. So there's a process

47:34 um and a timeline to provide input to staff on these are our concerns with the solicitation and it doesn't prejudice the contractor in their scoring in any way to raise those protests or ask for changes to the RFP. So, I would really ask um that maybe the council express that to your constituent local firms that if we do reissue an RFP that they actively review that RFP upfront and tell us um give us feedback. Do we need to make changes? Do we need to consider changes? And then we as a staff can work through um um agenda to the RFP. That's a process that we would normally go through. Um, I think it's unfortunate we didn't get that feedback early enough to try to bake that into this process. Um,

48:20 because we do look at that, um, and we got a lot of engagement in the pre-proposal meeting. Um, but nothing this specific in writing until after the deadline to change the RFP itself. So, um, I think that would, if that's what council's asking for is to go forward with a modified RFP, we can also do that on a faster timeline because we wouldn't be changing a lot of the things about it that took a long time to begin with, like the the draft contract, the specifications of what the project is and all of those pieces. >> I would assume that we would take all this feedback we've getting and make some modifications, right? Otherwise, we're going to be in the same spot. Okay, councelor Stout. >> Thank you. Um, I'm I'm comfortable with the direction that we're starting to talk about. Um, frankly, I I think my

49:05 comment for staff, and you guys have so much on your plate already, but is that in this current environment, the squeaky wheel is getting the grease and that we constantly have to be a squeaky wheel to our contractor community. That means that it's not while I also bemoan the fact that a lot of the feedback came in after the deadline. I think that the ongoing conversation and the maintain those quality of conversations among our different um our different team or our different contractor partners that are local. A lot of that conversation has to be staff started and that's uncomfortable because I'm I'm basically saying, "Hey, Nancy, do we have more staff time and capacity to actually be a squeaky wheel?" But I think it may be unavoidable if we want to avoid a similar situation like we have currently. Thank you.

49:52 >> All right. I think we're done with this one. Thanks, Chef. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Do Do you want to just read the other one? I don't >> If you don't, if we're good, since this is a non-binding issue, I'm happy to read it in. Yep. >> With a little one sentence background. Um, so the next item is the community wildfire protection plan adoption. This came to the council on June 8th initially. It also went to the team Springfield partners on June 10th. So, they provided an were provided with an overview. There's no new regulatory requirements. It doesn't amend city code. Um, it helps our liability and helps us get federal grants. It's simply a non-binding document and will be part of the annex and the Lane County Community Wildfire Protection Program

50:38 document. >> Are there any questions? Okay, go ahead. I don't want to be that counselor, but if we are adopting this policy that's in our packet, don't want to be this counselor, but there are typos and they're within the first 10 pages and there are some significant pieces that are missing. I don't know if that matters. >> Yeah, I think I defer to uh the city attorney's office. This is the fire document. So, I think that we can clean up if they're if they're clearly typos, scrier's errors and council approved documents can be cleaned up after the fact and um I think we can relay the message to let's do some better um checking for that before

51:23 >> we have do we have do you uh if I have a motion to do that? >> Um I think if you just say with corrections to scrier's errors, a scrier's error by definition is an error in a document that's clear on the face of the document that it's an error and correcting it doesn't change the substantive policy. Um, so misspelled words, extra words, the wrong verb tense, those types of things can all be fixed without detailed changes. >> Yeah. Okay. Council Robert, >> I move that the city council direct the mayor to execute and formally adopt the community wildfire protection plan with corrections to scrier errors. >> Second. >> All right. Any conversation to this motion? >> No. Could you call the vote, please? >> Yes. Councelor Weber. >> Yes. Yes. Councelor Mo, >> yes. >> Councelor Rodley,

52:08 >> yes. >> Councelor Cuadros, >> yes. >> Councelor Buck, >> yes. >> And councelor Stout, >> no. >> Motion passes, five yeses, one no. Next item, please. >> Next item is under ordinances. This is item number one. Annex of the city limits of two vacant adjoining parcels comprising approximately 17.99 acres in the north gateway area of Springfield 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. Christina Kraz is here for this item and Andy Limbert is here as well. We've got slides for this. So, if we could get those pulled up, that'd be great.

52:54 >> You get started on pace to start CEDA at 8:00 if you're in the >> Yep. So, if you want to adjust your schedule accordingly. >> Yeah. We'll try to make up time that we can. Um, so we're here tonight on the annexation for about 18 acres on International Way that you had a initial public hearing May 15th and a continue hearing June 1st. That's now closed. We will um I will ask the council briefly to declare any conflicts of interest you may have that um if you declared them previously, you should declare them again. If you have newly discovered conflicts, you can declare those. If you have exparte contacts, we're not having a hearing tonight. Um but exparte contacts do still need to be put on the record. So if you have new exparte

53:39 contacts, so a communication outside the scope of a meeting with a the applicant or another interested party about the substance of the annexation proposal, criteria of approval, etc. That needs to be put on the record. So, you could, if that's a email, you could forward that to city staff um after tonight or you could summarize it um and then that will provide the applicant an opportunity to respond to any new information in writing if if it exists. I would say that general um please vote yes or no are not substantive um communications if that's all they say. Um but substantive communications would be I'm concerned about the storm water to the site. I worry about traffic here and here's this

54:24 information. Um, >> council mode, do you want to start? >> You got me on this last time. I wasn't wasn't ready. >> I have no exarty contact. I have no conflict of interest and no contact with anybody. >> Go ahead. >> Uh, no exparte contact. Um, no conflicts of interest. Um, you know, our office is located in the gateway area, so we're impacted by traffic. Um, which hasn't changed and I don't know that it impacts my decision here because the traffic's not going to be great either way. We can't make that better, right? Um, so I

55:09 don't think, >> uh, no additional exparte contexts. Um, I do have two potential conflicts of interest. one, I work for Lane County in Health and Human Services. I am in developmental disabilities, which is a different um division. However, as I have said previously, I am inundated with information about this project and meetings and emails and all of the things, but nothing that hasn't been public. Um, and my other potential conflict of interest is as a property owner in the gateway area. Thank you. >> I had no exparte contacts. I have a potential conflict of interest. My employer is an insurance company that does business with Peace Health. >> No additional exparte contacts and no conflicts of interest.

55:55 >> No additional exparte contacts and no no conflicts of interest. >> Uh no exparte contacts, no substantive communications and no conflict of interest. >> It's back to you. >> Oh, I just muted myself after forgetting to turn myself off speak. Um, so my goal tonight is to walk the council through your decision points. I know that um this has been a long process already getting to this point and I know that the meeting before this has been long. So I'm trying to take as much um I'm trying to make this as painless as possible to try to just work through those key decision points. The council can't make up you can't make up your mind until the record is all closed, but you have the ability to interpret your

56:40 comprehensive plan policies and provide direction to staff on what you think the plans mean while the record is still open and then the public and applicants can respond to, you know, that as well. My goal for tonight is to get us to a place where over the next month we can get all the information that we still need into the record for the council to make its final decision. we can allow time for the public and they bring property owners to respond to that information and then give the applicant their final opportunity um to provide their input so that in September um we as staff can provide you a a very clean and as close to final set of findings for adoption of your decision whichever way you might go. Um and I think taking that time over the summer to really get the record in good shape to make sure that all the issues are responded to and

57:25 findings will help um with the council's final decision. I would anticipate, you know, in these types of decisions, there's always a risk of appeal, no matter what decision the council makes. So, my goal is to prepare the council with documenting your decision as completely as possible with the least procedural errors. Um, so that there's no issues on appeal that we need to come back and redo process for process sake. If we get remanded from the court, um it will be ideally because we got some facet of law wrong. The law is really not established in this area because this is such a unique set of legal and factual circumstances. And so I'm giving you my best advice um reading the case law and the statutes that I can, but I do acknowledge that there are different

58:11 legal positions on some of these things and if this is appealed, the the land board of appeals might ultimately disagree. My goal is to make sure that you're not getting a remand because we screwed up process or record or these things that are um makes it come back to you to redo a a step in the process. any questions about where we're at or where I I I'll give the proposed recommendation for a schedule at the end of this, but >> so um just help correct me if I'm if I'm off and kind of you know kind of help help me kind of focus here Christina a little bit. So obviously our part in this process we this isn't the beginning of the story and it's probably not going

58:56 to be the end of the story. Um our role in this at this particular moment um has been is we have to look at our comprehensive plan. We have to look at uh what our precedent is and and what what our code says and we're just basically saying or not not basically we are saying yes it meets criteria or no it not no it doesn't. The question comes in. There's House Bill 2005 and there's some other things that make it a little unclear. Our job is to say yes, we think this is in line or no, it's not. There's been a lot of other

59:42 things brought forward which are very very important and also maybe outside the scope of of what we're looking at. So that's that's our piece. I mean, and and Elvis, it's always my preference, and I imagine other counselors as well, that the the two the two parties here would be able to sort this out somehow. Um, but that's not in our purview either. Our purview is does it meet criteria? Kind of yes or no. And and and knowing that we're not the beginning or the end of the story. Is that is that a fair assessment? >> I think that's really accurate. Yes. you have a limited um look at this issue and criteria that you can apply and then there are definitely very big community concerns involved in this that are

1:00:27 outside the scope of this process. Um and certainly there's um issues of coordinating between the developers as the county and peace and the neighbors and their interests and I would hope um that those conversations would be happening and ongoing regardless of this process. There's also litigation that's involved. Um, I think that a question that I've had from council previously is do we need to wait till litigation's resolved to make an annexation decision or what happens if the lawsuit by the um neighboring property owners is successful and house bill 2005 supersiding goes away. I think that we are setting up the annexation decision that it won't um it's independent of whether house bill 2005 continues to exist. If House Bill 2005 goes away, then the applicants would go through a

1:01:12 plan zone change process and any annexation agreement or findings would apply in that um process as well. And we've done that in other contexts. >> All right, let's keep going. >> So, let's go to the next slide. Um there's been as as councelor Buck pointed out, there's been a lot of discussion. Oh, sorry. Thanks, Andy. I knew it. I didn't even see that was there. Turn it on. Um >> thanks. Oh, yeah. One. There we go. Okay. Okay, I know this is a lot of text, but I wanted to talk about House Bill 2005 because I think there was a lot of testimony on this and I thought maybe the clearest way to talk you through was just to put the text of the law. It's now OS 197A 386. Just put it on the screen and talk about how this applies and when. So, it's essentially set up with these two key parts. One is

1:01:59 inside urban growth boundary, a local government shall allow a crisis stabilization center. That's the part the county proposes to operate. and it's got a legal definition um that ties into licensing requirements and cannot require a plan amendment, zone change or conditional use permit, which in Springfield we call discretionary use um on property for which the facility is cited if that property is owned by a public body. the property is owned by Lane County meets that definition and adjacent to where a mental or psychiatric hospital licensed under the state licensing law is or will be located as established by a pending development application. So then matching to that on the other side is we

1:02:44 have to approve under those same terms a mental or psychiatric hospital can't require plan amendment zone change or conditional use permit if it's in an area with one of these zonings um employment uses or what campus industrial is and it's adjacent to where a crisis stabilization center will be located as established by a pending development application. The city code allows for an annexation submitt with a p with a current development application to be processed concurrently. The applicants have not pursued that process. So we do not have any pending development application. What we are looking at is we are aware that after annexation of the property, the applicants are likely able to qualify under House Bill 2005 if they come in with development applications at

1:03:31 the same time for both of those uses because it's property owned by a public body and it's zoned for employment uses. So, they're likely able to meet this sort of first test under the statute. Any questions about that piece? I'm going to I'm actually going to keep let me keep talking about the statute and then we'll answer questions. Go to the next one that Andy thinks. So, this section does not apply on land where the local government determines the facility cannot be adequately served by water, sewer, storm water, drainage, or streets or will not be adequately served at the time development on the property is complete. When property is unanexed and it's in a certain proximity to sewer, by law, it can't have a septic system. This property meets the requirement to not have a septic system. We don't allow a

1:04:16 property to be served by sewer without annex annexing to the city. So therefore, until the property is annexed, the city has to conclude that it's cannot be adequately served by water, sewer, storm water drainage or streets. We could not approve pending development applications without annexation of this property. Um, in other words, the applicants in their latest submitt talked about there's nothing that requires you to figure this out at annexation. You can figure this out later. You should figure it out. Site point review. My intention and I thought that the applicants were aligned in this approach based on our conversations um previously. But my recommendation is that if the city council decides to uh approve the annexation because you think it complies with the comp plan

1:05:01 policies that the annexation agreement would help establish the specific conditions needed so that this is met. I don't think that it's in the city's interest or the applicant's interest to leave this undecided for the stage of site plan review because that also puts city staff in an uncomfortable position of either needing to schedule a last minute council process for you to decide as ultimate, you know, policy makers or staff having to make this decision. Um, I think it's in everybody's interest for an annexation agreement to completely spell out what's needed to ensure a facility would be adequately served by water, sewer, storm drainage, and streets at the time the development's complete. So, that's my recommendation um on how to kind of think about the annexation agreement when we get to that in the context of House Bill 2005.

1:05:47 Um, there's other language here that we don't have to look at updating any statewide planning goal related to economic development and we don't need to and and that a decision made on those pending applications is not a local land use decision. There's also a 30-day decision-making timeline. Um, those pieces come into play later um and aren't really relevant to the annexation. Any questions about 20 House Bill 2005? This has been a point of contention. >> Are there councelor book? >> I just want to clarify what I thought I heard you say cuz I probably got it wrong here. So, we don't have an application for for for

1:06:34 site use yet. This is this is purely an annexation even though there's been discussion of what could potentially be there. Am I hearing you correctly that we really can't consider that because there is no application. So what we're considering is annexation based on adequately you know with you know water sewer storm drainage and those kind of things but not what's been discussed as intended use. >> No that's not what I'm saying. Thank you for the question. Um what I'm saying is that House Bill 2005 does not preempt any city decision-making and annexation. There's no pending development application. So, the council is not preempted from requiring a plan amendment, zone zone change, or

1:07:20 conditional use permit um potentially tied to annexation. I don't know how that would be relevant, but the um applicants have argued that denying the annexation um based on how the council might interpret the comprehensive plan amounts to a violation of House Bill 2005. So my purpose in showing this to you is to show that because there's no pending development applications, there's no the council's not bound by House Bill 2005 at this point in time. It's relevant only because it informs why the applicants are seeking to put a use that's not permitted in the zoning on the property. In the same way that, and this was provided by the applicants in their most recent testimony, in the same way that Eweb's intention to locate

1:08:06 a water treatment facility in Glenwood was at the time of annexation not contemplated under the zoning, they described how they were going to work to get that permitted. I think you can think about House Bill 2005 as the description for how they want to get to from annexation to development. Um, and it is, I think, relevant to the comprehensive plan policies. Um, but it's not preemptive on the council. So, you can't violate House Bill 2005 in your annexation decision. That's not I do not believe that is a risk the city faces. >> Uh, Council Weber, >> I'm going to dig into that just a little bit deeper. >> So, we can require zone amendments or we can say that this does not meet the current zone requirements. Is that what

1:08:52 you could conclude that becau I mean one of the we'll get to this next and looking at the comp plans but you could conclude that what your comp plan policies mean is that um annexation needs to be for certain types of proposed uses or there needs to be a process in there to make them comply with the comp plan and that's relevant to the annexation criteria. I do not believe that would be a violation of House Bill 2005 because there's no pending development application for those uses. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? >> Okay. >> So, >> what would happen if we did that? Um, I imagine it would be appealed and >> I'm pretty sure everything's going to get appealed here, but >> and then the land use board of appeals would tell us if we're correct in the

1:09:38 reading of the statute that it's very narrow and applies only when there's a pending development application um and either affirm that understanding of the plain meaning of the statute and the words that are there or they would remand to say no, you have to do it this way and we would then bring that to the council and talk about your options at that point. Um the other alternative is that the county and peace health could move forward with a plan amendment zone change application and show that those criteria of approval are met. Um which is what process they've gone through um peace health has gone through in another context on a different property for example. It would be that same circumstance. >> Okay, other questions. All right, let's keep going. >> Okay, so the first this gets into the um the criteria. So um I'm just showing them all here. We're going to get into more detail. So, we're skipping over A

1:10:24 because there's no doubt that this is contiguous to city limits. Um, that's a prerequisite to prevent sort of leaprogging annexations. That one's met. Criterion B requires that the proposed annexations consistent with the applicable policies in the Springfield comprehensive plan. And for the purpose of this application, I think those relevant parts are the urbanization element. That's the part that talks about how do we convert land from you know inside the urban growth boundary but not annexed rural land really for all purposes to land that can have urban development. The land use element that talks about how do we designate properties and what are those designations for. The economic element which talks about how do we provide employment opportunities in the city and then the 2035 transportation system plan. Those are all parts of the

1:11:10 Springfield comprehensive plan. The metro plan has a number of elements that we have not adopted city specific plans. I think the one relevant to this proposal that's in contention um potentially is a public facilities and services plan. And then this property is subject to the gateway refinement plan. Uh the gateway refinement plan has specific plan designations that update the land use element and those are shown on the board. As you can see that's where the campus industrial designation comes from along with the zoning. So we can go to the next slide. I just wanted to give that high level framework of what we're talking about. So the first policy is urbanization policy UG1. And this one talks about urbanizable lands. So that means lands that's not yet annexed within the 2030 UGB shall be converted to urban uses as shown in the

1:11:57 Springfield comprehensive plan map and as more particularly described in neighborhood refinement plans, other applicable area specific plans and the policies of this plan. And there are some um related policies that I don't have on slides. Uh that annexation shall continue to be a prerequisite for urban development and delivery of city services in accordance with the Springfield comprehensive plan and Springfield development code and for the purposes of land use planning and annexation approval. Um it defines key urban facilities and services and those are um detailed in staff report. So the key place here I think for council's feedback is what how you see this what do you think this

1:12:43 policy means in the context of a proposal for annexation where the applicant intends to leaprog over the development code restrictions and get into the specifics um and get into a use that's not allowed under the development code. So, one way to read this um is that urbanizable lands shall be converted to urban uses. I think it's it's around what does this phrase mean? Converted to urban uses as shown in the Springfield comprehensive plan map. One interpretation of that is that the proposed uses at an annexation must comply with the Springfield comprehensive plan map. Um and so we would have to show that that criteria is met or include a requirement in the annexation agreement that shows it's

1:13:29 feasibly plausible like a condition of approval to get there. So that could be plan amendment zone change in another context for example. Um and then as more particularly described in neighborhood refinement plans that would pull in potentially gateway refinement plan and the uses that are described in that plan. The other way that the council could interpret this is just more broadly that urbanizable lands will generally be converted to any urban use that might be described in the Springfield comprehensive plan map, not specific um not property specific urban uses. So, I think there's some discretion here for the city council to provide input. I don't I think this is a unique circumstance. I don't think that creates a lot of risk related to run-of-the-mill annexations either way because most people when they annex um

1:14:15 don't have the benefit of the superersiding bill and they know that they either need to annex for a use that's in the comprehensive plan um or they need to go through a plan of zone change and we've had many property owners do that in the last 5 years or so. Um I can provide examples if the council's interested. Um, so that's I think a fundamental question is h what do you think this policy means in the context of how you want to manage your comprehensive plan? And if you don't know, what information could we provide you or analysis could we put out um for you that would help you answer that question? >> Just to jump in here. >> Uh, have we discussed this in previous annexations? This has not been an issue in previous annexations because when people come forward to annex, they typically either

1:15:01 acknowledge that they will require some future changes to accomplish their desired outcome. And so then it's likely it's the council can make a finding that it will be in compliance with this that their proposal is in compliance with this policy or they're just proposing future uses um either specifically or not specifically that comply. So, for example, if we have an annexation of a large area of R1's owned property, um we would treat that annexation as anticipating, you know, duplex development on there, subdivision, um if it's large enough. And we would include requirements designed to get at what does a subdivision need in this area? Or if it's a single property, we would look at, you know, a single family home or a duplex is likely all that's going to

1:15:46 happen on this site. It's a single property and it's for septic. So, while we haven't gone into this policy in a lot of detail, it's not been in contention in other annexations, I think this the um no matter which way the council decides to read this, there's not a lot of precedent to say, well, that past decision complied or didn't comply because it's very unique facts here where someone's proposing to develop a use that's not allowed in the zoning with no other local process to get it allowed in the zoning. And is there any discussion that the council made at the time when they adopted this policy? I know that that's sort of in the way back machine. >> Yeah, I didn't find anything helpful, but I I can make a note and that can be more information that I provide to the council is what's the context for this policy? Um, and what's the council

1:16:32 discussion >> or findings? >> Thank you. Um, so to clarify there, make sure again make sure I'm understanding this clearly because there's some nuance here. you described two ways of interpreting this and and and so I guess what I'm wondering is if we know that you know the the any any piece of property we annex is is going to be coded for you know the use that it's coded for. Um, and so if you want to you if you want to do something different than what it's coded for, then it then you have to apply for land use amendment. That's a

1:17:18 different process than annexation. So there two separate things. So I guess my question is does our decision here influence that in any way, shape or form? So, does does a a yes to vote, yes to annex make any sort of assumptions about the potential of a future zone adjustment um application? >> Yeah, if you decide to I think let me rephrase and you can tell me if this is your question. If you decide to approve with a requirement to do a plan amendment zone change as part of an annexation agreement, for example, does the fact that the council approved the

1:18:03 annexation contingent on a plan amendment zone change bind the council to approve that plan amendment zone change? I think the answer to that is no. You would be bound to make the same I think factual determinations if the same information is put forward. So if there's a question about what's the proposed traffic impact and there's exactly the same facts in front of you, it would be hard to reach a different factual conclusion. I don't know that that would like ever happen that that you would have exactly the same facts on a key issue. But each application would be subject to its own criteria of approval with its own findings and process. And it doesn't bind the city to predecide that outcome at the stage that you're making a decision here. I think it's okay to say we would need to make a

1:18:48 separate decision under those criteria over there. Um, and you would then look at those criteria. What the council typically cannot do is change how you interpret your comprehensive plan from one process to another unless you give notice of your intent to change your interpretation and allow people to respond to that changed interpretation. And certainly as staff, we wouldn't propose that you change you do a 180 and how you're viewing any of the um, comp plan policies. >> Okay, other questions? Um maybe we come back to this one. Uh there's going to be a lot of discussion on this big one. >> Y go to the next one. Um and the next one I think is in a similar vein. It's also an urbanization policy. So this is unincorporated land within the Springfield UGB may be developed with permitted uses at maximum density only

1:19:33 upon annexation to the city when it's found that key urban facilities and services can be provided to the area to be annexed in an orderly and efficient manner. And then um I'm going to just talk about that. That's a very similar question I think to that first one. Is the policy the question for council I think is is the policy saying um urban unincorporated land within Springfield UGB may be developed with permitted uses at maximum density only upon this condition. And does that mean permitted uses as what the city has defined as permitted uses or does that mean permitted uses as any use that might be allowed under law which would include superersiding uses um or other uses where the state has come in and said you have to allow this. So I think

1:20:18 that's a question for that's a question that I think has more potential to impact city annexations in the future if somebody does have a supersiding bill where um maybe the density allowed under the state statute is greater or different than what's allowed in the development code at that time. We're trying to stay on top of codifying these state mandates, but they come very fast and we're not always ahead of it. So that's a question I think that could maybe have it's slightly nuanced. it could maybe have a little more impact later. >> Can can you give us the two options again? So, one just go through them one more time. >> I think there's two ways to read this. I think there's um permitted uses could be a reference to the uses the city is permitted. Um so, you could say that's

1:21:03 uses just generally as described in the comp plan for each land use designation or it could be permitted uses in the development code. Um, or you could look at this as, oh, we're just talking about uses that may be permitted under any source of law. So, if the state has said you have to allow these things, that's encompassed in this policy. >> All right. Anybody want to jump in here? We we noticed that this was going to progressively get harder. >> Yeah. >> Uh, like >> I think this I think the hardest part is first, honestly. Um, >> yeah. >> Glad to counselor St. But that might just be my take >> is policy UG30 where I'm trying to ask where would we as council have a a provision to like ask for a good neighbor agreement

1:21:48 >> that is later on in I think that if you decide that the um I mean that's in the implementation of this policy this policy also leads to the some of the criteria of approval around orderly and efficient manner of providing public service. My recommendation is based on some unique concern that's expressed with this facility, general best practices for this type of facility um and concerns and public comments that a good neighbor agreement can be a very helpful way to ensure the police services are provided in an orderly and efficient manner. So that gets to after the council's decided if you think that the the comp plan policies are met then then what are the orderly efficient and timely delivery of services and then a good neighbor agreement can help there. That's a good question. All right, other

1:22:33 folks. Um, my initial reading on this would be that it would be under any source of law. I don't know that it would make any reasonable sense that we would have a policy that explicitly would ignore what the state law requires of us. Um, but that's that's just my interpretation. Does anybody >> Okay. >> That's helpful. Thank you. >> Okay, we can start working through. >> Yeah. And then the second part of this is talking about um the t what does it mean to provide them in an orderly efficiently efficient and timely manner which is a question that's come up. This is going to relate more to that next criteria but um I just want to put a pin in your mind that it when it we're talking about what timing and location means. Our comp plan policy ties that

1:23:18 back to our public facility plans our TSP and our public facility and services plans. So the council's basically already decided what the timely, orderly, and efficient provision of public facility and services are for those systems that are in those plans. And so you can rely on those policies and plans for those types of services. We don't have one plan that covers everything that's in that list of key urban facilities and services. Local streets is a big issue that's been talked about that's not extensively detailed in the TSP. Um but for those things that are there the our comp plan says you look to those sources. Um and then the other thing that I want to point out is that the um plan policy talks about a logical time to deliver the services has been determined based

1:24:04 on demonstrated and need and budgetary priorities. So the city is not required timely does not mean it's there on day of opening. Um that's been raised as one potential definition of what timely means. um it can be at a time in the future if that's our um our budgetary issue or budgetary need. Um there's some additional policies around what does the development look like and I think um this would be helpful to know just the council's take on whether you think that this needs to be more uh whether you think that the proposal for annexation um provide like would meet these policies or whether you think there's some other provision of the public facilities and services for this annex property to better meet these these are around connection to the river um and

1:24:51 highlighting, you know, that area in particular's connection to the Mackenzie River. There's a setbacks that already apply in that area. Um, but transportation connectivity up and through that area is also important. >> So, would uh policy UG40 be the requirement that they move that they work with LTV to move the bus stop so that it's within a I'm going to use reasonable. I don't know like close to the side. >> Yeah, that would be one of that would be one source of that. There's also more detailed policies in the refinement plan that we'll get to on that point. Um, and these are things I think to think about. And then our transportation system plan talks about when evaluating I want to get to action one. Um, when evaluating needed roadway improvements, consider the economic viability of existing

1:25:36 commercial industrial areas. The applicants have proposed a reading of this policy that says you have to consider what's um, economically viable for their property. And that's one of the things, but it talks about the policy is really written at um the viability of the commercial and industrial area. So I think it's a broader look, not that the it's irrelevant what happens on the applicant site, but I think the criteria is really directing you to look at an entire area and balance the needs of the um entire area when determining what the transportation network looks like. This again gets more to what those um facilities and services look like, but it's under that comp plan policy. Any questions on that one? >> I think we're I think we're good. >> Okay. Um so then I think in the there

1:26:23 are sorry in the staff report there are more policies in the um gateway refinement plan, but I think they are very similar for these like issues to the higher level ones that I called out. If the council wants me to dive into more gateway refinement plan, I can do that. They're generally also supportive of a of a transportation network that connects people to the river and provides transit. Okay. If no questions, we'll get on to criterion C. This is really um if there's if the council decides that they you don't think there's a threshold issue with annexing property for a proposed use that's maybe not consistent with the comp plan designation. Um, if you decide that that's not the way that you think the compound policies apply, then we get to criterion C, which is,

1:27:09 um, can the proposed annexation 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. So, the minimum level we would look to what do our facility plans say is the minimum level of service. The applicants at one point talked about if a road connects to the site, that's the minimum level of um transportation. That's not consistent with our um code and how it applies. I think the same way you could think about in the context of water service, a uh half inch pipe for water that connects to a hospital is probably an insufficient water supply to provide

1:27:54 water to that hospital. You may need a larger pipe um or a you know half inch water line to feed a thousand houses for example. So minimum level is not just does it above the property. It's within the entire annexation area after this comes in is a minimum level as defined in our plans available for transportation. We pro we provide metrics um level of service um D is the minimum accepted level of transportation service and then we have narrative policies around a local street network. The key urban facilities and services are defined in urbanization policy UG1. I don't think there's any disagreement over what those are. And then an orderly, efficient and timely manner. That's what I um talked about in that

1:28:39 prior slide. Are there questions on what this criteria is or what you're thinking about and looking at? >> Any questions? >> We're gonna I think we're going to have questions when you get to the street, Matt. >> Yes. Great. >> Um, so I just wanted to show the like zoom you in a little bit now to look at this property in the context of key urban facilities and services. I think the key issue and dispute here around urban facilities and services at this point is the street network. So I wanted to just sort of show you what the streets look like there today. Um and the gateway refinement plan has really been the vehicle through which a lot of this work on connectivity has happened. Um the gateway refinement plan dates

1:29:25 back to the late 1980s and this area was envisioned as campus industrial even before that but it really solidified the vision um in that gateway refinement plan. And then when the hospital decided to locate where they did there was a whole series of amendments circuit 2005 to further update and refine those aspects of the refinement plan. So that's just trying to set the stage um I wanted to go into. So this is one of those sources of information on what are key urban facilities and services for transportation. The Springfield transportation system plan shows a number of projects in this area. These are um collectors and u pedestrian bike facilities. The Springfield TSP does not show local connections.

1:30:12 So this is a overview of the p of the plan map showing you that one of the most important um projects that will affect this site is the city has planned for Maple Island Road to be a collector um running through the project area. You can see on the screen that where it's there's like um almost checkerboard looking uh property. The gray square that kind of comes up from where R3 is, that's the FedEx location. It is annex. That's why it's shown gray. So the annexation site that's proposed is the area to the north and to the east of that. Um so R1 I wanted to point out that and I don't think that there's any disagreement to this um being a planned project but R1 is planned to be a

1:30:58 collector. It's a construction project planned in the TSP to be provided there. So any annexation should include Maple Island Road as part of the um essential uh urban facilities and services. What is again not shown on the map are the local streets. So this is where I think there's the most contention. I've highlighted in this diagram the in green is Maple Island Road. That is the alignment that the county um sorry the applicant has proposed and I believe it matches with what the city's expectation is in prior um negotiations and agreements over the years. The area that's in different crosshatch on this is um what the county and peace have

1:31:44 proposed to dedicate. the diagonal sort of slanting toward the up toward the east is what they've proposed to dedicate but not construct and slanting up toward the west is what they've proposed to construct. The area in blue is what was contemplated in the 1998 agreement and then um recorded on the plat but marked deleted in the 2005 agreement. There's no information that I can find on whether the intent of that 2005 agreement was to remove that um requirement for dedication altogether or to remove the requirement of who would pay for that dedication. Um there's no

1:32:29 reference to the fact that it was already platted, that the dedication was already included as binding conditions of approval in prior land use decisions. Um and the agreement was negotiated pretty quickly and never came back to the city council for further review. There was really no public record on what anybody intended in 2005. Um I think the fact that something's just said deleted, it doesn't say uh no longer in effect, has been satisfied, it's really not helpful um in terms of what the intent was. Clearly, the city can't bind any um it it's titled as an improvement agreement, and improvement agreements are intended to say who has to build what. And so I would say the only thing that I can certainly I think recommend from that is that the city removed any obligation on the property owner's part to pay for um that sort of

1:33:16 independent to whatever other development would occur. >> What's is it just the unhashed light blue or is it all the light blue? >> It's um it removed all reference to what's in light blue was deleted. So the difference I think is that Peace Health Lane County is proposing the kind of L-shaped, >> right? Yes. >> And to pay for the southern portion of it. >> Yes. >> And then the 1998 agreement had the effectively the road being the light blue area. >> The 1998 agreement had the entire light blue area. The 2005 agreement contemplated none of the light blue area. So the 2005 agreement assumed all access would potentially come off the orange which is highlighted there. Um so I think that's another thing that's different is that if if what we're

1:34:01 saying is well we're going to rely on that 2005 agreement that set the city's that set the party's understanding the party's understandings were that all the access would come off the orange area and that's not what is being proposed either. Um so it's a little bit um unhelpful to all of us I think. the then real quick, the red area is the area that was contemplated would be dedicated for a future connection um to a roadway that might be located on the Royal Caribbean site based on the road dedication, but it was never actually required as part of that process. Um and because the that agreement was unrecorded, I'm not sure whether we could enforce that requirement against FedEx today. Um but it does provide an agreement to provide part of that FedEx property. to have to do more research

1:34:46 into the property exchanges and what they had notice of in order to know if the city could hold them to that requirement to dedicate that um bottom part of that red sliver. >> So really the direction that you're looking for is like what our priority our policy priorities are given the options on this map. >> Yes. Given the options on this map, what are your policy priorities? What if you want us to go back and try to negotiate an annexation agreement that we could bring forward for council's consideration and for public response and comment? What direction do you want to give us on um the road network? The applicants have said that putting the road north in this location is a dealbreaker for their design. Um this information was known to Lane County and Peace Health when they purchased the property. It was described in their land

1:35:31 use report from their consultant Rick Rick Satry as something to discuss with the city and investigate further. So, um, this shouldn't have been, we didn't just discover the 1998 agreement or plat um, as part of this process. That information was available to them, but they've said it's a dealbreaker for their design. Um, they've said they relied on the TSP um, description of collectors in this area to conclude that this would no longer be required. But there's nothing in that 1998 agreement that talks about this needs to be a collector. In conversations, city staff have said, "Well, we might end up proposing to the council later that you designate that as an alternative minor collector, but that is not a decision the council's making tonight. We're not asking you to make that." And there would be public comment, a whole process around the TSP

1:36:18 if it even got to that point. So, it's not um I think that was a comment from staff about what staff might recommend in the future and not at all uh an expression of city policy that this would be designated in an annexation as a minor collector here. >> Mr. Um, I toured the site a month or so ago with staff and and kind of tried to get a visual of what we're talking about here. And one of the things that was brought up in that conversation was the 90° angles in the proposed street um the way this the county is proposing that these streets be built. So I I have concern about that based on the conversation I had with our engineers and what that looks like for our future development opportunities and and

1:37:04 connecting all of the different things out there. So that's just I just want to say that um and there was also some conversation and we're not talking about it here so I don't know if it's still applicable or not but there was on a map that we saw in one of our earlier conversations that had a I think it was green and it was it wasn't actually a from what I understand from from talking with Michael it wasn't really a street it was a phantom kind of uh space saver or am I saying that right Michael? It's been a little bit so I'm trying to re regurgitate what I >> talking about conceptual local street map or conceptual street map. So the conceptual street map which I don't have up here. Um I could we could pull it up from the website if it's necessary but the conceptual street map if we go to the here I'll go back up go one slide

1:37:51 up. Um if you look at where that line that R1 connects to that loop around. So at some point um our GIS system showed that line as dedicated rightway. That is actually a it's a public utility easement dedicated to the city and to EW web, but it is expressly only for access by the public utility providers to the property. Somehow in the mapping process that got mapped as a street and so it is shown as a local street on our maps even though it is not a local street. Um and then when the city was adopting the conceptual street map for where approximately do we want minor collectors and the network to be in the

1:38:36 future, the we need some collector connection up um from international way to the urban growth boundary expansion area and staff showed as a dotted line which means planned for the future um over the top of that line a minor collector that does not bind the city into um requiring a minor collector there. It's a plan for one and it doesn't say the city can't put it somewhere else. Um and it doesn't say anything about where local streets can go. So, I think you've got testimony from Royal Caribbean that they would like the city to go with the county's proposal because the county's volunteering to provide a minor collector um and to provide right of way sufficient for a minor collector, which then moves that line from being shown as

1:39:22 conceptually on Royal Caribbean's property to being shown to being planned actually like there's rightway for it, not on the city property, which gives Royal Caribbean maybe some benefit in their discussions. Um, but I don't know that. But approving the sanexation with a local street in this location does not mean that the council has to require Royal Caribbean to provide that minor collector. There's still flexibility. And if Michael has anything to add, let me know. Okay. >> Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that everyone else had the same information that I did. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So, we're going to have a couple decision points here. Do you do you want to wait through all the material and work back through them or do you want to start working through them? Christina's going to need direction on which which

1:40:09 street preference that we have. Go ahead, Councelor Buck. >> So, I think I'm probably a little confused here. So, join the club. Right. Um, I guess I want to get clear maybe on order of operations here. So before we can really decide on on annexation, do we need to we need to pick a street map? Because it sounds like we have two different maps or maybe more than two different maps. Um there's there's the 98, there's the 2000. >> Those are agreements on who will pay for what. >> Okay. Um, and the 2005 agreement basically said there would be no longer any obligation for the property owners to pay for the green unless they proposed to take access to it, which they're not doing. And that if they

1:40:55 proposed to take access off the orange, the city would pay for that construction. That was what was in the 2005 agreement. >> So, it's really about who pays for what. >> But the 2005 agreement didn't left out the blue altogether. >> Correct. It just deleted. It says deleted. And I don't it's not clear what that was intended to mean. >> So it sounds like we need to get clear on the road mapping before we can then decide on annexation or no. >> I don't think that it's necessary to for the council to decide what the 2005 agreement definitively meant meant um because that was an agreement for the development context at that time for a proposal that's not in front of you. The county is already proposing something different than what the 2005 agreement said. The

1:41:42 2005 agreement said we're going to take access off of Sportsway and the orange or we're going to take access off of Maple Island Road in the green. And they're proposing to take access off the blue. I don't think we can hold them to requirement to construct all of the blue because of the 1998 agreement, but that doesn't mean you can't require it through application of annexation criteria, if that makes sense. So, it's just really what what are their prior contractual agreements for? I would say there's really not a prior contractual agreement for much at all relevant right now, but there are prior um planning decisions that have some conditions of approval that the city could rely upon. >> Councelor Rodley, >> thank you. Um so, this has been a thing that I've been watching and paying attention to. I

1:42:28 think that my concerns and I appreciate councelor Weber bring it up those right angles I think about the safety of those stopped turn stop turns what that looks like if you've got emergency vehicles and people traveling that way um I think you know and I'm not a traffic planner and you know looking at it when it was just am I east west is that am I look thinking of that correctly that blue one okay um I was like I hope I'm facing the >> blue runs north to south >> okay north south >> and the other was the East, west, and north south. So the north south is, you know, I can I can imagine the original intent is that even if you had heavy trucks from indust industry, they would still be like mostly going this way and then moving into whatever the businesses

1:43:13 are. So that's a like somebody would have to to tell me like I would need cheap caven or somebody to tell me that oh no, we love making those, you know, multiple right turns. um because I could see that and and even if this wasn't here forever, I just think that sort of chopped up way um is problematic. So, and I'm not like it's not I'm not a hill that I'm going to die on, but it it is the first area that I'm like I am uncomfortable with the jiggity jaggedy for a an access road in that area with what's there and what's planned to go there. >> All right, anybody else? I think I'm I've got the same question is when I think about sort of north south access and where the UGB expansion

1:43:59 area is which is should be if my geography is right roughly to the north of that area that configuration of streets you know doesn't seem like it provides enough north south access without sort of the start and stop that doesn't mean that you know I don't think there's an alternative design that can't be negotiated that meets kind of our safety needs with our access needs right like but I don't know that holo right angles are as uh efficient as what we could be good I might be willing to die on the hill of the 90° angles I think we need to really strongly consider um how difficult it can be for some of those bigger vehicles emergency vehicles to navigate that

1:44:44 especially if they're in a hurry to get somewhere one piece of information that was submitted after the council packet was published was um examples from the vacation of sportsway. So the time when that middle piece of sports way was removed, the council had in front of them that there were multiple options still to connect to the north and so that connection wasn't needed and the county has said has is using that in support of their proposal. Um what that didn't show was multipled zigzag options. All of the options shown were straight lines. Many of those are no longer feasible because of new development. But um I think what would be necessary here is if the if the council went with the county's proposal then the um that would

1:45:31 maybe necessitate the council to look at the properties to the south um when they annex and providing rightway potentially there which was not um something that I think had been on the radar of staff or the pro those property owners um which are owned by um other parties to this action that are in opposition to the annexation. And I and I think from like there's a little bit of an art here, right? That we that even though we're talking about the impacts and inefficiency of those 90° angles like finding the nearest north south line, right? There's lots of different options in between. >> Yeah. And there were options shown in um 2002 when that property was that road was vacated, but some of those are no longer on the table. So we're down to just like a small handful of those

1:46:18 options today is what I would say. But I think that um we can explore what options might meet connectivity without 90 degree angles um and if there's anything that the county would be willing to consider on Peace Health. >> Yeah. >> I mean really this affects the county's land. Peace is proposing to provide that along their lot sort of regardless and it's what happens after that >> and Yeah. And maybe and and maybe that's the maybe that's the conversation to have is really with the county. Okay, let's keep going. Okay, the last um criteria I'm just realizing that changing it on my computer doesn't change it for you. Thanks Andy. Is criterion D. So this is where applicable fiscal impacts to the city have been mitigated through an annexation agreement or development agreement which is a process that we don't have here. We

1:47:04 don't have an application for one a waiver of ramonstrance or other mechanism that's approved by the city council. So the proposal here from staff is direction around an annexation agreement. Um, and I think most importantly for this, what's in contention in a proposed annexation agreement is the um, infrastructure piece we just talked about. And then also I think we're wanting guidance from council on the financial contribution for gateway belt line and what does that look like. Um, this is also where a good neighbor agreement can help mitigate those fiscal impacts by providing conditions where the city's not spending an outsized amount on police response to the area. Um I don't have a slide for that but I wanted to highlight that in response to your other question. So the impact on gateway belt line I want to thank Michael a lot for talking me through this. Um we met and he really I think

1:47:50 boiled it down in a way that um certainly I can understand and hopefully if I can't help the council understand we can pull him up. Um the key turning movement for the gateway belt line intersection is the eastbound from belt line coming. So you're coming home from Costco and you're going up over um belt line into the gateway area. One of the most important turning movements to that intersection is the left turn there. So to go north, like you're going to go um yeah, Arco Chase, you're going to go to the US, the chef store, you've just subitted Costco, now you're going to buy 12,000 paper plates. Um that movement matters because it's a critical movement where the um if the traffic backs up further than the lanes provide, it blocks off parts of ODOT's facility. And

1:48:38 from ODOT's perspective, certainly the city and the council cares about traffic backing up into other intersections that are city-owned on the other streets. We don't want traffic backing up past our own intersections, but ODOT's not going to step in and tell us we have to um provide a fix if that happens. If traffic backs up all the way onto Belt Line or the I5 ramps, then that's an issue that the state really cares about. We've had prior IGAs around what the city's going to do. I think none of those I those IGs have expired. They were raised I think by um respondents the neighbors at some point in time but those from our perspective the cities have expired but ODOT still has authority to I think come back and tell us we've got to work with them. We've got to fix that problem. It's a it's um

1:49:23 it's not a small thing. The impact um the proposed annexation would impact that terming movement. The information we have from the consultant from the applicant's consultant is that the overall trips through that intersection are lower, which is I think it's that's good to know. That's helpful. However, because of the different operation patterns of a stabilization center and mental health hospital, the traffic pattern through that area is different um and higher on that left turn. So, if you've got a campus industrial business, then at 5:00 p.m. or 6 5:00 p.m. roughly 5:00 p.m. peak hour time, you don't have a lot of people coming into Springfield to turn north into the campus industrial area. Um, you have some more people than now,

1:50:08 but not as many as if you have a hospital there that's operating 247 or crisis stabilization center that's operating 24/7. You have more people that are going to at 5:00 be coming into Springfield to go north on Gateway there. And so what we are looking at is not actually the difference between um annexation with campus industrial use versus annexation with sorry um uh mental health hospital crisis stabilization center. We're just looking at the difference between without annexation and with annexation with what they proposed to do. So the difference is it adds 41 trips and that is approximately an 11.4% 4% of the trips that are going through that turning movement in the applicant's

1:50:53 data. What we don't know that the applicant was didn't provide is analysis on what happens in 2035 with annexation to that queuing distance. Um what we know that there's 400 the 95th percentile queuing distance if you don't annex this property will be 450 ft. There's 525 ft of available storage. He's nodding. Yes. And so we don't know what that queuing distance looks like. And so one way that we could evaluate proportional impact is not just trips, but it's actually what's the proportion we go over on our queuing distance or how big of a problem is that? And so we had asked the applicant to provide that information. They came back with trip

1:51:38 numbers, but they did not perform the queueing analysis. So that's additional information we that the council could say that they want. Or alternatively, one option we've proposed is the annexation agreement could include a requirement that the applicants pay for the traffic study, not traffic study, the transportation study for the gateway area that the council's provided direction and a work session you'd like to move forward as part of the TSP update, but that we probably won't get funding for. So that's um those are sort of the options on the table and the facts as we have them on that. I think key piece of where the annexation agreement we'd need more direction. >> Okay. So, any thoughts here, Councelor Rodley? >> I I'm running out of thoughts, but um and this is really like I appreciate that you're highlighting that this is

1:52:23 the the main one, but it's over I mean traffic is overall. One of the things that's come up before like when we did the uh speed whatevers on Centennial is that it does often pe people um accommodate and so it changes the flow of traffic when you have these big things that happen and people start using different ways and it's it's impossible I've probably to anticipate that >> but just knowing that that is part of what I know I've been referencing when I talk about how there's already strain and we only need to do work in that area and then just keep adding these very big things that we don't necessarily know how that's going to impact it is is that's one of my concerns. So I would be in support of additional information

1:53:08 about the queuing and the possible alternative routes that people are going to be taking. Councelor Buck. So I I think what's hard for me when I look at the the different the additional trips and and and I and I kind of look at that is on some level pretty much anything that goes there is going to is going to increase traffic. And if we for me getting stuck on the increase of traffic, it's kind of like, well then if I'm worried about if that's going to keep me from saying let's annex, then really

1:53:55 what I'm saying is we can't put anything there because we can't increase any traffic. And I don't think that's the direction we're we're saying. I mean, I I I guess I feel like traffic is already bad there at various points. Um, and I and I don't think anything we do or don't do. There's no there's no way to improve that with with this. And and so it's hard for me to look at 41 trips and say that's a fundamental piece of this because if you put many other things there, I mean, maybe that number is a lot higher than 41. Um, and we already know that there's a there's a challenge there. And if we're really going to be concerned

1:54:41 about that, then I mean, we can't do anything. And I don't think that's where we're we're going. Absolutely. >> So I think my question is really it's the distance that is really >> because that's the one that's the one direction from a safety perspective on the mo would be the most concerned about right is coming up onto the up onto the interchange and the most problem that we would get into with the state. Mhm. >> So when I think about I know we're we don't want to ask for the world here, right? But when I think about I think I would want to understand the distance not from a but I don't know what we do if that if if that comes back and is that is that is a huge issue right because ultimately the solution to that is actually the

1:55:26 study to come up with alternatives for that for that area >> but the understanding the queueing length >> could help us under it could be part of that maybe >> yeah that makes sense so I want to highlight that we raised this under fiscal impacts to the city have been mitigated through an annexation agreement. So we are not staff are not saying we recommend that on whatever those queuing lengths are you would deny the annexation that that would be a basis to deny it. We're prevent trying to present you with information around how to mitigate fiscal impacts. To tie that more clearly the the TSP plans for upgrades to gateway belt line those are currently in a in a couplet design. The council has said we would like to

1:56:11 explore other options to provide the same capacity in a different configuration or through other non- constructed means and there's a study project also in the TSP to explore that. So both of those things are consistent with the TSP. So what this is looking at is um one way to mitigate fiscal impact to the city is to pursue that study. Another way could be to say we look at what capacity in the city system um that gets us towards it's broken, we have to implement our TSP project now. Um what portion does this development get us closer to there? So what's their proportion of the problem? And I want to highlight that other properties in the campus industrial area have paid their share of how much they're

1:56:57 contributing to the need for public facilities over the years. were different calculations because there was a different TSP at the time. Um, but other properties have been required to do this either through no cost dedication of um key areas of right of way um or other annexation proposals or just an outright payment of a fee um in lie of improvements. >> So could I'm going to assume like my preference would be for the study, right? But I'm going to assume that that that that is going to, you know, when you think about other property owners that we've done some sort of prop pro proportionality check that like that is a reasonable, >> you know, size given what everybody else has paid. >> Yeah, I think that the study is reasonable with what other property owners paid in terms of it's not

1:57:44 significantly more um than they have paid. Um, it's also significantly less than the proportion of their contributing to the number of trips through that turning movement would be. The number of trips they're adding through that turning movement is 11 12%. If you took the 11 and a half% of the cost of that inf that gateway belt line interchange, it's would be 11.4% of 90% of $18 million, $20 million. Um, so it's a it's lower than the proportional share of their trips through that intersection when viewed from the cost of that project as a whole. Um, it's hard to do exactly apples to apples because other um when that fee was imposed before it was before our current TSP. So it was based on the cost of all the TSP projects in the area, how much of those

1:58:30 were funded by SDC's, the price of those at that time, and how many trips they were adding. Um, so it was like I can't do exact apples to apples, but I think that the the study is more in line with the magnitude of what that fee is before even though the methodology is different. >> Okay. Uh, councelor Buck. So if if we're looking at fiscal fiscal impacts and we know we've got a problem there, you know, without without this, I mean, the the intersection, I think staff have described it as as failing by our standards already. >> Um, really what we're talking about is does this annexation dig that hole a

1:59:16 little bit deeper? and are is is paying for the study um filling more than their fair share of that. And I and I and and and so without we don't really have but I also heard you say we don't really have a mechanism to arguably say we're going to we're going to be able to get a study like Peace Health is offering to provide something that we may not be able to have access to without this. we'd have to identify funding elsewhere to pay for the study. ODOT is funding work on our TSP update. Um, and they're not going to fund likely a significant study into the gateway area. So, that would need to be the city would have to identify a source

2:00:02 of funding independently for that. Um, which could be other grants. Um, we haven't explored that in the past, but I think, um, this is Emma Newman's project, so I don't want to speak for her. Um, so I don't know that we've gotten into too much detail. I just know that's not part of what's being funded by ODOT currently um to do a deep dive on that area. >> All right. So, anybody else want to weigh in? This is a place we got to provide some sort of direction. >> So, we can come back to you with more information on this is what I'm hearing if >> um I think we just got to give us a minute for it to soak in here. Um while we're while people are pausing, uh Nancy brought up a note. I think I think it's Ann, right? Uh, and I need a little direction here since we've got a closed hearing that that Ann had a uh, point of

2:00:50 order around exparte communication and wanted to come up to bring it up, but I'm going to guess since the hearing's closed, maybe we can take it is in writing. >> Yeah, I'm guessing that it has to do with council rubber talking about um, touring the site with staff. That is not an exparte communication um because counselor's discussions with city staff are not exparte. it. Um, and it is not independent knowledge of irrelevant facts in this case because it is while that site visit happened outside the context of the hearing, the information that councelor Weber described hearing from staff is the same information that has been in the staff report and presented in the public record. Um, and so the the applicants can respond in writing, I think, to that concern

2:01:35 because it's written information that was shared with councelor Weber, which was from the staff report. Council Robert, can you just affirm that there wasn't other facts that you're taking into account that aren't already in the record um through the staff report and that the visit on the site with staff was about staff's recommendation as reflected in the staff report? >> Yes, it was strictly to to get a visual of all of the commentary that was provided during all of the different meetings we've had. I just really needed to visually see what we were talking about and not just have it described to me from a map that I really wasn't it just the the map was not giving me what I needed to understand the visual >> and it was only with city staff only with city staff. >> Thank you. I think that's is that fine?

2:02:22 >> Um do we want to is this the point that you want to do that then? I I'm fine with her coming up if if that's bring let's bring her up and pull up a pull pull up a chair >> just take two seconds ahead >> here. >> So I only I'm only doing this because I I need to make the procedural objection at the time or I'm at risk of waving it. So I just want to clear that up. Our position is a little bit different than what city council um ad advised the city attorney um that when you have a site visit um even if it's just with staff they're they're gathering information that is not part of the public record because we weren't there. And so what would we would like is for any um

2:03:07 counselor who took a site visit whether with staff or without to put in writing or verbally tonight um what those observations were um so that we can look at that and and object if necessary. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So I thought that's what council rubber had done but I'll give you the opportunity if there's more that you want to add. I I believe those observations were shared when I said what I wanted the rest of the council to hear about the 90° angles on the streets and how they connect and the phantom issue on the map. Those are those were the things that we talked about. >> Let's just double check. Does did anybody else make a site visit out

2:03:52 there? Uh, councelor Cuadras, >> I drove my own car, took myself, visited the site, looked at it. >> Okay. Is that enough? >> I I do think that the standard for independent knowledge of relevant facts is when it's independent from the record and not whether the other party was there. So, if the facts gained are what's in the record and just seeing it on the ground helps you understand what's in the record, I I don't think that there's a substantive procedural violation there. I just want to get confirmation um that the information gained is what's in the record, but seeing it in three dimensions helped you understand it. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Before we continue on, I'm hearing hearing some people shaking their head. They need we're going to

2:04:37 we're going to take a five minute uh recess to allow people to stretch their legs and then we will reconvene at 8:20. We're going to reconvene um for my recess and continue on with the staff presentation. >> Um so just really quickly um over the brief break I talked with Michael Leebler, the staff that accompanied council councelor Weber. He's going to go back out to where he visited with councelor Weber and take photographs of what they looked at um and where they were at. And so that information will be presented that way. to the extent that there's visual facts gained by councelor Weber that the applicants are unaware of, we'll document that for them and then they can respond um they'll have the opportunity to respond to that in

2:05:22 the open record period that we're going to get to next if we get there. So, I think we just need to wrap up the council's direction on this slide and what um information you still need. I I've heard that some better understanding of the queuing distance is important to the council. We can ask for that. Um that's an analysis that has been run in other in a campus industrial scenario by the applicants but not in their actual proposed use. And then um some information on will this impact alternative routes or other intersections and how um and so then just what other information would the council like on this point? >> Are there any other does that give you enough to work on over the summer? Because I know we're not scheduled to talk about this until September. Do you need more direction on this slide versus hey I I was open to the to negotiating

2:06:10 over the uh over the study. >> Yeah. >> Are people good with that or they >> do you >> Okay. >> Yeah. So we'll draft that version but provide more information to the council on what the alternatives would be. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, so then the next slide I'm really excited about because it's the when we're done here tonight slide. Um, this is my recommendation to the council that I talked about earlier for how to begin to wind this down so that you're well prepped for a decision in September. Um, the we've had new information submitted at a late hour by um, applicants. We also got a letter immediately before the meeting from a

2:06:56 property owner that we will provide to the applicants and post online. So, at minimum, we need to give some time for everybody to respond to what's just in the record as of the state. I've also gotten direction from council that you there's more information that you'd like. My preference is that we put that in the record and allow response. I think that does the best job of mitigating procedural issues. So, my recommendation because one of those things I'd like to include is a draft annexation agreement. My recommendation is that all of that stuff gets submitted. The record gets closed as of a month from tonight, July 22nd. Then there's uh some time in there. This is not part of the council's motion, but just like an idea that city staff would have a couple days to collect that record, those record materials and get them posted online. Um then the record would close for final public response to the stuff that was in the record as of

2:07:41 July 22nd, 2 weeks approximately from when staff can get it posted. Um, but that would be a firm close on Friday, August 7th. Then we give staff a few more days to get it posted and it closes for the applicant's final response on Tuesday, August 25th. Um, Tuesday, August 25th would that applicant response would not be new um, evidence or facts. It would be their final sort of remarks or proposed findings or um, arguments. And that aligns with um more time than is actually required under the state law for quasi judicial hearings. Um but I think in this case it given that it's summer and people take vacations. I think this gets the council um gives enough time for all the participants to have plenty of

2:08:27 opportunity, but it also closes it down with some finality and gives staff enough time to prepare for your Tuesday, September 8th um deliberation on this. you >> would we be ready to vote on the ETH or would we deliberate on the ETH? It >> would depend on if you were so what we what I envision staff would do is we would update the staff report. We may have alternative sets of findings for you. So, one of the things we're going to dig in more is on is the um plan policies. So I think what we would do is provide you more information and then have uh alternative sets of findings so that if the council can make a decision on those alternatives, you could vote. I vote, you know, I want to adopt this ordinance with findings A versus

2:09:13 findings B, for example. We would have an annexation agreement negotiated to the extent that we can. Um, and council would then be making a decision. Do you want to see more changes to that or are you comfortable with that? But we would have a staff report that backs up that annexation agreement so that it um moves forward that way if that makes sense. Um so I envision we could come back to you with something you could adopt or you could give more fine-tuning input um and we could come back two weeks later. >> Okay. Um >> you're not bound, the schedule does not bind you to make a decision on any particular date. But that's the first opportunity you could make a decision if that makes sense. And we would be trying to expedite this for you. No, I know. Like it we're we need to find the balance between keep moving the ball forward and also deliberate in an

2:09:58 appropriate and in-depth sort of way. And I want to make sure we're still making progress. Um before we take the motion or have any other questions, can we go back to the first policy? >> Yeah. >> I want to make sure this is the one we haven't even see if anybody's got comments on this one. So to me, this one is probably the biggest open question that is that is out there uh for for the 8th of September, >> right? I I can see reading it both ways and understanding the basis and starting point of this would be >> really interesting to me. >> Okay. Um, the other thing that I think I still have questions about is we're sort of in this weird world where it's like on one hand we're saying, "Hey, don't

2:10:45 consider what the proposed uses and on the other hand it's like, oh, but you know that that proposed use is, you know, potentially out there." And I'm trying to weigh those two things because I think how that to me how that how the answer to that question really leads me to this question about you know uh this particular policy. >> So my recommendation is that you consider what the proposed use is. You don't my recommendation is not that you apply criteria of approval from another application directly to the annexation. So I do not recommend that the council say well site plan criteria that a use must be allowed in the district for example is not met and therefore the annexation's denied. My recommendation

2:11:31 is you apply the annexation criteria of approval which requires you to look at the comp plan policies. My recommendation is that the comp plan policies require you to consider how the property will eventually be used because otherwise some of these policies are nonsense and you can't apply them when they were clearly intended to be applied. That is my reading on the case um that was um the the case just versus Lebanon. In that case um it was discussed last time it was in a council briefing memo but just to be a little bit clearer in that case the city of Lebanon had criteria of approval that said a development plan must be submitted unless council waves that op like waves that or or approves otherwise. And so the question was well does it really require a development plan? Um that was the question from

2:12:16 Aluba. So the applicants have said the case the case is clear and Lebanon unequivocally required that it was but actually the issue was was it clear and what Luba did is they went in and looked at well context for how you apply your code is what do your plans require? How do your plans talk about annexation? And so the policies that I read to the council last time that Lebanon had around providing key urban facilities and services, Luba said um sorry the court of appeals said you have to have an idea of what the use is going to be in order to know if this kind of criteria is met. If you don't have an idea of the use, you can't apply these criteria. Our criteria are very similar. And so while we don't have code language that says you must submit a development plan, I do think that it's a similar context and I think you're allowed to

2:13:02 consider future use of the property when you're applying these criteria. >> So in your reading of this, if if you're allowed to consider the future use of the property, does that mean I can consider this the super siding bill? Because the super siding bill seems like it would make the uh when when it gets urbanized compliant with all the plans. >> You can consider the super siding bill absolutely as a factor. You're not preempted by it. The point I wanted to make is you cannot violate the super signing bill by any decision you make in annexation because what's been confusing is the applicant saying if you don't deny this it' be a violation of House Bill 2005. It may not be the spirit of what was intended when that bill was lobbyed for or passed, but it's the words of the statute that control, not the hopes um for how it would play out.

2:13:49 And so I think you can't violate the statute and take the statute into account. And that's one of the questions I have is on um the other thing when we talk about permitted uses, does the plan intend to bring supersided permitted uses, does it mean all of those things or does it only mean things that the council has decided are permitted through code updates? >> Okay. So your your reading of this is we wouldn't violate the state law until like if the if the city didn't issue essentially permits for it, right? Okay. Okay. other other questions about right now I think my reading and and I know we'll get into this in in you know further along is my reading is that if

2:14:35 if that when you when I look at this if you bring like if you consider it's applied use then I kind of have to consider the house bill is telling me that that is a permitted use but that >> that that seems most consistent with how we've thought about annexations in the in the past, but there's other people that are going to weigh in as we work our way through this. >> Okay. >> All right. Okay. I think we actually need a motion. So, she's not going to let let me gabble her off until we get the >> It's a longer one. It's around the record. Um but if um somebody could make that motion, it'd be I think very helpful.

2:15:29 I'm sorry, got a little thing that flew across my screen. I move to close the record to new evidence, arguments, and testimony at 5:00 p.m. on July 22nd, but allow responses to new evidence in the record to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on August 7th and allow the applicant's final submitt, not including any new evidence, to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on August 25th. I will second >> conversation to the motion. All right. Y could you call a vote, please? >> Yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes. >> Councelor Mo, >> yes. >> Councelor Rodley, >> yes. >> Councelor Cuadras, >> yes. >> Councelor Buck, >> yeah. >> And councelor Ste, >> yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Six yeses, zero nos. Thank you very much for the long and in-depth discussion. We appreciate it. >> Thank you for hanging in there with me. >> We are adjourned. Um we are going to re

2:16:15 reconvene in just a moment as seed

0:07 Call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon >> here. Councelor Weber >> here. Councelor Mo >> here. >> Councelor Rodley >> here. Councelor Cuadras >> here. Councelor Buck >> here. >> And councelor Stout >> here. Thank you. >> All right. We have one item this evening which is the city hall deferred and modernization project update and next steps with Jeff Pascal. Uh good evening, mayor, council. Uh thank you. And tonight's uh update is intended to bring you up to date on where we're at with the project, the city hall deferred maintenance modernization project. Um summarize the work that we've completed since our last check-in last fall and confirm whether council remains comfortable with staff advancing into the um final pre-construction phase.

0:53 presentation. Um, one thing I think that's important to note is tonight, um, this is not a request to approve construction or funding for construction tonight. Um, rather we're seeking confirmation that staff should continue refining the project and return with uh, guaranteed maximum price, funding strategy, and construction recommendations. So that would happen either later this year or early next year would be the plan. Um in October, council received a presentation and information on several city hall systems such as HVAC uh which have hit critical have hit a critical

1:39 point where extending serviceable life is no longer a viable option. Um following that meeting, council was supportive of continuing to move the city hall deferred maintenance project forward um and gave direction on key activities as shown on this slide. In December, council approved um the use of the construction manager, general contractor delivery method and authorized that procurement process. Um, since our last update, uh, the project staff has been following that council direction and leading up to tonight's, um, update, the council for the council and the need for this this next step, which is, um, checking in and getting approval for the next steps.

2:29 Um, since October, we've accomplished quite a bit. So, we've continued to revine the project um and evaluate operational needs. Um we've been focusing mostly on mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. Um and now we're at a point um where we're approximately 75% design. Um this work has been conducted in tandem um with continuing to look at our priorities and our pro program needs. Um we have also completed the CMGC procurement process and selected a preferred construction partner. Um while substantial progress has been made, the project remains in the pre-construction phase as I noticed ear noted earlier um and still has important work and cost validation um work that we need to do. The work

3:15 completed to date has helped confirm both the facility needs and overall direction that has been previously discussed with the council. Um I think it's important to look back and remember um why this project exists. Um while we've discussed modernization and workspace improvements are um but the key components of this project remain why we're here. The primary driver of why we're discussing city hall improvements and preservation. Um it's really we're discussing preservation of a key public facility. Um, we have to remember city hall is over 50 years old um and contains numerous building systems that have reached or exceeded their useful life. And given the initial

4:01 building design as a mall and subsequent minor remodels over time, mere replacement of certain components like an HVAC air handler will not resolve the underlying system issues and will not result in improved functionality or longevity. The project is intended to address deferred maintenance, correct identified safety deficiencies, improve operational efficiency, and ensure that the facility can continue serving the community for decades to come. Um, in in many ways, this is less about creating something new and preser and preserve but preserving a vital public asset.

4:47 Um while we've had previous discussions on the building and we've done previous work, um there are several key facilities and are key systems that need to be um remedied. Um the XVAC system is beyond its useful life and increasingly difficult to maintain. Safety and code related improvements remain necessary. Security, accessibility, and building systems modernization need to continue or needs continue to exist. These are not emergency emerging issues but issues that have accumulated over time. That's why we're calling it the deferred maintenance um project. Um the work completed during design development has reinforced that these needs remain real and require attention regardless of the d delivery method ultimately selected.

5:37 The next phase is really about turning a planning level project, which is what the design team has been working on, into a construction ready project. The CMGC team will focus on cost validation, constructibility review, scheduling, phasing, and value engineering, while the design team will use that valuable information for final design development. The most important outcome is development of a guaranteed maximum price and realistic construction plan before council is asked to consider moving into construction. One of the primary reasons council authorized the CMGC delivery method is the complexity of renovating an occupied public facility and mitigating construction cost overrun risk. Our goal is to maintain city hall operation and continue serving the public throughout the construction.

6:23 that requires careful planning around temporary relocations, access, building system shutdowns, safety requirements, and sequencing of work. These needs reinforce the value of bringing on a contractor as a partner on the project team early to ensure phasing and schedule scheduling are realistic and all parties recognize the important importance and overarching goal of maintaining continuity of service throughout the construction. staff believes it is better to solve these challenges before establishing a final project price rather than after a contract has been awarded. Simply put, we are trying to solve the really hard problems now before we award a contract.

7:15 and staff recognizes the magnitude of this project and the financial considerations involved throughout this project. The goal has been to proceed deliberately and transparently transparently reduce uncertainty wherever possible ensure the council has the information necessary to make informed decisions at each major milestone. That approach is one of the primary reasons staff has recommended advancing through the final pre-construction phase before returning with a recommendation regarding construction. Looking ahead, there will be several more decision points for council to review the project before moving ahead with that construction. These include the guaranteed maximum price, consideration of funding strategies, evaluation of construction phasing and operational impacts, and ultimately whether to proceed into that construction phase. Tonight's discussion

8:02 discussion direction does not commit the city to those future decisions. Rather, it allows staff to continue work necessary to refine costs, validate assumptions, evaluate funding options, and return to council with more complete understanding of project risks, opportunities, and impacts. Future decisions will return to the council for discussion, allowing the council to evaluate the project. With that, staff is seeking feedback from the council in three areas. First, does the council continue to support moving the project into the pre-construction phase? Second, are additional issues or concerns council would like staff to evaluate? And third, are there other considerations that the council would like incorporated before staff returns with the next decision

8:48 points? >> All right, I think we're ready for questions. Go ahead, councelor Mo. >> Was there any competitive bidding done in this? >> It was a request for proposal. So, there was a it's a proposal, not a bid. Um, a sealed bid. There cost was a factor. However, there was also um key information like that were scored like background of the project staff, personnel and experience, pre-construction services approach. So the approach to how they're going to approach that pre-construction service design uh the fee for that um

9:33 construction services approach and then the construction fee and communication protocol. So each one of those received a score. So it's not necessarily a a bid as we would think of as like a construction project. >> I remember those. What about are they going to engage subcontractors that are local contractors? >> Yes. as part of that construction approach and the pre-construction approach. >> Thank you. >> I have now's the time, Council Buck. >> All right. So, in SE in December, I had concerns about this and I voted no. Um I nothing has changed my opinion on that. I don't think

10:18 that the alternative bidding process will meet the objectives that you're being told that it will. A guaranteed maximum is is great in theory until there's change orders. A guarantee and and we've selected a contractor that said, "Okay, I can do this and I'm going to deliver a price to you." But again, there's lots of variables in there. And we have contractors in our community that have done extensive work on city hall already. Um, we have a local contractor that remodeled this room. And so I have concerns with that. Also, understanding the local history of projects. There's a project that used public dollars in our

11:05 community that went down this road, got a final number and realized, "This isn't going to work. This isn't where we thought." They had to back out of that process, and it was a local contractor that stepped in and said, "I can help you get there under budget." I think it's a dangerous road for us to go down. Um, and I and I can't and I want to be clear like there's no fingerpointing here. I think that staff have been given a lot of information that I think is that makes a lot of sense looking from a from a a certain standpoint, but having seen how that bidding process goes cuz I I watch it in my professional life, um I think that there's a lot of places

11:50 where this can go sideways on us and um I I've got some real concerns about that. I think there is a time and a place for the alternative bidding process. I just don't know that this is it. And so I would I would be concerned that we're going to get ourselves to a point where we come back and now we're talking about a number that maybe we're not comfortable with, but we don't have anything to compare it to. We can't guarantee a lot of things because it's in the contractor's hands. And so I have real concerns about that. And and so that's that's where I'm at right now. I think that there's ways to work through this, but that's that's kind of my concerns because I don't think that

12:36 we're going to meet the objectives in the end that we we think we are with this process. >> Councelor Wley, >> we'll just work our way down. Thank you to both of you for that. And I think um I think that I this is sort of merging of a couple of things. A few months ago, I had asked for like this reporting and for us to have a better understanding of how we prioritize local businesses and how we're spending our money local and how we're making those decisions. And I think that we haven't gotten to that yet. And this is an example of where it comes out that oh whatever the process was and I don't know as much as you do and I don't know what I don't know but

13:22 whatever the process was in terms of what we were um looking for in this seem to weed out a lot of local businesses and we're hearing from those folks and um I appreciate hearing from those folks because we say all the time that this is something that we value but if it's not embedded in the operations or in the processes by which we're actually sending these things out to bid or we're not going through a process. So um and so shame on me, you know, because I was somebody who voted yes, right? that is like alternative sounds like we're going to have more um it's going to be a broader process and but now having had to dig into it and realizing that what it does is it actually sort of prioritizes or it um awards larger companies and the idea of bringing in an

14:08 outside company when we have local companies also like I have big concerns and don't feel great about that. So do I want to move forward with the the pro the this project? Absolutely. Do I want to do it where we've selected a contractor already through this process and they're going to take us through to the end? Because I was listening to what you were saying and at no point are we like rebidding it for a different contractor. It sounds like we like working with the one all the way through. So I also have concerns and don't feel great about this process. >> The city attorney, >> I wanted to to jump in and just talk about what the CMGC process is. And I think that this information was shared with council in December, but maybe has gotten lost. So the CMGC process and what Jeff indicated is what you're appro what you would be approving is the

14:54 preconstruction phase. The CMGC process is not appropriate for every project because you pay for construction management expertise upfront. In a more simple and standard process, we don't need to pay for that in the design phase. The the architect is um can provide sufficient input into that design process. What we're paying for upfront is having a general contractor on board at the beginning to give information about the design to inform that design so that it's more constructible and with less risk. Then what that also enables is early work if that becomes like if we get this piece done before we you know finalize the guaranteed maximum price and that's cost savings to the city or it helps with phasing. What CMGC does not do um and

15:41 what you're not being asked to do tonight is it's not a design build process where you award the design and the build to one firm and they start and they end it um without a stopping point or a check-in. The CMGC process is elegant because it allows a check-in point after that guaranteed maximum price where city staff or the city council have the opportunity to say is this guaranteed maximum price competitive? Do we feel comfortable with the comp competition in the subcontractor selection process? Do we think we're getting the best value for the taxpayer dollar um in awarding this based on the guaranteed maximum price? And if the city thinks that they are getting the best value, risk mitigation and value for dollar and that guaranteed maximum price, then no other

16:26 solicitation actions are necessary. You can go right into construction under that guaranteed maximum price. But if the city council or staff are not comfortable that the subcontracting process has been competitive, that it looks to really get the best value for price for the city, then the city has the option with no further penalty to us at any point to put it out for a competitive bid. So, you're not being asked to completely foreclose that possibility or decide that you're going with the guaranteed maximum price tonight. You're just starting the process, which we will pay for. Um, but staff's recommendation is that the amount of money we're going to spend on that process will pay dividends to the city in terms of risk mitigation from saving on change orders later, regardless of how the council moves

17:12 forward to the construction phase at the second part. >> Go ahead, councelor R. >> Thank you. And and I understand all of that. What I am poking at is the actual criteria and the way we evaluate this. If all we care about is we want to mitigate risk and we want to which and I'm not saying these are bad things. We want to mitigate risk and we want to get the best bang for the buck. That is some criteria. But I also care about supporting local businesses and investing in in this. And I I'm not in the weeds and was not part of the procurement process. And I also care and have cared for a long time in that how do we build in and I don't I don't know whether it's like community benefits. I don't know what we call that, but how do we all get aligned with like these are

17:57 the things that we value. Yes, we want to make sure we're being good stewards of taxpayer dollars and we want those taxpayer dollars to pay living wages for people who live in this community. So, I think that's where I'm feeling the disconnect and the discomfort. I don't know if I'm articulating that well enough that it's like that 100% I understand that and I get that we put it in writing that we're going to try to do the very best we can in these ways. And I want to throw in that there are other things that I think should be a considered value along with mitigating risk and getting the best price. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Councelor Weber. >> Uh first just a simple hopefully a simple question. When you say design team to date what does that who is that? >> That's our architect team. So Ral Broka

18:44 and then staff. >> Okay. >> And then the engineering consult subconsultants that we have working with Ral Brokaw. So, our our mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, and plumbing. >> Okay. Gotcha. Um, so I do want to acknowledge all of the the comment we've received from the construction community. Um, I think they've given us a bullet list of things to consider as part of this that that the experience from their side of the world, not from our side of the world. And I think that's really really valuable. Um, so I don't want to go without saying that how much we really do appreciate hearing from all of you. Um, so as part of this process, local companies had the opportunity to bid or and did we receive any or the or

19:29 they were not at all included? >> It it was a an open request for proposal. So anybody who thought they met the qualifications could fit submit the um proposal. So we local companies we received Anderson, Essex, Chambers, um, Bridgeway were some of the companies who did submit a CMGC. >> Okay. And the scoring model, you went through that, but who who's on that scoring team? >> I had myself and Mike Espinosa and Jamie Boa from risk management and Mark Vanick out from MWMC with his experience working on several um, building projects. Thank you for that. Um I do share some concern about moving forward with

20:15 this CMGC in this like I understand all of the benefits and the risk mitigation and all of those components and those are those are important but I don't want to underscore how important it is also to to support our local contractors. So I just I'm a little like I might just need a little more clarification on how we work through this. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Yeah. Let's get through everybody here and then we'll give the staff a chance to respond. >> Yeah, I can provide information at any point about local preference and >> I I think we're going to need that. So, councelor stop >> I appreciate my colleagues comments and I don't disagree with them. Um I on this project overall I think the only the outside of the uh funding mechanism you

21:02 know the phrase in for a penny in for a pound. Is there anything on here that we really wish we you know it's like where where you're looking at the whole facility and you're like hey I'm future proofing for this cuz we're about to do open heart surgery on the building. Is there something that's missing that would be add a smallalish amount of cost that would give us a lot more life or have we really thought through has staff really said yeah I'm highly confident that this is everything that we really need to be successful for the next however long >> I think we're at that spot where we looked at the long list of deferred maintenance which if you recall from October was around $31 million total for the building we're at a confidence level that the what's included in this

21:48 project, what we're looking at um is sufficient to bring that um upgrade in and this facility for the next several decades. Um there's some other work, but one of the things with accomplishing the work identified in here, those major um mechanical, electrical, and plumbing features, um is simply it's going to free up other building funds that we have been budgeting annually for the um building staff to go out and do like painting, fixing the stairs, those sorts of things. But these are kind of those critical systems. The one system that you've probably heard about but wasn't really incorporated early on that came up was elevators. And so that's another critical. We have one elevator that's been um upgraded and reertified and we

22:33 have two that need to or they're going to be either shut down or they won't operate in the next couple of years. And so that's that's one of the other critical pieces and I think that's what's the um one of the importance uh values of when staff looked at this method of um procurement is really how do we partner with our design and our contracting team to go through that um engineering that value engineering and go what is really critical and what can we cut out and still meet the ultimate objectives of the of the project and keep the um project within a reasonable budget. understanding the um you know finance situation that the city's in with with several of its funds. So it's like we're really trying to juggle several balls at one time and keep them all in the air

23:19 and bring the best information to the council. >> Councelor Cuadro, did you >> I understand at the close of an RFP there's a period of time in which you're resting or you're quiet. Um did we hear from any of our other biders? >> We just got one tonight. So, and I haven't had a chance to look at that and and the timing of that. Um, and that wasn't with the CMGC process itself. That looked like something regarding more particular to the RFP >> and then I'll wait for Christina to speak because I want to hear that answer too. >> Could you help with the local preference? >> Yeah, I can talk about also the protest that was received actually isn't even though it was submitted as a protest to the notice of intent to award, it was

24:04 actually a protest of the solicitation itself. um the time for that has already passed so we'll be responding accordingly I think is um the outcome of that there are specific things you have to allege and prove in a notice of intent to award you have to show that but for whatever the claimed error is you would be awarded the work um and the basis for the protest was around the setup of the solicitation and the same issues and concerns with the CMGC process that the council has heard expressed from others I think um in this in a similar vein around cost. Um, so I mean sort of not I would say the council's decision tonight, we would still wait for the end of that protest period and resolve those protests um

24:49 before or correct the award or whatever other action needs to be taken um before council's authorization if you give it would take effect if that makes sense for the process. For local preference um we are bound by Oregon law and Oregon public contracting code. There's a provision under Oregon law to give preference to local biders. A um local resident bidder is defined in state law as someone who's paid Oregon unemployment taxes or other taxes. So in this case um all of the submitts were from resident biders. Um there's a how local is local concern I think that's being expressed where um firms some firms believe the preference should be given to people who are headquartered in Springfield city limits. Some are asking

25:36 for council to preference or staff to preference firms in Lane County. The state law says we have to give preference if we opt into that. It's preference to resident Oregon biders. Um we also under federal law and the federal constitution have to give an equal preference to biders from other states who also have local preference programs under a interstate compact. So it's really not a very strong option for local preference. Um what I can say is that the intent of prevailing wage which we absolutely comply with was around preferencing local biders um local to the area because prevailing wage rates are set based on the local prevailing wage at more than just a statewide level. And so by requiring that those

26:22 rates be paid, it helps in a uh it helps ensure more competition for among local contractors for that work. typically that was the intent around um prevailing wage requirements. So that's um unfortunately there's not a lot that the city can do to give a more sublocal preference, but we certainly crafted the CMGC criteria and structured the contract in mind for um not trying to exclude anyone local at all. And in fact, there are many local firms that have experience doing CMGC and provided that experience in their proposals and it was taken into account. Um, one of the things that we did not do that I think the council's heard comment about is that some CMGC um, procurements are

27:07 set up with extensive pre-qualification contracts for subcontractors and we have not included any requirements um, to narrow the scope of who can compete for subcontracts. And we're requiring um, you know, bids for those that will be open to city staff to really investigate did you look for the most cost savings? Um and the local contractors are saying that their costs will be lower and then that's the benefit they bring to the council. So um I would expect that will come through in subcontracting for work. We did require contractors who bid on the CMGC work, sorry, who proposed to show they had the capacity to perform 51% of the work, but we were clear that that was just make sure you have the capacity to do that work, not that we

27:53 would require them to do 51% of the work. We just want to make sure that people who are submitting proposals are adequately staffed should that be necessary. Um, and that's a typical CMGC uh, valuation requirement. So, I hope that helps to answer the question about where we can have preference and how we tried to bake that in. Um, but absolutely open to feedback. This is the first CMGC procurement that the city um, has operated in certainly a long time. We did look to professional resources for when is it desirable, how to craft those criteria. Um, but I have learned um from this process so far and we'll continue to learn and I think as staff we're hearing all the feedback and taking that into account if the council decides in the future there's another unique circumstance that that warrants this we will know more.

28:38 >> So in theory right just based on your description about how the subcontracting works you know in theory all the subcontracting could go out of the area. um it could in theory if that's the um best value to the city for um under this process, but again that would be open to city staff. And I think also the contractor's hearing that that's not what um the council's desiring to see. And so that um I think can factor into how staff approach that. It's not a contractual requirement to get local firms, but I'm having a hard time I'm having a and and it's not my expertise, but I'm having a hard time seeing how uh a subcontractor from out of the area is

29:24 always going to be cheaper than a local firm. >> I I don't know either, but like where I'm trying to reconcile the feedback I'm getting is sort of the questions we're asking staff versus what we're getting from the contracting community. And there's a couple places where the information's different. >> And so as I walking it back, I'm trying to reconcile like what is the firm thing we can step on while we're making a policy decision here. >> I guess what I would say is that the argument um is that if it was put out as an invitation to bid, which is the alternative, it would go to a local company because the local company would be cheaper. So, if the local company would be cheaper in an invitation to bid, then by extension, the local company ought to be cheaper in a subcontracting environment where we're not placing artificial qualifications to

30:10 limit that competition. I'm I'm not seeing how um if the issue is that the bids in a subcontract setting could go out of state, then an invitation to bid could also go out of state. So, I'm that's where I'm having the logical disconnect. I think that if the remedy is to put it out for an invitation to bid, then um logically subcontract bids should also be more competitive locally. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> So, it's been a few years since I worked in uh a lumber yard, but my recollection from those times was that it's not always about low cost for the subcontractors. It's also about relationships. So

30:55 I think both things factor in. So so we may not be getting lowest cost locally anyway. You know what I mean? I mean there's there's going to be differences of of pricing. >> Um so so I do have a question. We have a we have a company we've selected. We have a price, right? >> A guaranteed price to get us through a certain pre-construction, >> right? to get us through this certain uh time frame. If we don't today say yes, let's continue to move forward, but we instead ask for uh competitive bid to compare like is that an option or are we stuck with one or the other?

31:41 >> I I think I'm I think we're confusing the two. So, I don't we if we were to if the council were to choose to change course, I think that would be buttoning this process up. We would um be asking the council at the um regular session to approve the contract amendment for the architect um to to move to 100% design. It would probably take a little bit of update on that part because it's set up for a CMGC process, but to set it up for a sealed bid process, we would be then um working to try and come up with an engineers estimate of what that cost would be for the work that we've described. Um we also as the design team would then be sitting down to try and schedule out

32:27 what we think the best phasing would be in relocation. Um, and I think that's where I have the the the most concern of and why um I feel strongly for the recommendation for the CMGC is um as councelor Buck pointed out there's with any contract there's always change orders or opportunities for change orders because we miss something as a design team because we're really making our best educated guess when we put something together. Um, but this process allows us to bring a contractor on board to say, "Here's what the work we need to do. We need to keep this building open and functioning while we do this work." So, moving and coordinating 120 people around, different services and that sort

33:12 of thing. Um, we're going to put a phasing plan together and the contractor is going to put a bid to seal bid together and they're going to come in and say, "Well, this is how much it's going to cost to do that." And it's it could be extra and more than likely it will be extra because we're not going to hit the exact best phasing. They're going to say you can't do that piece before you do this. And that and that's that's really where the value in bringing a contractor on as a partner through the final preconstruct pre-construction phase. And that's why I think the elegance that um Christina pointed out is really important because this gets us through that final pre-construction phase. we bring back a better be the best information we have and cost information and and a guaranteed maximum price and we'll evaluate that as staff. We'll bring that back to the council and the council will

33:58 have an opportunity to evaluate it. If if we don't like that price or we don't think it's competitive and we don't know where prices will be in the next 8 to 10 months, then we can then button it all back up and put it out for a sealed bid. And that contractor who bid on this who who got that CMGC can also bid on that. So, we're not excluding them from anything down the road. Should the council choose to say, "Nope, we don't want to move to the construction phase with this manner, we want you to go put out a sealed bid." But we will still have that better information on how the building can be constructed in phases, how we relocate people, so we can still incorporate all of that information into that sealed bid. >> What's the risk if if we approve both contracts tonight and then we we choose to go out to bid or later on? Are we

34:44 creating any wasted work? >> I don't know that it would be wasted work as much as we would just have a little extra work to get to that sealed bid to finalize the documents. The the thing with the CMGC is a bid set is different than maybe a construction set and that's what we'll be producing for the the general contractor should we move forward with the GMP. Um, but if we need to put together a sealed bid, we'll just have different contract documents. We'll have delay while we go out to bid and that sort of thing. Um the one nice thing is was we all know what the the HVAC system and what that we're probably on borrowed time this summer. Um the one nice thing about a CMG Z process is also if suddenly systems really start failing on us there's an opportunity for early work amendments and that sort of thing

35:29 that we can bring back to the council to add by b by bringing them on now and evaluating those systems. So is your issue from a design team perspective that this is trying to solve is that like we're thin from a staffing perspective and by using this process we're going to sort of backfill and get some additional lift in here on the front end to address you know and figure out what this what this project's supposed to be. Uh no I think from my perspective it's a riskmanagement. So it's really coming at it fully understanding exactly how to proceed with the project. It's not a staffing I don't I wouldn't put it as a staffing level. It's really about man managing those risks bringing on a

36:14 partner who does this sort of work on these sorts of buildings in this sort of environment to be able to put the question to them. It's like here's what we do. They come in and they say well this is where we have to start work. we we have to move these people here. And so we can start planning that and understanding how we're going to maintain continuity of service throughout this whole process rather than putting out a bid, getting a price in, and now telling a contractor, we we need to move these people here, these people here, and the first thing we're going to get is a change order and and andor we just close the building. And I think that's where we need to have that planning tool by bringing an expert on that has that experience. >> Okay. Does anybody have other questions? I know we're going to have to short the the voting piece and what we're going to do here out in the next session.

37:05 I think we'll we'll have more discussion because this is half the uh half the items the next time so we can get into the next Thanks Jeeoff. >> Thank you. I'm going to adjourn the work session and I'm going to pause for station identification and make sure they're ready for Oh, it's a new link. We're we're going to uh be on a new link. So, just hang out for a second.