Springfield City Council — September 8, 2026

0:04 All right. Thank you to the recording voice. I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon. >> Here. >> Councilor Weber. >> Here. >> Councilor Moe. >> Here. >> Councilor Roddy. >> Here. >> Councilor Quadros. >> Here. >> Councilor Buck. >> Here. >> And Councilor Stout. >> Here. Thank you. >> And welcome back to the council and the staff. We are meeting for the first time since June. We have two items this evening. The first one is the city manager 2026 performance evaluation introduction and criteria setting with Jim Herz. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Welcome back. Uh, the purpose of tonight is to introduce uh Council to Eric Jensen uh and also to kind of outline the stages of the city manager evaluation process. Uh your packet

0:49 uh included some materials from Eric uh and for everybody else uh part of the city manager's employment contract requires an annual evaluation by City Council. Uh and that process is facilitated by Eric Jensen. So, with that I will turn it over to Eric. There. Once it's Okay. Yeah, technology is not my thing. Um hi, I'm Eric Jensen. I am the uh principal and founder of Jensen Strategies. Um we are a management consulting firm uh that works exclusively with the public sector and with local and state government. Um it's a pleasure to be back here again. Um

1:34 we uh helped uh last year with the evaluation process and um uh are happy to be here again to see to see all of you and I know some of you I haven't met yet and looking forward to talking with you as well. Um I wanted to just uh take a moment and let you also meet a member of our other of our team that is going to be assisting me with this process and he assisted last year some of you may have been interviewed by him, but I'm going to let him do his own introduction and he's on he's on virtual back there with the blue screen. >> Thanks Eric and good evening. I'm Aaron Council. My name is Jeff Aprati. Uh, as Eric mentioned I uh am very happy to be a part of this

2:20 process. I did assist with the interviews and the report writing for the evaluation process last year. Um, just very briefly about me is I was previously a city manager myself for short time on the Oregon coast number of years ago too many years ago at this point. And then worked for Jensen Strategies full-time as a management consultant for about 4 years. And then over the last 6 years I have served the city of Sandy where I am currently the deputy city manager, but I still help out Jensen Strategies on projects from time to time and very happy to be part of this process. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you, Jeff. Um, so tonight what we're looking for from you is just

3:06 to get a little bit of guidance here in terms of in terms of your general agreement that we're going down the right path in terms of the criteria that we have proposed to you that was sent out to you in the packet. Um, but I'll I'll first tell you a little bit about the process and for those of you who may not have been through the process last time. Uh, and then circle back and talk a little bit about the criteria. So, the way this process works we establish the criteria up front and following that we then do a series of interviews. Um, the interviews are confidential interviews that we do by

3:52 Zoom. And we will we will interview all of the council members. We will interview all of the executive team and any other direct reports to the city manager. Um as well as the city attorney. And this year we're also going to be talking to some community leaders as well. Um so we will uh get through that process and that usually takes about 3 weeks. We would given the go-ahead we're going to go we'll excuse me. We will start scheduling next week for the interviews and they will probably run into the beginning of October. So generally takes

4:37 about 3 weeks to kind of to get everybody. At that point we will write up a report of our findings and the and the report is anonymous from the standpoint of nothing in our report is should be attributable to any one individual who was interviewed during the process. And so we will and that report will be and the interviews and the questions in the interviews will be based upon the criteria that we are presenting to you tonight. The following the writing of the report we will meet with you in executive session and I will present a draft of the report to you in executive session

5:23 so that you have a chance to ask questions of us in terms of anything that needs some clarity or anything that you would like to see expounded upon in the report. But basically just an opportunity that to ask questions with regard to the report. I will also do the same with your city manager. I will sit with your city manager one-on-one and, uh, review the report with her as well. Following that, uh, then we have another, and that, by the way, that, um, city council executive session is scheduled for October 19th. Um, so we we plan to be sticking to that

6:09 schedule. Uh, following that, then we will have a session with the council and the city manager together where the city manager has an opportunity to share some perspectives, uh, with regard to what was in the report, and you have an opportunity for a facilitated discussion with your city manager, um, with regard to the evaluation and and the report. At that same, uh, executive session, you will fill out an evaluation form like you did last year for those of you that were here last year. Um, and that evaluation form will come back to us. We will summarize it, and then we will, uh, send it back, uh, to the mayor, the city manager, and the HR director.

6:54 Um, so that's that's the the process. Um, by the way, I didn't mention the date of that, uh, second executive session, which is on November 9th. So just, uh, to have on your calendars. Um, so Uh, and first of all, any questions about the process before I move on talk about criteria? >> Uh, Council Roddy. >> I might be jumping the gun cuz you're going to talk about criteria, and my question is about what, um, I think it said in there that we did 14 last year and we went down to 12, so I'm curious as to how it's changed cuz I like having a baseline to build on, but you're probably getting to that part. >> Yes, I am, Council, but but thank you for asking the question. Uh, gives me a

7:39 nice transition into that. >> Anybody else that have questions about timing? All right. >> Okay, so um I also uh brought tonight a handout. It's a one-page handout that you should have in front of you in addition to what you have in the packet. And um that handout is of the ICMA core competencies. And just as a reminder or if if you weren't around last year, um ICMA is the International City City Managers Association. It's a professional organization that um uh for which county and city managers belong and they have a code of ethics that uh they need to follow uh to be uh

8:24 part of that. And um they also go through a training process um uh at ICMA. Not everybody, it's voluntary, to become uh an ICMA credentialed manager. In that training, they use 14 core competencies um in evaluating uh the city managers for that that credential. And their training touches all 14 of those points. And that's what you see there in that circle diagram, if you will, uh are the 14 core competencies and that really focus in on, you know, what

9:11 are the principles that the city manager should be employing, how should they lead uh those principles, and um what how do they move forward with the purposes uh of the government, the local government, and the organization, and what are the skill sets that they use in doing that. So, that that's what you have in and in this uh document here. Last year, we used all 14 core competencies as counselor brought up. And what we have found as we've done more of these city manager evaluations is that a few of the criteria really are

9:56 pretty closely aligned. And so we thought it would be better to to do some consolidation. And so what you see in the 12 criteria that we sent to you is really not omitting anything from the 14 core competencies, but rather bringing in a couple of them together. So we're going to be asking about the same types of questions, the same issues, and it's going to be based on the ICMA 14 core competencies with those 12 that we had put in your packet. Um Counselor, does that answer your question?

10:45 Okay, good. Excellent. Excellent. Um But let me just briefly walk through these 12 and this is as a refresher and also to see see 12 instead of 14. So the first criteria here are is personnel and professional integrity. Is your city manager being fair, honest, and ethical in all personal and professional relationships and activities? Goes to goes to the heart of ethics and fairness, objectivity. The second is community engagement. And that is has to do with how your city manager is ensuring that Um, there is

11:32 uh, community involvement in local government to support uh, good decision-making. Um, and is supportive of uh, diverse viewpoints and bringing diverse viewpoints into the uh, in into the discussion. Um, uh, equity and inclusion. Uh, this is just creating an environment of involvement, respect, uh, connection of diverse ideas and backgrounds, cultures, and talent throughout the organization. Uh, and really come and comes down to inclusion, uh, being a core part of that. So, the fourth one is staff effectiveness, and this has to do with is your city manager uh, taking the

12:17 responsibility to to help uh, develop uh, and make your employees successful in their jobs and in their careers uh, moving forward. Um, and do they support the best management practices uh, that foster a respectful and a positive work environment, set clear expectation, delegate and empower staff, and they maintain accountability in their management style. The fifth uh, the fifth is uh, personal resiliency and development. This really goes back to how well is is your city manager taking care of themselves, both personally and professionally. Um, are they uh, leading a balanced life

13:04 that's going to make them a more productive city manager uh, as any employee would you know, would be uh, leading a balanced life. Um, but also looking at their professional development and are they keeping up with their professional development uh, to increase their capacity on the job. Six is to strategic leadership and planning, uh, defining and communicating a vision and leveraging all resources and tools to achieve it. And this has to do with our are they taking a strategic approach to the job? Are they taking a strategic approach to to moving this the city forward in the in the operations of the city and in the

13:50 decision-making of the city moving forward. Are they presenting a unified vision? Is there a core mission of for the organization and are and are there proactive approaches that are being taken to proactive strategic approaches to complex issues and problems that are coming up. Seven, policy facilitation and implementation. This really gets at the heart of your city manager's interactions and support of you as a council. And are is your city manager engaging you

14:37 and other appointed officials and stakeholders to create common goals and objectives? Are they providing you with the information that you need to make solid decisions, solid policy decisions as a city council moving moving forward. And um do do they understand the role that they play with the council? And in terms of being able to uh you know, respecting the role and the authority of the council and understanding where they are in in relation to their relationship with you. Um and can they effectively

15:24 move policy into the operational realm? Do they have the ability to take the policies that you folks come up with and turn that around and move that into the operational side of the city, which is the the side of the city that they run? Um, service delivery, uh, discerning uh, community needs and providing responsive equitable services. Are they providing of the services that the city provides to your community? Are they providing responsive and equitable services, uh, to your community members? Um, and are they being strategic about it and also thinking about are they being strategic about it in terms of a

16:10 multi-disciplinary uh, a multi-disciplinary department organization? That your when you've got issues that cross departments, are they bringing all the right people, uh, into into play and and moving things forward? Um, technology literacy, um, this does not mean that they know how to code. Um, technology literacy is really just having that understanding of how technology can be used in your organization in uh, for for the city to be able to deliver its services, um, for all for all the different aspects

16:57 that the city, uh, engages in. Do they understand how to move technology forward in that regard and and at least have that, uh, understanding of of uh, uh, uh, of what those tools are. Um, that that they can employ. Financial management and budgeting is pretty straightforward, but are they implementing a long-term financial uh plan that integrates strategic planning and reflects the community's values in the budget as well as uh just um and the council's priorities and as well as administering the day-to-day of the

17:43 budget and making sure that the budget is moving forward effectively. And then human resources management and workforce engagement are they ensuring that there are policies and procedures for the operational side of the organization? Um are they motivating and engaging the workforce uh to their greatest potential? Uh do they for do they um foster a work environment that is a work environment that's attractive attractive to new employees coming in attractive to retaining your good talent in the organization. Um and also under that umbrella is also

18:30 do they understand collective bargaining as well. And then lastly communication and information sharing this really has to do with is your is your city manager making sure that information is flowing where it needs to go. And that includes making sure the information's getting to the council that the council needs to have. Um it also means getting information to the community so that the community is getting the information that they need as as well. Um and and among staff as well. So it's that entire flow of information and of making sure that um

19:15 that that's moving effectively so that the organization can work at its very best uh moving forward. Those are the 12 criteria. Um any questions about those? I'm going to move on here to the goals for a second. But I counselor Stone. Then let's keep going. Okay. So the one thing that is different this year than uh last year uh last year we uh uh we went through a goal-setting session um with your uh with your city manager and you came up with a series of six goals uh that you would like wanted her to make progress on and or to achieve uh

20:00 during 2026. And so since those goals were established, we are also incorporating them in as part of the criteria in terms of okay, how far have those goals been moved uh uh and uh has uh your city manager done what is reasonable to do to move those goals forward. Um so those are going to be the criteria that we're going to use overall. Any questions about that? Not seeing any. Uh okay. Thank you very much. Um the other uh the other uh piece I wanted to show you very quickly is also in your packet and

20:46 that is the evaluation form. What you have in front of you in that uh is an evaluation form that just mirrors what I just walked through with you. And when you get to that point, you will have the ability to rate your city manager based on each of these criteria on a scale of one to five with five being far exceeding expectations to one being far below expectations. And then you've got everything in between as well. So this is what we would present to you at that last meeting executive session. Uh when you fill that out. Um So what I

21:31 I would uh uh like to ask is I I should also let you know that prior to this meeting this afternoon, I met with your city manager. And uh I asked her if she was comfortable with the criteria that I just outlined. And unless anything's changed in the last hour or two, uh I think your city manager has agreed that these are criteria that she's comfortable with, but we want to make sure you're comfortable with them as well. >> All right. Uh counselor Stone. >> Um last year well So this is your second year doing this process with us and I just wanted to remark on what a pleasure it was to go through the process to feel like

22:16 I felt like both sides were heard and we were able to have a really honest and straightforward conversation and find even those little dark areas where we we didn't realize we weren't communicating about certain things. So this is a great process. I'm looking forward to doing it again. Um so I have one one two small questions. One is uh what advice do you have for people repeating the form? And you know this is our second year doing it. And then the second question is um Well, in our interview, I don't forget this. In our interview, are you looking for different questions than the ones you have on the evaluation form or are you helping us walk through the evaluation form? >> Uh Thank you. So uh let me go to the the

23:01 last question first. And uh, yes, we are going to be looking for you to to respond to these criteria, and we will be touching base with you on each of these criteria, but they will not be the only questions that we're going to ask you. We we're going to ask you some questions about some general impressions and you know, where you think some of the challenges are, where where do you think there have been some great achievements, and um, so it's got not going to be exclusive to the criteria. Um, in terms of of advice for uh, going through this again, I mean, you've been through this uh, or most of you have been through this once. Um, is to is to look at

23:46 given your experience and having gone through this before and having that criteria uh, in the back of your minds in this last year, with the feedback that you gave us last year, does that where does that feedback grow? What changed in the last year, or did anything change in the last year in that within that criteria? And so, we would be hoping that you would you would address that uh, during your answers. >> I mean, anybody else? >> All right. Um, so uh, going forward what uh,

24:34 we are Well, first of all, I want to make sure I Are we okay with the criteria generally speaking? >> I think we are okay. And I think we're okay with the process. Um, the only other piece that I would ask the council to be is that um, is to note that we're adding community leaders this next year. Um, so if you have suggestions for who you might like those be, if you could just get them to Michelle or myself and we will work with uh, Eric to get them added to the list. All right. >> Okay. Um in terms of next steps, uh we once we have all the names, uh we will be wanting to start scheduling interviews and probably starting next week, but in advance of that, uh we're going to ask that um probably the mayor

25:21 uh send out a communication to everybody that's going to be interviewed uh just to let them know we'll be calling and that uh it's not a spam call that's coming from our office. So, uh so they'll be prepared for that. >> Great. Do you have anything else? >> Uh no, I think that concludes the presentation unless the council has other questions. >> I'm not seeing other questions. It It's been was a pretty straightforward process um and thanks for helping get us through it because we got to a conversation that was really constructive last year. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.

26:07 >> Okay. The uh the uh next one is city council training with Mary Bridget Smith. >> Good evening, Council. Um welcome back. We are here this evening uh to present an item that we come before you periodically on for city council training. It involves uh legal um issues and um uh regulations that you are subject to that can either cause you or the city liability. Uh so, the idea is we come before you periodically to provide some training and information and then that way expands your knowledge base and your

26:52 effectiveness as a counselor. Uh this time we're trying something a little bit different. There's a memo in your packet which is just a summary of some of those legal issues, everything from political activities to cybersecurity to public records and public meetings. Please give a look to the cybersecurity information in particular. That is something that is becoming more prevalent and sophisticated and as um local government officials you have um city emails which is the way that some of those actors can get into our system. And then for the rest of the uh time tonight we have a guest named Jeff Sinclair. Jeff is a vice president with Brown and Brown Northwest. He's been a partner with the city of Springfield for a long time. He's done uh specializes with local entities and has done this

27:38 training before before other bodies, but it's about tort claims and liability and sort of when you're under the umbrella and when you're not, I guess it's a good way to think about it. So Jeff is going to be providing the presentation tonight and then a little time for questions. And um if you have other questions about some of these legal responsibilities, please feel free to reach out to my office. It's not a uh public meeting problem if we talk about some of those questions offline at all. So uh I know a lot of this has a lot of acronyms and kind of runs together, but more than happy um to chat with you about it. And without further ado, I'll turn it over to Jeff. >> Great. Uh thank you very much. Um my name is Jeff Sinclair and I'm the insurance agent for the city. And it's my pleasure to be here. Um I've given this this um talk a number of times. I'm

28:24 kind of a unicorn gives me too much credit. I'm kind of got some interesting experience because uh now 30 years ago I started being a claims adjuster uh for public entities within the state of Oregon having to do with uh special districts, cities and counties, and school districts all at the same time. And uh for 21 years I did that um working for a Special Districts Association of Oregon, City-County Insurance Services Program, and then starting the school pool called PACE, which your school district is member of today. Uh about nine years ago I became a broker. And one of the reasons that I became an agent is that I saw people in your shoes, um people in uh in in cities and and school districts shoes being surprised by wow, I thought we had that coverage. I thought I had that coverage. I thought I was covered.

29:11 And I was delivering bad news saying, "Hey, counsel in the buck, uh we got problems here. This may not be This may not might be what you think it is." And that surprise and that fear in your eyes made me uncomfortable as cuz I was delivering the bad news as the representative from the insurance company, let's say, or the risk pool at City County. And so today's discussion is just about that. It's about the idea of where where the rules are that we see the coverage, where the the litigation is being seen, but really it's trying to separate out the political reality of your position versus the legal reality of your position. Those are very different. And so, when we talk about that today, that that's my main my main push. I'm not trying to quell your speech. I'm not trying to tell you to to not do this or not do that. Quite the opposite. I want you to know where you will be, likely,

29:58 if you make certain decisions or certain comments or be sued or otherwise in certain perspectives. This is really interactive. I This will survive and thrive based upon your questions. So, you wait, hang on, Jeff. You're telling me that blah blah blah blah blah. Yes, that's the questions I want from you. And feel free to interrupt me at any point. Okay? Great. Let's see if this works here. Well, that picture's about 10 years ago now. Is that working? >> They >> They always are. Promise. >> Is it on? Okay, so I think we're on. >> Oh. >> Down arrow? >> Down arrow. >> Oh, down. >> There we go. Okay, cool. All right. Cool. Um so, once again, I work for a Brown & Brown. Um City County Insurance Services is the carrier that you belong to. It's a risk pool. It's not an

30:44 insurance company. So, the insurance commissioner does not govern things. That is the risk pool you belong to. You also have SAFE Corporation for your workers' compensation. Just just a little little ditty about that. So, all these different entities are there to support and and provide you either coverage or services. But, it's important thing to know. Well, so someone calls you and they're part of these three agencies or these three entities, they are they're here because you've paid a lot of money to have their their access to their services, okay? Um, hopefully, you've read or understand what the Oregon Tort Claims Act is. ORS 30.260, 265, and so on and so forth. It's kind of the Bible for public entities, employees, um, volunteers, um, board members, council people. That is really important. It's It talks about the ideas of what coverage is you have, the duties that are owed to you as

31:29 employees or otherwise. It also talks about limitations, um, and such. But, what is a tort? A tort is a duty owed, a breach of duty, and damages. And they have to be connected. You can't have like like a a broken sidewalk and a person almost trips or almost hurts themselves, and they sue you. That doesn't work. You have to have a broken sidewalk, a duty owed that you breached, and damages, an injury. That is what creates that that that nexus of a tort claim, okay? So, that's what this is this is really about. Who is covered by the Oregon Tort Claims Act? It's people like yourselves, it's employees of the city, and volunteers of the city. It can be others, agents, and otherwise, but truly it's it's those three main groups that it's trying to get to. And it's not It's not we we will endeavor to we'd like to. It's no, no. We shall defend and

32:15 indemnify you. The city shall defend and indemnify an employee here who's within the course and scope of their duties under the direction and control of the city. They shall defend a city council person. Um, you know, for the same reasons, right? So, so realize that there's no there's no discussion there. Coverage or not, the city is forced to do that. Once again, direction and control, course and scope. I'm going to hit you with that those two terms a lot cuz that's a really big part of what this is. Um limits of damages, this is why we require and um Jamie Aboagye is one of my favorite risk managers in the whole state. She's your risk manager here, of course. She understands the idea that $1.8 million plus is what you're exposed for when it comes to liability of lawsuits on an Oregon tort claim. Okay, duty owed, breach of duty, and damages here in

33:01 Oregon. $1.8 million in on a on on a per claim basis for for an event. That means that only requiring $1 million of coverage can be problematic. That's why we want to push that to be $2 million to cover that. Now, on a per person basis is 900,000, but on a per claim per occurrence basis, the car has two or three people in it. The The uh other things have it. It's $1.8 million plus right now as the current tort caps. Question? You're not agreeing. Sorry. >> Yeah, yeah, right. Yeah. There you go. And I'm going to try and keep this from going down a technical road because I'm also a broker, so I could go down the the wrong road and it would be and Mary cut me off here. Um but who who sets the Where's the limit? The 1.8? Who's setting that that is that Is that the

33:48 legislature? >> The state of Oregon has as a mechanism. It's not quite the the um it's not tied to the um to the exact, you know, interest rates of sorts of you know, and inflation, but it's really close. But but the state of Oregon has a mechanism within that. And it talks about it in the Tort Claims Act. >> Okay. >> So it's it's it goes up a few thousand dollars. It's random. It's actually right now it's like 1. It's 1.805300. So what 1.8 million 5,300 is is the per per maximum. >> And the reason that stands out to me is is in in the in the current landscape, 1.8, I mean we're seeing we're seeing um decisions come much higher than that. >> In actual way. >> And so 1.8 I I I was a little taken aback like, "Wow, that that's

34:34 kind of nice that it's that it's not like 20 million." And so, the good news is for state torts, that is the cap for state torts. However, employment practices, sexual abuse and molestation, those things that are federal claims brought in federal court, those are not limited. So, the Oregon Tort Claims Act is for that, just Oregon tort tort tort caps. But, federal lawsuits, so that's why you have $10 million of coverage through city county and not $1.8 million because you could be sued for well more than than 2 million, 10 million, 15 million. We we have current customers in in in our practice Brown & Brown that are in the midst of, you know, $20 million settlements, $25 million settlements right now. Um some are 10, some are eight, some are five. Those are extremes. But, but but the idea of of one or two million

35:19 um my point for this slide is the idea is that your how you treat your vendors and what you ask of them to to defend and indemnify the city when they come to you with with work that they want to do for you, requiring things, you know, $1 million is what is what my customers required in 1996 when I started claims. 1996, it was $1 million. And sometimes it's hard to get two out of people these days. So, just be aware of that. That's a real challenge and that's why I brought this up, but that's a that's a really good point. And that's why you should care. That's that that's a big part of this. Thank you for the question. So, my my whole thing about this speech is getting you under the umbrella, understanding where the umbrella is, the umbrella of coverage that is, the umbrella of defense indemnity based upon the coverages that that city county provides the city of Springfield. You

36:05 being a council counselor with with the city, I want you to be under that umbrella if you so choose, just so you know where that umbrella is at. So, who is a member? A member is is what they describe as being being covered underneath the umbrella. So, a member means that you are officer, employee, agent, volunteer, once again acting course and scope under the direction and control of the governmental proprietary function. So, so when are you a a council person? When are you not? Right now, the umbrella is over you. You are in a meeting of the city council. Great. The gavel goes down and you walk out in the parking lot and you get in the a verbal discussion, heated, and somebody accuses you of slander. Somebody accuses you of of physical violence, whatever it might be. You are not under the umbrella

36:50 after that gavel goes down and you're walking to her. Now, you're here because of the meeting, but for the meeting, you wouldn't be here. However, you're only a council person because of this meeting during the meeting itself. Now, where that can get expanded is if the council decides that you're also going to be on the committee for X, right? You know, you're now on the committee for to do the the review of of the city manager. Let's say you only have uh three of you or five of you do that. Some do that. Executive committee what what otherwise. Great. Your powers have now been extended. Well, in those meetings, in those discussions, now the umbrella follows you to that. And you know what? And now we've all decided you're actually now you're going to speak for us at the local Elks Club and talk about our our challenges, our needs for whatever. You are We've decided as a group to empower you

37:38 to do that. If you just do that, the umbrella is likely not going to follow you. That's your political needs. I want to be there for people and tell them what we're doing, all the great things we're doing for the city. I'm deciding that. That's great to do that, but politically speaking, great, but legally speaking, the umbrella is not following you necessarily to do that. Question? >> Yeah. Um I want to go back to the parking lot analogy or parking lot example >> Sounds great. >> because we all get a a city provided parking pass to park specifically underneath this building. So, I want to be really specific and I'm specifically I have reasons behind this question. When exactly does the cover When is our liability start and stop? Is it just the gavel or do we have any additional coverage that covers us as councilors

38:23 walking to our vehicles and exiting the premises? >> So, each individual event would be separately adjudicated by by your by your carrier and by by your your attorneys. Um I will say that in my experience over the last 30 years, it's gavel-to-gavel. Because you could linger. You could cause issues. You could You could do all kinds of stuff that are not city council approved. They're not city council authorized. You could get here early, 2 hours early, walk into the to to a someone's desk in in engineering and sit down there and cause havoc. Just because you're early doesn't mean you're city council person yet. You're just Jeff Sinclair. You're a nobody until you sit here and the meeting gavels forward. So, I would say gavel-to-gavel is the safest

39:08 place to be. How you get here and how you leave, th- those can be squishy. There's coming and going rules and that kind of stuff, but but technically speaking, gavel-to-gavel is is how that that is That's th- that's my impression. I'm not an attorney. Should have said that at the beginning, okay? But I'm a practitioner and I've seen this a lot. So, this is This is outside work comp. Work comp's a different animal, right? This is about liability issues that people allege you to have done and whether or not the city county program will cover you or not individually. So, gavel-to-gavel is how I see this, okay? That's That's a good question. And And th- There could be different interpretations of that, but just realize that if you think that way and you Okay, great. Meeting's over. I'm going to move out and move on and go home and and review the documents there

39:53 or what what have you. Those are the things I see. The The entities that run into trouble with employment practices claims involving councilmen councilwomen who who linger and who want to micromanage and get involved in some other people's business sometimes, it's cuz they're hanging around or or th- they're inserted themselves into the city's business outside of the meetings, outside of you globally as a group. Your power individually is only when you're together. That's it. Or when your togetherness assigns you a task on the record. That's a really hard thing because politically you're always on. You're always going. Right? >> Yes. So, I just want I want to poke a little bit around with the like you're assigned

40:39 a task on the record. Cuz when you said on the record, I'm like, well, sometimes like say the mayor might call me like, I'm stuck in a thing. I can't get to it. Can you cover, right? And so, I might be an alternate or I might be covering or somebody might be going to a ribbon cutting or something at the last minute, right? And so, I'm just curious about that because some of them is like we do have like our assigned committees, but sometimes we just are like, can you cover for me at this thing? And I'm wondering what the like there's no real paper trail for that. >> So, I would recommend, and this is me being conservative, but I want you to be realistic about it as well cuz that's that's our lives. Um if you're assigned tasks as a part of your role, the mayor's a great example. Mayors have certain tasks that are different than yours, let's say. And the mayor adjudicates, you know, the and

41:24 says, "Hey, could you please on my behalf do X, Y, and Z?" I think that that's that makes sense to me. Um make sure you talk to talk to city council about that, but I would have that in an email form where it's asked and answered. Sure. You know, I've I've got this. Um if you can be a phone call, but that way paper trail to your point is is the mayor, you know, saying, "Hey, can you please take this over for me?" And make sure you talk about X cuz if if you just go and you the the hard part about these rules, let me back up a little bit, is that when a person I hate saying goes rogue, but when a person um is a is a council councilman uh council person, sorry, um that that says, you know, "I'm just going to go to this because it's right thing to do." And they start talking and they say, "I'm Jeff St. Clair, counselor for the city of Springfield." Well, you're not there because of that, but you you have that flag. Everyone knows

42:10 you, right? As as that person. and they talk. You do not authorize that. That's not yours. So, all these all these speed bumps and these these be carefuls I'm talking about are because of the bad actors that might be going outside of what what those those regulations are. That That's where the challenge. Councilor Buck. >> So, um I would I would imagine that also extends to city staff say inviting us to functions and things like that. We we got emails this this last week about, "Hey, there's these events coming up. Uh the city has a table, and we'd like you know, if you want to go, we'd love to we'd love to have you." Um and and we we attend these events throughout the year. And so,

42:55 talk a little bit about how those things Listen, so we have it in email form. It's, you know, they asked you and we agreed, all of that kind of stuff. It's I mean, and that is public record. It's not necessarily directed by the council. It's just something the city is supporting, having the council do that. Um and then so, up to that point, that all That's all That all makes sense, right? That's all under the umbrella. And I And I think that that That seems like a reasonable argument. However, we're just asked to attend. What happens at that event can be a different can be a different discussion, right? So, we're not asked to talk. We're not asked to engage with this person or that person. We're asked to attend. So, how do you How do you parse out those

43:40 those those lines? >> The small details of of those are difficult because it's about your usual and customary engagements. >> Yeah. >> If you guys regularly invite, you know, you know, city councilors to certain events, and it's kind of a a like buckshot, like, "If any of you can go, we have a table at the Elks Lodge. You use that, whatever. At the Elks Lodge, please go, and you know, and thank you very much, you know, whatever." That's That's an expected That's normal. That's That's there to everybody. If it all of a sudden is only going to Commissioner Stout, and all of a sudden Commissioner Stout is a de facto person that does Well, it's like we hang a second. Is that now Should we talk about the fact that that is now his role? And you guys authorize that? Those are things where I want you to be I want you to be intentional about about the the things that you can be.

44:25 There's always going to be the what ifs, and I and I I understand that. I've been doing this once again for almost 30 years, over 30 years now. But you want to be intentional with those ideas. So, if it's routine that you're doing that, maybe you have a list of all those expected items on your board packets as upcoming events of things. And who wants to go? Who's going to be attending this? And you have that be a running a running clock of sorts of a you know, of items. Hey, we have these 15 things in the next 3 months that we're going to go to or be a part of. And then okay, great. I can go. I can go. I can go. What I've seen happen in one of the one of the stories of my early career that made me the most concerned was it was an annual conference of of of an organization, and two people said they could go. They they actually took took s- role. Okay, who can go to this this conference? The two of us can go. Great. The third person who couldn't go for a

45:10 personal reason, that personal reason fell through. They could go now, and they just showed up out of state with, you know, and just showed up. Now, I'm like, "Hang on. You were authorized to go. The budget was there for you two to go. The discussion was there for you two to go. And a third person just showed up. What if all seven of you showed up? We had budgeted for two or three." It's that kind of stuff where unless the the the the city council actually authorizes you to go on these things, especially they're incurring costs or might be politically difficult, be really careful. And and you could have a quick, "Hey, hey, I can go now. Is that okay?" You can have a quick little discussion about what makes the most sense, reauthorize that if it makes sense, and you're good to go. That could happen in real time with city council and with the city attorney's help. But that's the real problem that I I've seen in the past is the Oh, I'll just go to

45:55 this. Cuz what if one of you guys got invited to go by by a a let's say. Now, hey, I'm going to Chicago for this great thing. Come with me to Chicago. And then the city's going to pay for you to go to Chicago without talking to anybody about this? Those are the kind of things that that you're trying to get around of. The collective decides what we're doing to spend money and authorized vision and authorized voice. The collective will then reimburse you or or help defend and indemnify you because of that. >> Could we delegate that to make it explicit in our operating procedures that that I as mayor can ask people to go or you know, as part of you know, uh agenda setting or council leadership, we make a more formal ask to go? >> I I'm always up for the intentionality of that. If you have the if you're going

46:40 to do that, we're going to make that be a part of our process, I want that role. Can I get granted that role? The city attorney signs off on that, that sounds reasonable to me. And and and the coverage should follow that because it's it's the paper trail sorts that this is our duties and go from there. >> Yeah, the commentary around community events has always been around. You will get asked to do a community event to represent the city, right? Like some of the language is there, we may need to formalize it more. But we've always talked about going to things like uh the education foundation fundraiser. Part of your role as a counselor is to represent the city in the public. >> And so, that's where that's where it gets you you're doing you're doing good, right? Think of if you weren't. Think of if I mean and there's a lot of entities

47:26 right now that are having those one-offs and really difficult times sometimes, right? And so, it's like it's going well now because you guys are well functioning, you're discussing, you're going back and forth, things are well. What if what if you didn't have that? And so, you want to build in build in some walls, but also some ability to be to be nimble when necessary to do that. >> Yeah. >> Very good point. >> Okay. >> I think you can talk you guys. Sorry. I love this stuff. Okay. Okay, I'll be quick. >> And I won't gavel you off. >> I said I will sa- salute and walk away. Um okay. So, the political versus legal reality stuff, I put this slide on there cuz this is this reality of what we're talking about here. So, um, so board members are empowered only during sanctioned board meetings where quorum is present or, as I mentioned, designated. And that that's a big part. Otherwise, you're not a member. And so

48:11 so being mindful of that, and that's okay, by the way, to not be covered by the umbrella. That's fine. Your role is to do what you would like to do to to either better your family and or better the city. Sometimes they are congruent and parallel. Sometimes they're not. And that's totally fine. And we understand that. Let's go through some ideas here. So, these are real ideas or things that really happened, and it's it's going to happen you've had it happen already. Chain of command. You're approached at Fred Meyer's by a friend demanding help with the with the storm drain. You know, it's like, "Hey, I uh this is the problem, and what should you do as a as a as a city counselor?" First of all, you're helpful people. You have servant's hearts. You wouldn't do what you do without that. It's not going to say, "Talk to somebody else." No, you're going to say, "Can I please get your information and I'll somebody call you?" You take the information down.

48:57 You thank them for their time, and you go off into the ether. And you've directed to the city city council or city manager right away. Tell them to talk to the person and move on. Um, the idea of you managing that, being the the the in and out um discussion communication person, please refrain from doing that as best as best as best you can. We see a lot of issues with that if you try and stay involved. You can do a check-in and ask city manager, "Hey, how how's that going?" You know, that's okay to do that, but don't just get the information, customer service, servant's heart, and then float off into the ether after you pass it on. Please please try and do that. >> I'm probably not going to be the only person who's like, "I want to sit with this for a minute." Um Uh, totally yes. Usually, I'm like,

49:43 "Neal and Nancy, what do we do about this thing?" But, there's that closing the loop piece, right? There's the like person showing up on your doorstep or running into you in Fred Meyer again. Um and so that's the part that like I I mean maybe I just I'm like I wouldn't feel comfortable not closing the loop with that person or checking back in and I just have to take the risk on that. Because I think there's a piece it's like just just a human relationship piece. It's like I have taken responsibility for this and I want to make sure that it is um that you've gotten what you need or whatever. >> So the I do close the loop to me makes makes sense. Um but you don't want to be in any part of the back and forth. And there could be major back and forth. It could be likely a storm drain is no liability by the city. It's a declination. It's going to the to the

50:29 the insurance company. They're investigating it. It rained. There was issues we were just out there a little while ago. I mean there's no issues. Declined. Denied. And now you're going to go back and say, "Oh, sorry we denied your claim." And that's going to come up with a lot more a lot more questions than answers. A lot more problems than than than things. You hire people to to do a lot of things for you. So I would be careful of that. >> Should you reach back out or ask the city manager to, "Hey, just make sure that you know, let me know if anything I can do. I'd like to know what happens so I can be you know, be aware of it." That makes sense to me. But but if you're in the back and forth of that, it can it can become problematic. >> I'm going to follow up again and then other folks can jump in. I'm going to I'm going to assume that I'm not the only city councilor that has people like show up on their doorstep, right? That Um like the stop sign fell down or I

51:15 knew you'd be I saw you came home and I want to come talk to you about a thing. >> Yep. >> I'm Where does that fit? Like that's that's that's not Fred Meyer, that's not a public space, that's not somebody sent me an email. That's like somebody is like stopped me in my yard and or come on to my you know, >> So So once again, you're not you're not a The umbrella's not over you at your house. It's just not. Unless all of a sudden your job description changes, which you know, I'm being facetious. It's You have no you have no power and no protection likely at your home. Anywhere else besides those things I just described. Um Now, could that be extended somehow? Possibly. I I That would just be extremely far-fetched, extremely difficult. So, I

52:00 don't want to go down that road. But, that's why you want to be as a political as as helpful and and stop that I will turn this in and someone will get back to you as soon as possible. I'll I will deliver it via email to the city manager tonight. And then they'll contact you. It's best you can do that. Please try that. I know it may not be reasonable. But, also you're training them to to to do that in a way as best you can. People come to my house as well for It's part of my job, so I understand this. Um Mayor? >> No, I'm just looking around to see if any I think we're good. Keep going. >> Thank you for that question. Um online um Facebook warrior online warrior stuff, this is a real problem. More and

52:45 more often with schools, to be honest. Um but can have cities and counties as well. But, um you know the truth. You know the truth. You are making decisions. You have all the data. You have all the and you're doing that. It is not your job as a city council person to be on Facebook and write the rights and and decline the wrongs. You can do that. But, the coverage is likely not going to follow you if someone alleges that you slandered them or that you libeled them in this case in writing. Okay? It's okay to do that. Once again, but just realize that when you're doing that it's 11:00 on a Thursday night. Be careful. We're we're we're we're seeing that. Okay? So, that's just my please. Um you can do it. It's your first amendment right. But, the umbrella is going to be not there.

53:30 Um the press call you at home. Have you guys been contacted by the press at your house? Um I mean I'm sure of it. Um of course. That's up to you what to do that. Um or you have a protocol with with with the city that you're going to you're going to have all those questions go to a certain person at the city and then from there they may have a controlled interview where you come in and discuss it or otherwise, but control that narrative if you can. Otherwise, when you're making comments, you're not a board member officially when you're making those comments legally. You're not. That's your personal opinion about what the board's doing and what the council's doing. But that's not your role with the umbrella over you at the time. That's really hard because you know what the truth and you have an opinion and you might be running for re-election. You you know the answers you want to form the form the the agenda, form the idea

54:15 of of of the truth because that's what you know is only the truth is there. This could be a problem for that. But try to do that. That is that is a a real issue. Then elections um had this happened during elections one a commissioner took the signs of another and burned them. It was a long story. Just you know, don't do that stuff. That's just kind of interesting one. Um auto vehicle damage. Okay, this is weird but this this happens as well. When it comes to your vehicle, okay? Let's say you're going to go to the city county conference that's going to be next February. And you know, you've been authorized that the council said, yep, you can go you can go you can go. Great. Three of you guys are going to go. You're going to drive there in your personal vehicles and and you get in an auto accident on the way to or on the way back from the conference. You do have auto liability coverage with the city. Yours is primary cuz it's your personal

55:01 vehicle, but this will be an excess over you. Okay? So your deductible's on you. They're paying you mileage and your coverage is first. Anything above that is on the city. Think of it that way, okay? So but remember that is with that's outside of this. Coming to this meeting does not count. This is expected. This is as as if you're going to your job. You don't get you don't get get get get covered by work comp to go back and forth from your job. But if your job sends you to a conference somewhere, a job sends you to a job somewhere else or a training or whatever somewhere else, that's different. That's specific and that's where the liability of the work comp and liability of the risk pool would likely follow you. Yes, Commissioner Buck? >> Just to clarify, that's specific to liability. >> Right. >> And so, you know, I know that that often gets

55:46 confused. The the property side of that, the liability side of that, people people don't always know where the line is. We're talking about liability here. So, we're not talking about damage to your vehicle and those kind of things. >> Correct. Yeah, there is no coverage for your personal vehicle um that you're driving on on city business. That is what the mileage is supposed to entail is the to cover your insurance costs, your gas costs, your that guy that kind of So, the personal the vehicle damage that you incur cuz you hit somebody or otherwise, your vehicle is not covered by the city. That's personal. The liability that you incur on behalf of the city, direction and control, course and scope, that is within the policy. Great great clarification. Okay? All right. This is amazing stuff, right? Okay, here's the good news, ish.

56:32 You you do have coverage in fact Oh, this is an older slide. I know, sorry. Um the you do have coverage uh with city county for ethics violations, okay? Um there could be things that that you could be accused of doing. This is a personal allegation. Let's say that you you went into a you gave a session the wrong way, or you might have a perceived um um issue where you have uh you know, your your brother is a is a contractor and there's a conflict of interest. You name it. The OGEC, Oregon Government Ethics um commission, comes in and says, you know, Commissioner Stout, I keep picking on you, sorry. Commissioner Stout, we we believe that you did X improperly, and we're here to find you $1,000. Okay? And that happens. That happens not because of you, I'm just kidding y'all. But um but it could happen any time. City-county and all the other risk pools as well have a a defense cost coverage

57:19 for the ethic ethics complaint of board members going against them. They've increased that to $25,000 recently, okay, per per member and per um uh per entity. But, the biggest part of that is you have to tell them right away, "Hey, I got this complaint and I want to hire my my attorney, Jeff." And they go, "Okay, you can hire Jeff." They will only reimburse you for that damage if you prevail. You have to win. You can't be actually guilty of it. If that's the case, then they're not paying for that. This was brought up and I love it because a lot of times we'll be um we'll see lawsuits or complaints that are trying to get you to stop doing what you're doing as a city. And they'll use it as a weapon to personally attack you and try and get you to quit. This is to try and stop that. We have

58:04 nothing to do with with this ethics complaint. It's about the vote we're about to take on parking meters or about whatever it might be. It could be something environmental. It could be something otherwise. Who knows? But when when they mobilize and they weaponize the system, this is there to protect you up to $25,000 of defense costs if you prevail. The biggest biggest take home for this is if this happens to you, you get an OGEC complaint, tell the city manager right away, and then Jamie and I will help give you in the right direction and get you whatever um opportunities you can or or may choose to do. But just don't wait, do it right away, and we'll go from there, okay? Thank you. Um volunteer um just a quick little thing about volunteers um two minutes. Uh volunteers are just unpaid employees. They are they are just as exposed, just as difficult, just as dangerous sometimes. They're just not paid. So, be

58:50 aware of of volunteers. They're approved. What what they do matters. And so, um it's great that we have volunteers. We love volunteers. We need volunteers. But their liability is yours. It's just unpaid employees. Same thing. Um if this person's driving home from work, strikes a pedestrian on the sidewalk, the employee driving home, that would not be covered. The employee coming back from a conference, that would be covered the same way we talked about that with Commissioner Buck for liability cases. Okay. Hey, one last thing here. So, really um just make sure that you're deliberate about about the ideas that you do, okay? So, course and scope direction control. Before you do things um that are that are you believe on behalf of the city, make sure am I authorized to do that? How do how we talked about that? Is this part of the committee or not? If it is, great. Do your best. If it's not, either

59:37 accept that or ask the council to be a little more deliberate and make sure that you are under the umbrella. Okay, I want no surprises. I I love what you guys do for the community. It matters. It really does. And I don't want to have surprises for you guys. So, ask those questions. Please let us know if you have any of those and thank you very much. Any questions for me? >> Are there Are there any more questions? I think this was helpful. Um I saw Mayor Bridget taking some notes about places we might be able to clean up our process, right? Like there's a lot of focus on getting the stuff right right now and so thanks for help helping us to think through. And MB, um I'm also thinking about the planning commissioners, too, right? Those are people that, you know, have a lot more exposure. If we have language that that can make it into their bylaws to help clarify when they're acting in role.

1:00:22 >> Okay. >> I would be supportive of that, too. >> I'll follow up and then I'll be back before you on September 28th to talk about your operating policies so we can continue that then. >> Great. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. We We are adjourned from our work session and then we will reconvene at 7:05. Right? Thank you for your patience, everybody. I'm going to call the Springfield City Council regular session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon. Here. >> Councilor Weber. >> Here. >> Councilor Moe. >> Here. >> Councilor Bilyeu. >> Here. >> Councilor Quadros. >> Here. >> Councilor Beck. >> Here. >> And Councilor Stout. >> Here. Thank you. >> Please join me with the pledge of allegiance.

1:01:07 >> Pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge >> allegiance >> to the United States of America. >> To the Republic for which it stands, >> one nation >> under God, >> indivisible, >> with liberty and justice for all. >> There is one designated time for public testimony this evening under business from the audience. If you're attending in person, please complete the request to speak card located at the front of the council chambers and turn them into the city recorder. If you're joining us online with a tablet, smartphone, or computer and wish to speak during business from the audience, please raise your hand use the raise your hand feature in Zoom. The order for public testimony is as follows. Anyone in person in the council

1:01:52 chambers and then anybody who has raised their virtual hand. First item, please. >> Mayor, the first item is the consent calendar. >> I move approval of the consent calendar. >> Second. >> All right. Does anybody want have a discussion for the consent calendar? All right. Neil, could you call the vote, please? >> Yes, Counselor Weber. >> Yes. >> Counselor Moe. >> Yes. >> Counselor Rodley. >> Yes. >> Counselor Quadros. >> Yes. >> Counselor Buck. >> Yes. >> And Counselor Stout. >> Yes, thank you. >> All right. Motion passes six yeses, zero noes. Next item, please. >> Next item is business from the audience. >> All right. I have three cards. I'm going to call you up and state your name and location from city for the record and then you will have 3 minutes. Uh David Willis.

1:02:51 >> David Willis, resident resident uh 2276 36 Court. And tonight I'm representing the uh Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Springfield Stake Communications Director volunteer. And uh I brought some things. Uh we wanted to say we appreciate the very the many volunteer hours that you spend in terms of helping to make our community a wonderful and a safe place to live. Uh the pears were 100% harvested by volunteers with professional oversight. They're grown in Southern Oregon on one of our church's humanitarian farms. These farms throughout the country are run by skilled farmers and volunteers who give of their time and talents to help others. From this particular farm, pears will be distributed to community food banks

1:03:36 throughout Oregon, including Food for Lane County here in our own community. Most of the pears will be canned and then distributed throughout the world through our church's humanitarian food system. We hope the information provided will help you understand the production and distribution process a little better and see how many lives are benefited through the volunteer work and care of others without placing any demands of government. We especially want to thank the mayor, the city council, and all of the staff of the city of Springfield for your work in bringing to pass the construction and dedication of the Willamette Valley Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this past June. The open house during 3 weeks hosted 38,000 people. Um,

1:04:21 I'm just happy if someone talks to me, so that that it was really nice. And everything from security, parking, hosting, and so forth was conducted by volunteers with a little professional oversight. Having attended city council the past 3 years, I feel it is important to acknowledge that most of the citizens of all persuasions and service clubs quietly go about helping others and the community without being demanding or demonstrative. These pears can be representative of that type of citizenship. Uh, the the harvest was impacted by a late frost, so they're not quite as large, but I'm told they're just as sweet. Thank you. >> Thank you. And the next uh, next person is Chris Blankenship.

1:05:17 >> All right. Uh yeah, I'd like to talk about um a beautification plan restoration plans >> Sir, could you please could you state your name and address for the record? >> I'm sorry. Curtis Blankenship, uh Ward 4. Is that enough? So, I wanted to talk about doing a restoration beautification project for um Glenwood. Uh similar to what is done uh it's called Seattle Restored .com. I sent you guys a a link to that email in a in a general email. But, while I know you have a a redevelopment plan, but I wanted to just beautify There's a 30% vacancy rate in all cities of commercial property because you're buying stuff online. So, there isn't as much big uh brick and mortar. And so, I you guys are waiting for a big box store

1:06:03 to redevelop uh Glenwood the Glenwood area. And I mean I that's all very good. I just want to do some beautification while we wait for that. And it would increase our tax base. I own property here. I'd like my property values to go up which would increase your tax base. And um it would be a better use of your development funds to to do this to increase the tax base rather than uh spending a huge amount of money hoping for big box retail. Where and and I know you're using uh incremental tax funding to finance the redevelopment plan. So, again, you can wait longer and wait for those tax funds to to pay for your bigger development plan. So, um

1:06:50 You know, the other way to So, the what you will find on Seattle Restored is a way it's the insurance. It's it's uh ironic that you guys are talking about insurance cuz it's the insurance is the problem with uh with doing this uh restoration cuz I I would like to see, you know, an art uh community garden art space and some homeless services put into into there. So, the insurance is the issue. You know, like I say, you can use your development funds for that. Uh, but you know, there's abusive There's abusive land uh, owners in this town that you could tax abusive land owners. And you know, um, Walmart removed their trash cans, Walmart Springfield, from their parking lot. And you know, they produce uh, the packaging. They sell products with packaging. They should be responsible for that packaging. So,

1:07:36 there's a tax There's an plenty of opportunity to tax these corporations, these abusive land owners, and corporations. And I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for Target uh, shoplifting for my for the police to uh, use use their time to protect um, Target and big box stores from shoplifting. I'd much rather that money be used to restore and beautify uh, Glenwood while we're waiting for the funds for your redevelopment plan. And I'd like to talk to the um, economic director if I could on that. I've I've emailed them several times. Thank you for your time and your service. >> Thank you. Uh, the last card is Miguel Rivas.

1:08:29 >> Uh, hello. Hope can I get closer? Uh, yep. My name is Miguel Rivas. I'm in Ward 2 of Springfield. And I'm mostly here to talk about data centers. Uh, currently there is no rumors. There's nothing that I've heard of data centers happening in Springfield. But that's why I think like it's a great time. It's way better to for me to be talking about this before there's any development plans, before there's things that you guys have all signed off on, and like can't take back. So, I think this is a a time to be talking about data centers. They're a national issue going on, so it's good to be preemptive about this. Um I don't think and I feel like a lot of people don't really see data centers as like a Raising Cane's or a Chick-fil-A.

1:09:16 It's not just like another business place. I feel like a lot of the public is going to see data centers as a very government-based uh government-associated thing even if legally it is it isn't. Even if it's on private property or not on public land, I feel like it is something important to be discussing uh from our local city. Um I do know that Springfield is historically very friendly to corporations. Um it's very much focused on developing the economy of Springfield and I see value in that. Um I see I do see how that could

1:10:02 become a point of issue. If data centers did come in, then maybe the enormous like tax exemptions given to corporations or the amount of money and support that corporations are given, I feel like the public would very much finally be looking at these policies as these corporate-friendly policies that Springfield has had as something that isn't for them. If data centers came because I feel a lot of the public will disagree with data centers in general. Springfield doesn't want data centers and we really don't want them to be given any kind of red carpet treatment where they're given like a ton of tax exemptions and all of that just to be built in here.

1:10:48 Thank you. >> Thank you. That was the last card I had. Neil, do you have anybody online? >> Okay, so we have no hands online. >> Okay. does anybody have council response? Council Roddy? >> Thank you. Um and I just want to um thank David and Chris and Miguel for coming out tonight. It's our first time back, so I love that y'all were tracking. Um I am also interested in us having a conversation, particularly around data centers, and I it's starting to be a bubbling conversation. I will say that earlier in the year, nobody was talking about in Springfield cuz we really like you said, don't have the land for it. But more and more um and I think it it would be helpful to have it as a city. And also know that we're trying to have this conversation as a state, which could sort of preempt whatever we do. But I think more and

1:11:34 more folks are interested in let's let's start to have a conversation about where we're at and and what are our processes and land use and all of that. So, I think we're at the beginning of that, but I am someone who's also fairly interested in us digging into that. So, thank you. >> Councilor Buck. >> Yeah. I I also I also appreciate you bringing bringing up the conversation. I think that the focus for the council is um is is bringing value to to Springfield in a lot of different ways. And by supporting businesses that that do employ our people here and and do provide something. You you cited Raising Cane's or Chick-fil-A. That's a place where where people can spend their money, they can work, they can that that creates real value on multiple

1:12:21 levels. And I think that's what we're looking for. And and I'm very interested in in furthering that conversation. Because I don't know what was specific to data centers, I don't know what value that would really look like. And so, I think that that's a great conversation to bring up. So, thank you for that. >> Uh Councilor Stone. >> Um agreed with my fellow councilors there. The other thing I would ask is if Mr. Blankenship, can you share I was looking through my emails and I could not find the links. I don't know if they just got missed through the city. If you could resubmit any of those links, I'd be very interested in your project, especially as the one of the things, uh, that I also sit on is the Springfield Economic Development Area with, which is all the TIF financing that you were speaking about. And I certainly think, um, I I think that's a very involved

1:13:06 conversation and, um, I think you might we might find we have many things in in common on the route that you're thinking there. Uh, but along the way, yes, the beautiful cal can we beautify things along the way is a really important conversation. So, um, if you could re- resubmit those, I would be very happy to look at those. Thank you. >> All right. Anybody else? All right. Thank you so much. Next item, please. >> Uh, next item under ordinances is the International Way annexation. This is an ordinance annexing certain territory identified as Assessor's Map 17-03-15-00, tax lot 400, to the City of Springfield and the Willamalane Park and Recreation

1:13:51 District, adopting a severability clause, and providing an effective date. This is the fourth reading, and Kristina Kraaz is here for this item. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. You know, we write those ordinances to be long titled, so we have time to walk up here. So, this evening, um, we are here for the International Way annexation. And as a reminder, there we go. I just want to make sure I I always click the wrong direction on this. So, um, bear with me if I go the wrong way on the slides. As a reminder, this is a quasi-judicial annexation process. Um, application by PeaceHealth and Lane County for 17.99 acres on International

1:14:36 Way, shown in the map above, and the application number is 81126, 00004, type four. Um, I'm going to pause for a moment if any city councilors have any ex parte contacts that you wish to declare or any um conflicts of interest in this matter. >> All right, we'll start with uh counselor Mao and if you could declare any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. >> I had no ex parte contact with anybody. >> You go ahead. Wait, hang on counselor Mao. Could you clarify? Do you have any contacts uh conflicts of interest? >> I think it's what I was sort of saying. I have no conflict of interest.

1:15:27 >> Uh I have no conflicts of interest and I've had no ex parte contact. >> I have no new ex parte contact um and I'll just restate I have a potential conflict of interest as a property owner in the Gateway area. >> I had no ex parte contact and I have a potential conflict of interest. My employer is in the health care industry and may do business with PeaceHealth. >> I have no conflicts of interest. Um I will say on August 1st I attended a Drifters game and while there Kelly Richardson shared high-level concerns with me regarding the draft annexation agreement. I made it clear to him that I could not share my opinions or any thoughts on the matter. Um the concerns that he mentioned to me informally that evening are now reflected in detail in the letter

1:16:12 submitted on August 6th by Richardson Sports attorney ensuring they are part of the official record. >> No ex parte con- contacts and no conflicts of interest. >> I have no ex parte but it was noted in the packet that the site is currently within the Eugene School District 4J's boundary. Uh 4J appears as only a service provider. Um according to the packet there is no residential population generated by the project. There is no financial interest nor ethics conflict. However, I felt it prudent to mention that I am employed by Eugene 4J School District. >> We're going to get good at this by the time this is over. >> Thank you for that. Um because there were no ex parte contacts that were

1:16:59 disclosed that include information not already provided to the applicants to respond to, um there's no need for the council to reopen the record or or provide more opportunity for a hearing. To give a quick overview for my plan for guiding helping guide you through some discussion this evening, we're going to start with a brief process up update to, you know, just this is your first meeting back from a well-deserved break and I want to reground with where we're at. We'll review the criteria of approval. We'll touch on House Bill 2005, which has now been codified in state law. Um we'll focus on comprehensive plan consistency and finally next steps. As a process update, you last met on this topic on June 22nd. At that

1:17:44 meeting, you closed the record for new evidence and the parties have submitted their final arguments, which are in your packet. Um I we have a staff prepared updated findings because council has not given direction on whether you want to further examine approving or denying. There is a draft um ordinance that you've now on your fourth reading of a annexation agreement that was negotiated they negotiated by city staff with the express understanding that city council needs to review and weigh in. And there are findings both for uh if you were to take a direction to approve to give feedback on or if you were to take to direction to deny an order that could be used to do that with proposed findings there. I want to note some um errors in the

1:18:31 just really quickly some errors in the staff report that goes with the ordinance. Um I had drafted a finding regarding a mistaken version of an IGA with ODOT that was submitted by Mr. Gelardi. The error was not attributable to Mr. Gelardi in any way. He pointed out that the version he submitted to our packet um, for your consideration is what ODOT has published. So, there's apparently an incorrect version of um, the executed IGA on ODOT's website. And so, we will I will work with city staff to try to follow up to correct that. Um, and I want to apologize for Mr. Gelardi if in any way implied that there was intentional misrepresentation of facts. That wasn't my intent in the finding. Um, and it isn't It certainly isn't what happened. And they also made a couple errors in

1:19:16 regards to, um, directions. I referenced some locations being west of the subject site that are actually east of the subject site. Mr. Limbert pointed that out to me, um, and that will be corrected in the, um, if that staff report moves forward. And then very briefly again, there was a record objection to some information in the applicant's final written testimony. That is addressed in the staff report. I recommend the council through your adopted findings just reject that information that was, um, objected to as being outside the record. And just that you adopt a finding that says you're excluding that from your consideration. Any questions on those sort of really brief procedural Okay. Then, not seeing any questions,

1:20:02 I want to remind the council that we're going to focus on criteria of approval tonight. This is quasi-judicial. Quasi-judicial, um, decisions are site-specific, um, decisions. This decision is not about the value that the applicant's proposed use of this property has for the community. This council is not asked to weigh the relative importance of crisis stabilization services or behavioral health facilities for the community. I understand that that's a very important issue to the community, but that's not the city council's role in a quasi quasi-judicial annexation process.

1:20:47 The council has to follow your criteria of approval, and that's a requirement of state law. It's a requirement that is grounded in long-standing legal framework for this type of site-specific decision-making, and the purpose is to ensure that your decisions are based on a fair and consistent process, and that that your the rules that apply to that process are knowable to all parties in advance. The criteria for annexation are in Springfield Development Code 5.7140. Two criteria are clearly met with this application, and there's no there's been no dispute at any point that these two are not met, and that is that the property is inside the urban growth boundary, and it is contiguous to city limits. The other three criteria are more substantive and are in dispute between

1:21:32 the applicants and and some public testimony that you've received. The first criteria is what I want to focus this session tonight on, and that is consistency with the comprehensive plan. The city's comprehensive plan is a long-term planning document that guides how the city how the city council, with input from the community, intends for the city to develop in the next approximately 20 years for meeting our need for employment land, for housing, and then for other public facilities and services designed to support those various uses. So, that's what um we're going to focus on tonight. I recognize there are significant issues and a lot of public comment on the ability to provide this property and these proposed uses with key urban

1:22:18 facilities and services, infrastructure, and as well as some concerns with the staff annexation agreement. We've talked about um previously I talked about with you that the criteria for annexation follow a hierarchy. So, really the council needs to make a decision, and not necessarily final decision, but needs to give some direction on if you think this annexation is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies about the proposed uses, um, or it could be consistent with the right infrastructure, or if you think that it is just not consistent with the comprehensive plan policies around campus industrial designation. Because your decision on that point will govern whether it's necessary for you to make decisions about infrastructure and the

1:23:04 annexation agreement. So, I'm hoping we can stick to that middle one, and we'll get to what with the next two when we get to next steps at the end of the session. Before we get into the comprehensive plan, I want to touch base again on House Bill 2005. There's been a lot of discussion about the superseding bill, as it's called, um, and how it relates to this annexation. I want to be clear that the statute, now codified at ORS 197A.386, does not apply to your annexation decision. It's relevant to the annexation because it governs, or not doesn't govern, it is relevant to what the applicants intend to do with the property and how they want to move forward after annexation. So, it's a

1:23:51 reason for assuming certain uses may be developed on the site, but it does not bind or apply as law to your decision at annexation. And the reason for that is because there is no pending development application for either of the proposed future uses. And then, there's this also, in addition, there's a second part of the statute that is up here. The House Bill 2005, Section 60, does not apply on land where the local government, that's you, determines the facility cannot be adequately served by those services that the city provides, water, sewer, stormwater, drainage, or streets. Even if there were concurrently submitted development applications with the annexation,

1:24:36 the city council would still have the role and authority to determine if the facility can be provided adequate adequately with those services, which is also going to depend on your comprehensive plan and the policies that you've set for this property. But, to be clear, at this time, the state law does not apply. So, I want to get that out of the way and I answer any questions that you have about that before we move forward. >> All right. Any questions? Is that disputed at all in the record? Are Are does everybody agree that state law is not applying in this the superseding appeal is not applying in this situation? >> The applicants have acknowledged that the superseding bill does not apply. However, they've also made the argument that it does still apply because you can't apply policies. That would mean

1:25:22 they have to change the comp plan before it can be annexed. I don't know how both of those things can be true. I'm not sure what the legal theory is there that it doesn't apply, but you also have to use it. Um and so, my recommendation is just that it doesn't apply, and I don't think there's any serious legal dispute that it governs your decision. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay. So, getting into the comprehensive plan criteria. I'm going to walk my my plan for this section is to sort of walk you through the decision-making framework that I recommend. Um and then we'll get to a point where, once we have kind of gone through the way this criteria plays out with the

1:26:08 what I feel is the the most important first policy to address around planned urban uses, um then there'll be time that either the city council can begin your discussion if you're ready or we I can give some examples of two different paths you could take and we can talk about that further. So, the comprehensive plan consistency criteria says the proposed annexation, so this is the requirement to approve it, if it is consistent with applicable policies in the Springfield comprehensive plan, metro plan, and any applicable refinement plans or plan districts. As some background here, the Springfield comprehensive plan is the city's own specific long-range urban development plan that um, replaces the metro plan in several key areas. The metro plan is the

1:26:54 prior long-standing Eugene-Springfield total area plan. Since 2007, Springfield and Eugene have been working on our own independent metro independent plans that will eventually replace the metro plan. For um, the housing element, for economic um, the economic element, so that's employment opportunities, for land use specific policies, and for urbanization, which is the process of annex annexing and developing urban uses, the Springfield comprehensive plan controls the metro plan. The metro plan still applies in Springfield for issues around topics like natural hazards, natural resources, public facilities and services. And then this area is in the Gateway refinement plan, there is no plan

1:27:40 district that applies. Getting into the urbanization element, the number one policy, the very first policy in the element is the one that I think is most important for you to consider first. And that is that urbanizable lands within the 2030 UGB, that's the Springfield UGB, shall be converted to urban uses as shown in the Springfield comprehensive plan map, and more particularly described in neighborhood refinement plans and the policies of this plan. I also included a little bit of text from urbanization element policy 30 that I think um calls back to policy one and reinforces the importance of policy one. And that's And the part the relevant part of that policy is that unincorporated land in the Springfield UGB may be developed

1:28:26 with permitted uses at maximum density only 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. So, how do you interpret what that policy means and it whether this annexation complies? First, we have to know what some terms mean. Urbanizable land is land that is in the Springfield UGB but not yet annexed. That clearly applies here. Urban uses I recommend are uses described in the applicable plan based on the comprehensive plan map designation. And that's looking at the definition of urban uses in the context of the statewide planning goals that that policy language comes from, which are statewide planning goal 14 and 11.

1:29:11 The comprehensive plan map designation for this property is campus industrial. The land use element is one part of the Springfield comprehensive plan that gives an explanation of each of the city's designations. And then the Gateway refinement plan also has policy language describing the campus industrial plan designation. The Gateway refinement plan refers to this property as part of the Gateway SLI site. SLI means special light industrial. And states that it's intended to implement the Metro plan's special light industrial designation. When the land use element for Springfield was adopted, that SLI designation is superseded and replaced with the campus industrial designation. So, instead of special light industrial, it's referred to as campus industrial in Springfield and that better matches the

1:29:57 name of the zone. Um otherwise, the purpose and description of those two designations were um essentially equivalent. The land use element then gives a long description of the purpose of the campus industrial designation, and that's in the staff report and findings, but I'm also putting it up on the slides. And the council we can come back to this as many times as we need to, so I'm not going to read it all out loud, but some key I think parts of this uh policy language is that the primary objective of the designation is to provide opportunities for diversification of the local economy through siting of light industrial firms in a campus-like setting. The activities of such firms must be obscure from public view and have external impacts less than or equal to office uses, such as noise pollution and

1:30:43 vibration. Then there's more explanation around large-scale large-scale light industrial uses are the primary focus of the designation, but provision should also be made for small and medium-scale industrial uses within the context of industrial and business parks, which will maintain a campus-like setting. It describes some complimentary uses like corporate office headquarters and supporting commercial establishments serving primary may also be cited on a limited basis. And then the description also has requirements for conceptual like this is site-specific requirements now. Conceptual development planning performance standards or site review processes to be applied to ensure some goals of that campus um industrial district. Adequate circulation functional coordination among uses on each site, high-quality environmental

1:31:28 setting and compatibility with adjacent areas. There's a 50 minimum minimum lot size um to protect undeveloped sites from piecemeal development until site plan development plans been approved. That's doesn't apply to this application because this application's not seeking to divide anything. So, it's really the first part of this policy um that is going to govern the how the city council wants to interpret whether this annexation is consistent. So, this is a big this is I think this is the main crux of the question in front of council tonight is do you um support interpreting this policy language that the proposed annexation for proposed future uses is consistent with this policy language or do you

1:32:14 believe that it's inconsistent? Um and this is a good point for me to ask if you have any questions. If you want to begin deliberations after we've asked answered questions, we can do that, but we also have I also have a framework if you're struggling can walk through some options of what interpretations are I think legally permissible. >> All right, Council Redly. >> All right, I'm just going to dive in. Is there a land use designation that is specific to medical or that sort of use? Do we have a land use or do we often tuck this into other things? >> I that's a really great question and I could take a moment to look at the commercial um description in the land use element. The medical services district is one

1:33:01 that is a zoning district that's intended for medical uses and it implements the commercial designation. So typically um when medical uses are intended to be a very important or primary part of a development, the medical services district can be appropriate and that implements a commercial designation. But medical uses are also um service oriented uses or um sort of that those public service oriented types that are talked about generally in a commercial or a mixed use with a commercial element to it. And I can do a really quick search to see if medical specifically discussed in the >> Well, and you're getting to what I was trying to get to is if there is another land use designation that we often find and that's the mixed use and such. But

1:33:48 the zoning is a different layer, right? >> Correct and that's a good point. I want to I would I should clarify one of the comments that was made um by both the applicants and the opponents was to call back to the council's EWEB annexation decision um that you previously made. And um if you'll recall on the same night you held your first public hearing in this matter, you also adopted the ordinance on um EWEB's proposed code amendments. So, uh applicants have said in the EWEB annexation, you knew that the EWEB was going to use the property for something not allowed in the code, and you didn't apply the comprehensive plan to prevent that annexation. The um opponents have said, "Well, that's a completely different context, and it's not It doesn't govern your decision here." Um

1:34:35 and what I would say is it's D, none of the or C, none of the above. In the EWEB annexation, the council considered the proposed future uses, but the council did not make a finding that those proposed future uses were inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for that property. And in fact, the council on in May amended the development code to say that those proposed uses were allowed, which required a finding of consistency with a comprehensive plan. So, I will acknowledge that the findings are not necessarily very clear in that EWEB annexation decision that's mentioned in the record, but um it does reinforce when you read through all the findings that the proposed uses were part of the city council's decision making. Um and so yes, I would say that what the zoning allows doesn't govern.

1:35:20 Something can be not allowed under the development code other than zoning, but still consistent with the comprehensive plan if it just hasn't been added to the code because the code can't cover every conceivable circumstance. But also, the fact that something is not allowed in the code may be persuasive evidence that it's inconsistent with the designation. >> Uh Counselor Weber. >> Thank you, Kristina. I don't have any questions. Um if other councilors do, um I think we should hear those, but if if not, I'm ready to just make a statement. >> you want. Okay. Uh so I wrote this out just so I don't kind of get lost in my thoughts here. The decision we make today isn't about whether the need for a behavioral health facility exists. I think we all agree

1:36:06 it's a really serious issue and it's one that needs to be addressed. Today's decision at its core is a land use decision that requires this council to fairly and consistently apply annexation criteria. House Bill 2005 does not take effect until an annexation agreement is approved. That means the bill's provisions are not active today and they cannot be used to justify annexation before the agreement itself is finalized. We are still required to make our findings under the comprehensive plan, the urbanization element, and the gateway refinement plan. I do not believe this application meets the criteria established in these plans and I am uncomfortable approving a one-off annexation agreement that would effectively set a precedent for future one-offs.

1:36:51 Springfield has worked hard to maintain consistency and predictability in our land use decisions and I do not believe it serves the community to make exceptions that later become expectations. Instead, I think the responsible path is to take a holistic look at our zoning requirements, particularly in areas where we may want to support econom- economic development, and determine whether a broader rezoning approach is appropriate. If the council believes certain types of uses are important for Springfield's long-term long-term economic future, then we should evaluate that through a comprehensive, transparent process that includes community input. My interest is in what best serves Springfield's future development needs and not in creating isolated exceptions that bypass the larger policy

1:37:37 conversation. For that reason, I am not prepared to support this annexation request. >> All right. Other folks, do you guys have questions? Um could you take a second Oh, good, Counselor Stone. >> So, I think I'm a little bit confused about the exact status of the annexation agreements. Uh I see the I see an agreement here, but I I'm just confused. Are Are we trying to discern whether or not this is a valid one? Can you just Can you walk me through this, please? >> Yeah, I'm going to go back up to the slide that has the criteria of approval.

1:38:22 >> And I think one of the point, I mean, one of the criteria is that we have an annexation agreement with signed with the city, and it was not there in any of the previous meetings that we've had. >> Correct. After the the um my understanding of the direction from Council in June 22nd was we're not sure if we will if we are prepared to approve or deny this, but one of the concerns would be if there's an annexation agreement that moves forward, if that's not included in the record, then that might be grounds for a procedural challenge later on. So, knowing that the Council may want to approve this application, um we felt as staff it was important to develop um an annexation agreement that staff could support um and negotiate that with the applicant so that it could be put in the record, um and there could be response to it for Council's consideration if you want to

1:39:08 move that forward. We're on step what I would say step three of applying the criteria, and the annexation agreement's at step five. So, I think that um an annexation agreement or some other form of mitigating fiscal impact, sorry, would be appropriate, but you can't get to that step unless you decide whether it's consistent with a comprehensive plan at a higher level because um I mean, if if the annexation is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, we can't determine if the minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to a use that's the council finds is inconsistent with a comprehensive plan. Um >> Are you done, Councillor Stout? >> Yep. Yeah, that's >> Uh Councillor Rodli.

1:39:58 >> You'll see what I do. Um Thank you. So, I I feel a little differently about this or I'm thinking a little differently about this than Councillor Webber. Um I I'm really First of all, I appreciate that we have reined it in cuz I think that's part of it felt like like we do annexation conversations all the time. And this particular one got taken to a whole other place that was not at all what we're all used to doing, which I think caused a little bit of friction as we're like trying to say, "Look, we don't usually talk about these things. We we know how to do annexation agreements." I think for me um exactly where we're at right now is the conversation that I wanted to have, whether or not this fits. And the fact that it's still a little wiggly, I'm not convinced that it doesn't fit. So, I'm more interested in

1:40:44 um to Councillor Webber's point of wanting to have a process, like is is this is this a means to that process? To have this conversation, and this is you know, we had a about a year or so ago, we had another business that came in and wanted to do something that folks some folks felt outside of the um the business use. It wasn't an annexation conversation, but it was like, "Can we do this business in the gateway area?" And we had to have that conversation to make that decision. So, I am I am interested in how do we how do we, if we can, get to yes on this? And if we can't, where can this facility go? So, that's where I'm at. I'm I'm not convinced that it doesn't fit the comprehensive plan. That's why I was asking like, "Do we have other

1:41:29 designations?" And if we don't, where would we ordinarily fit this? And the fact that um we have so many other medical uses in that area also sort of pulls me in the direction of is there a way to get there? I'm also not convinced that there's a way to get there based on just the simple annexation criteria, but I'm not ready to shut the conversation down in terms of trying to figure out does it fit or seeing how my fellow my fellow counselors feel about whether or not it could or couldn't fit. >> Uh Council Buck. >> Uh I I I appreciate some of the articulation, you know, um I am extremely supportive of of Peace Health in the and and and the project that they're they're wanting

1:42:15 to put in our community. Uh you know, I spent 5 years as the crisis worker that was in the ER that had the conversations that said, "Are you going to go to a secure facility or can we create a plan to support you to go home?" So, you know, I I need no convincing about the value of what Peace Health brings. Like none whatsoever. And I feel it's extremely important that we find a way to make sure that this facility has a home in Springfield. I think that a couple of the places that I'm still unsure about the fit on on this and and and and largely the I don't want us to get into a place that

1:43:00 is if if if we're make if the criteria fits then it fits and great, but if we're if we're having to kind of you know, make adjustments or exceptions or amendments to to to make it fit, then I then I think that needs to get looked at because as I look at the the Gateway refinement plan, um and this may be just how I'm looking at it. I'm looking at as somebody who works in that area, like there's a lot of refining that needs to happen, right? I mean, it's not uh you know, I I don't think there is a plan that anybody says, "Hey, this is the direction we're going." I think it's still very much a work in progress and figuring out how it all fits um with a clear process that that creates a long-term vision.

1:43:47 I I think it's is is important. Um sitting sitting here today I think that the question still remains for me does this does does this actually fit inside um our our criteria? I don't know that it does. I don't know that it doesn't, kind of like Councilor Rodli said, but I also very agree very much agree with Councilor Webber that we have to stick to something that's consistent. We have to stick to something that makes sense because this will not be the last time this comes up and it's going to have far-reaching impacts over what we do because we know that that changes need to be made in that area of the city. So I'm really hesitant to approve something

1:44:34 not really clear about what that ramification is. However, I am very interested to keep the conversation going about how we can make this work. So, I got two conflicting things there. You know, and so I'm not sure that the land use applies but I'm not sure that it doesn't, either. >> I If I can take a minute, I think um I'm hearing I want to recap and make sure that I'm understanding. I'm hearing some interest from Councilor Rodli and Councilor Duck to maybe look at larger legislative actions in the future that might clarify things. Um I'm I'm not sure what the questions are in relation to the annexation the state. So, maybe help me understand a little bit better what additional information

1:45:19 or guidance that you know, we we can walk through tonight. I do have slides that show two different ways to interpret the campus industrial designation um as it relates to the application and there probably are other ways, but these were the two that um you know, I think are legally defensible. Um and then how some of the facts relate to those proposed interpretations and then what the consequence would be to this annexation if you went either of those ways. Um but then also, you know, it's all the council does always have an option to begin a legislative process to change the gateway refinement plan or to redesignate and rezone, you know, multiple part parcels or areas of a city, but that can't be within a quasi-judicial process and you have to

1:46:04 make a quasi-judicial decision based on the plan and and plan provisions that existed when the application was filed. So, it we can't you couldn't pause the annexation, pick up legislative amendments to do something, you know, more policy-based and then resume the annexation. So, I just want to be clear on that. >> And I think you're hearing us kind of struggle with different avenues here, right? Like one of them is very distinctly um there needs to be a conversation out in in North Gateway about what our vision is, what our zoning is, how do we balance between, you know, our tourism uh sector, our campus industrial sector, and a growing medical sector that people are not aligned on, right? So, as we as I'm thinking about it, we have this conversation about this annexation and this piece of property that we're dealing with, but underneath that,

1:46:51 you're hearing a lot of questions about, you know, the future gateway, how do we deal with the transportation, and I would expect that some of those things are going to sort of spin off into additional work after whatever we do with this this uh annexation. And then I think I'm hearing you tell us we can't work those problems, we got to work the annexation. That's the thing that's right That's the thing that's right in front of us. Um my question, and if this is in your slides, uh Uh, we can we can definitely go down we could definitely go down that road. As I'm thinking about, you know, the work we did around the Haas property, right? We basically had a clinic go into, you know, 555 International. Um, we've had another Haas, but like, what are those zonings? Cuz the map you showed does

1:47:37 have a, uh, does have, I think still has them as campus industrial. >> Correct. And the the Haas Office Park, which was the applicant for those development code changes, >> Right. >> um, is zoned campus industrial and continues to be. The findings in that decision were based around what's allowable in business parks, which you'll notice, um, provision should also be made for small and medium-scale industrial uses within the context of industrial and business parks, which will maintain a campus-like setting with minimal environmental impacts. While I don't have that ordinance directly in front of me, I, um, I could certainly follow up with the council with more information, but my recollection from that process is that the findings were around those medical uses would be limited to business parks. Um, and so they're, and also would have sort of the same type of external impacts because of their status in

1:48:23 business parks, and then also because business parks have to go through, on the second slide, um, those performance, those campus industrial site performance standards and site review process, um, and impacts to surrounding properties needed to be reviewed as part of that, um, those changes. There were also changes made for more, um, more just more public-facing services in general. Medical services weren't the only ones, um, based on some public testimony and opposition to stand-alone medical uses, and public testimony based on incompatibility with sort of at all hours types of medical services or urgent cares, the council included a provision that said, we, you know, urgent cares or emergency services are

1:49:09 not permitted because of the impacts that those would have that the council at that time thought would be, um, not necessarily compatible with the campus industrial setting. That doesn't necessarily mean that you couldn't make a different like you couldn't apply the purpose of this district and make a different decision for the applicants for annexation for the applicants proposed uses looking at the um, the policy link, sorry, the this policy language. Um, but that was the decision the council made at that time around business parks specifically, which are called out in the policy differently than stand-alone developments. >> And what about um, what about the where the clinic is at 555 International? That's the Pacific Source building.

1:49:55 >> Um, which sorry, specify which clinic? >> I think they opened a clinic that is uh, it's Pace maybe? >> Okay. Um, the my understanding is that the Pace clinic was approved as a secondary or accessory use to the overall campus industrial use. I think and I'll I'll turn it over to folks if they've got more questions. I mean, I think it would be helpful to go through the slides, right? Because where where I'm thinking about about it is I still have questions around does it fit in the campus industrial? It uh, when I think about the annexation, um, it you know, it feels like we can

1:50:41 generally serve it. I think Councilmember brings up a good good uh, good point that we have a lot of work in front of us, right? Until we have the final final annexation agreement, until we have the transportation questions, the wheels can kind of come off the bus on this thing a couple of a couple of different ways. And I feel like it it meets the employment standards, but where I want to see a little bit more is around this question of okay, how does it fit in this campus industrial framework? >> Okay. Um, so >> Before we get off track, I know there's some people that haven't asked questions. I'm just going to give folks a chance to Okay, I don't think we have no questions. So maybe your two your two slides about two competing frameworks would help us? >> Yes, but I want to back up briefly to

1:51:26 this slide really quickly with the urbanization element um just to make sure I touch on this well. So urbanizable lands in the 2030 UGB shall be converted to urban uses. It does say as shown on the Springfield Comprehensive Plan Map. Um and the plan map is what provides those designations. So I just want to reinforce that that is the reason that we're talk that's one of the reasons we're talking about the anticipated future uses um because I know that that's been a point of contention. There's an argument that the city has to look at annexation in a vacuum and not consider how the property would be used in the future. And I don't recommend that that's consistent with the way that the um comprehensive plan is written. So before we get to into how to interpret that campus industrial

1:52:11 language, I want to make sure the council understands and doesn't have questions about sort of that fundamental interpretation because that's different than what the applicants have asked you to to do with this policy. >> So you're asking us whether or not we're clear on can we interpret the annexation in a vacuum versus understand their proposed use in the absence of I guess a development application? >> Yeah. You're not looking at whether their proposed use is specifically approvable and meets specific criteria for development, but whether the anticipated future uses are My recommendation is that you look at whether their anticipated future uses fall within the description of urban uses as shown in the Springfield Comprehensive Plan Map, which means that you would look to the Comprehensive Plan designation policies that are either in the assignment plan or the land use

1:52:56 element or both. And I just want to make sure that that that's a fundamental framework that applies to both ways I'm recommending you could interpret the campus industrial designation. So if you had an issue with that approach, I would need to back it up again a level. >> Okay, but uh >> pedance >> I'm seeing some pedance, but we expect land use certificates by the time this is done. >> think he'll have earned more than certificates. I think like bull bull and diplomas with some tassels to turn. Um Okay. So, sorry, skipping ahead. I'm jumping around a whole bunch, sorry. So, again, there there may be more than two ways to interpret it, but I think there are sort of two general approaches that you can take when you look at this policy language. And I also want to be clear the city council has discretion to

1:53:41 interpret your comprehensive plan policies. The land use board of appeals will give you leeway. They can think you didn't make the best interpretation. They would have liked the other interpretation better, as long as your interpretation is plausible and doesn't clearly contradict sort of the overall legal framework and purpose for your policies, then they will give you discretion on the interpretation that you make. So, I my um purpose I think is to bring to you those options that you have for interpreting that. So, with that said, I think there's kind of two ways you could look at this. One is you could look at, well, what types of other employment uses are generally compatible with a campus industrial area, um based on the sort of broader language in that policy. So, other employment kind

1:54:27 of way to summarize this, other employment uses may be allowed when their characteristics are compatible with the CI designation and the area remains primarily focused on light industrial uses. So, when the campus industrial district district as a whole, looking at it in as an entire area, maintains its campus industrial primarily for light industrial uses, then you can have sites that develop for different uses that aren't those described in the um designation, as long as they're have they have some level of compatibility. The other way that you could interpret that policy is maybe more not more limited, but more specific. Other employment uses, so not light industrial firms. There's no dispute, I will say, that what the that the planned future uses of the property is light industrial. I don't think anyone is arguing to you that it fits in that

1:55:13 primary purpose of the campus industrial district. So, other employment uses, um another way to relate to this is other employment uses must primarily serve, support, or relate to industrial uses, or be secondary to industrial uses. Um I think either of these interpretations are consistent with the code changes you made in the Haas um application because it either way you look at it, in one the other medical or retail or food service type uses, um still ensure the area remains primarily for campus industrial, light employment, or light industrial types type of uses, and the area um and those business park uses are compatible with the surrounding CI district. On the other industrial related uses, those other retail uses

1:56:00 are still within a business park, which is approved as itself a campus industrial use, and is intended to accommodate light industrial uses. And so, those other sort of public-facing uses would be secondary to industrial uses within that business park as a whole. Um so, I want to be clear, I think both of these ways kind of keep consistency with other ways you've applied this this designation in the past. If you took those approaches, then some of the facts you might consider to be relevant, I should change it on here and on my own computer because you can't see my own computer. Um so, looking at compatibility with employment uses generally. So, the the site is about 18 acres out of uh 280-acre SLI site in the Gateway Refinement Plan. So, using that

1:56:45 like sort of area-wide metric, allowing isolated sort of medical type uses on this site does not primarily change the campus industrial area as a whole. And anticipated uses could be found to be like light industrial uses in that they also diversify diversify local economy. They provide jobs. They would be set in a campus-like environment. That's the way the applicant has proposed it. It would be a campus of these two facilities together. Um the primary activities on the site are obscured from public view. Usually we think of obscuring primary activities to mean like we don't do outdoor storage of heavy machinery. We're not doing, you know, um vehicle repair out in the open. We're not uh it's not a lumber

1:57:31 mill type situation where you have store like storage of bulk um commodities, uh you know, open to the public or visible to public. And then limits external impacts um noise pollution and vibrations similar to office uses. So I think medical facilities do have generally noise pollution and vibration similar to off- office uses. I think on this compatible employment uses you could adopt this interpretation but find other facts to be more important and still conclude that the annexations for these proposed uses is inconsistent and isn't compatible with employment uses, but I think there are a lot of facts in the record that could lead to you concluding it is consistent. On the side of industrial-related uses, um the site's surrounded by light industrial uses and property owners um

1:58:16 have given you public comment that they're concerned about specific compatibility of this site to their light industrial uses. There's no link between the anticipated uses and light industrial employment or light industrial uses. So this is not like medical services for people visiting a light industrial user. This is not um in the example of the PeaceHealth and Pace program, this is not an example of um a program being operated in the context of a larger light industrial use. Um and the anticipated uses aren't accessory or complimentary to light industrial uses. They're not you know, being carried out in the same sort of common development or as part of a related light industrial use.

1:59:05 So, generally um with these two two interpretations, if you find that it's sort of more about compatibility and overall area um then criterion B is um met for campus industrial designation. Again, you could apply different facts on the record to come to the opposite conclusion, I think on this one, but reading where a lot of the facts are, I think it you know, it's likely met. Um but for two, if you took this approach, I think criterion B is not met for campus industrial designation. I don't think there are the set of facts um that you could find to be more important under the second interpretation that also allows you to approve the annexation. So, I want to be clear. I think the first way you can make a decision still either way, you'd have to get into the facts more and find, you know, way

1:59:50 compatibility. Um but the second way, I think it would be clearly not met if you prioritize sort of the very specific wording of that um comp plan designation description for each sort of each side as as it's proposed to develop. I can talk through either of those interpretations more, answer questions. I know this is this really is like very nuanced um and specifically land use decision-making. >> Do other folks have questions? So, uh I would assume what you're kind of setting us up is if we wanted to choose going down one path or the other, that's going to help us get to the final decision on what we what we're talking about from these sort of this planning consistency question.

2:00:35 >> Correct. >> Understanding that we probably do have transportation that is not sort of solved at all. >> Yes. >> And this question around the annexation agreement, which we haven't even touched. >> Correct. This is not to say if you take number one, you have to approve the annexation. If you take number two, you don't. If you take number one, you still have a lot of decision-making left to do if you take an interpretation like number one. Um but I think that that could lead you to approving the annexation. If you take the approach of number two, that is more spec- that is more tied into the specific text. Um but I don't think it's necessarily any more legally defensible. I think both approaches to interpreting it is allowed, but under number two, I think the comprehensive plan consistency would not be met. And so then I would

2:01:21 recommend that we don't even get into discussions of infrastructure and the annexation agreement because I don't think there's any benefit. Um it's legally valid. You only need one reason to deny an application. You have to show all criteria are met to approve it. So it's generally not um I don't know that it's helpful to the council to spend a lot of time deliberating over whether other criteria are met if you can't get past the comp plan and campus industrial designation. Um but you will have a lot more deliberation to do if you if you decide that this um that it could be a compatible employment use and the area-wide approach. >> Great. Councilor Stout. >> Uh just real quick, I'm wondering if you can foresee any unintended consequences of sort of the interpretive

2:02:06 leap that I see of the compatible employment uses path of the first path. I see it as a bit of an interpretive leap. What I mean, it's been alleged that the EWEB decision may have had some, you know, consequences for how we are to apply things consistently. So I'm curious to you and you don't have to have an answer right now for this, but can we talk through like, okay, what are some of the unintended consequences that are going to happen on a development level um for future applications that come down the pike? >> Yeah, that's a great question. So I think the first answer I would say is that the comprehensive plan is typically not a criteria of approval for a development application. So, typically the comprehensive plan gets applied to a very limited scope of decisions that the council makes. One of those is annexation.

2:02:51 Another type of decision is a plan amendment and zone change. Typically in that case you would be looking at whether the zoning that's proposed fits with the description of the comprehensive plan designation. And so on in that way somebody may make the argument that a zone that is not campus industrial still fits within the campus industrial designation based on it being a very small site. I think that would be different enough that the council's decision in this annexation would not bind that other decision. Um I also think that, you know, it would apply to other annexations in the campus industrial district. What is unique about this one that I don't see applying elsewhere is that um we would not enter an agreement with the applicants that said this annexation is

2:03:37 approved but you have to do a plan amendment zone change. And anyone else wanting to annex in the campus industrial district for a use that isn't allowed in the campus industrial district I think would typically understand, absent a state superseding law, that they would need to do a plan amendment zone change um and would be understanding of an annexation agreement that contemplated that or or that made findings stating that would be required. Um So, I I don't think either of these binds the council in a way that would be problematic or would prevent or limit council's decision making. Um while I don't in I would never in give you an interpretation as plausible that I would expect you to reverse later, but the law does allow councils, you know, a future council that views things differently

2:04:23 can change their mind as long as they give notice of a different interpretation um and allow the applicants in that case to respond to a different interpretation and and um give input. But I I think it's likely that the council does will do some work to maybe look at this in more depth. Um, and you'll be continuing to do comprehensive planning. So, the likelihood that the exact facts arise again, um, it seems pretty unlikely. >> Uh, Councilmember Buck. So, I I I think what I'm struggling to kind of really wrap my my my my head around here is when we look at that criteria one, right? Like that that that first path.

2:05:08 Um, and I kind of step back and I'm like, yes, but it is we're talking campus industrial. So, so path two, I see how that applies. Um, and and I and I absolutely hear you and you're saying, you know, legally it's defensible and all of tho- those kind of things. I just when I look at the criteria here and I look at the this and as much as I want to see this project move forward, I'm just looking at this and seeing like I don't see I don't see I'm struggling with how that applies that that criteria one. So, maybe if you could just restate it again because I I see it as trying

2:05:53 to interpret like some piece of this, but at the but but at the the base of this is does it meet campus industrial? Um, and and the agreement, I mean, there's no argument that this is not necessarily that. So, how we can justify using a different interpretation, I'm I'm unsure. >> So, that >> and again, I would love to see the conversation continue. I'd love to see a path forward on here, but we have to do it in a way that's consistent and and can be defensible and and repeatable. Like if somebody else came in and this >> I think it's absolutely defensible for the council to say that um the types of

2:06:38 uses that are consistent the types of urban uses that are consistent with campus industrial are light industrial firms that um that are like large-scale ones and then small and medium ones industrial and business parks and then limited complimentary uses um on um that support established sort of primary uses. Um I also think the council could decide we want to be broader. And so I think so I think like that's where you're headed. I think that is a 100% um a defensible interpretation of that district. If that's how the council views that district and what this language that's on the monitor right now means to you. It is your plan. Um you also could say we think

2:07:24 comprehensive plans are a little higher level. We think it ought to be a little bit more flexible. And so we're going to read this language that that's the primary objective of the designation does not mean the exclusive objective or the objective, you know, not and not other employment things. So if you took that broader view um which is not I will not say is necessarily something the city's done in a lot of cases. Um I don't know that you've taken a broader view of other it it's not binding on your decision, but I don't know that the council has ever taken like a much broader view of what the low-density residential designation is for, for example. Um state laws required us to adopt code amendments that do that, but I don't know that the council has ever made that call itself.

2:08:09 Um that's probably not relevant information to the record. So I guess I should counsel you to ignore what I said, but um I I think like that's you can take a broader view even if you haven't done that in the past is what I'm trying to say. Um and so if you're taking a broader view, you would say, "Well, sure. The primary objective is to provide for light industrial firms. And there are about 200 some acres designated for light industrial firms that will remain for those uses. So, this one specific site doesn't conflict with the primary objective of the campus industrial designation. So, then the council looks at, "Well, is it somehow going to detract from or take away from or prevent that primary objective from moving forward?" So, then you would look

2:08:54 at compatibility. Um and the compatibility factors that this calls out specifically are noise, pollution, and vibration, but you could look at others. Oh, and and and being in a campus-like setting. You could look at other impacts, as well. So, kind of two ways to approach it. >> All right, Council Weber. >> I really appreciate that that we want to find a path forward here, but I I'm sitting here and I'm listening to all of this, and we've we've spent so many hours, staff have spent so many hours going through all of this material, giving us, you know, trying to educate us around all of these different things. And I'm just I'm I'm listening to this thinking to myself, yes, this is such an

2:09:39 important thing, and nobody wants to say no. But at the same time, if we have to stretch this far to determine whether this is compatible in a in a in a zone or a plan or any of these things that this council has put in place, this just for me is not the this isn't the decision we should be making today. We should be making this around a more holistic approach. Do we want to change the zoning? What do we want the zoning to be? We just keep putting ourselves on this slippery path of one-off decisions, and I I'm really struggling to to to be supportive of that. >> Hi, Council Quadros. >> So, we've talked this through, I think,

2:10:25 three or four times. We've acknowledged, um, the difficulty of this conversation, and I do really appreciate it, Christina, that, um, that you've stated it as well, um, because of the needs in this community for a project like this. Um, but ultimately, that's not the question that you're asking us. Um, and Councilor Weber, you used the word stretch, and I have that written like four times on my paper. Um, that this comprehensive plan, um, with the designation of the comp- campus industrial, we're being asked to fit this comp plan for annexation purposes, but path one, I believe, is a stretch. Taking it at a higher level, I believe, is also a stretch. Path two, fairly

2:11:10 obvious. Um, it's just not it's not it's not fitting, um, in my opinion, for that consistency that we're looking for. >> Everything we're talking about, plans and goals and everything for this area, is irrelevant. We need to annex it to the city first. It's going to be annexed eventually. Let's get that done, and then we go on with the rest of the stuff. >> And I think, um, between the between the two issues, I actually see one as less of a stretch. I mean, if I kind of play this, uh, North Gateway area out, and I kind of imagine

2:11:56 it filled out with the way it's developed the last 20 years, I don't feel like any one of these is inherently incompatible, and our goal as a city has always been specifically to diversify our employment up there. Now, that doesn't get me all the way, but I I agree that if we go if we choose to go down path two, this thing's essentially done, right? Because I don't think it meets the rules for for path two, but I do think that having the conversation at this level around that it there are it is an employment use, and it does look and feel and talk like a like a campus-like environment, and it's got some of those some of these other elements. I think we keep talk I think we keep talking about it unless folks want to try voting on which direction they want to go.

2:12:42 >> Councilor Bock. So, is it fair to say the understanding of um if if we go down uh route one, that we're acknowledging like this still has some some real obstacles that that that could kill us down the road. We This is we're not we're not saying that we can get through all of that. We're just saying that we want to keep working on it because we think that, you know, it's important and there's value here, but that there's still some real barriers. Is that Is that what I'm Is that what I'm understanding we could be saying with with adopting route one? >> I think if we chose route one, that does

2:13:29 not mean this thing that we're not going to find another issue that essentially causes us to deny it, but it would also mean that effective >> Keep this conversation going. >> And in route Yeah, and go ahead, Councilor Nu. >> I want to clarify because I want to be really specific. Um there's if you're talking about a a conversation, then that conversation could be siting mental health services in Springfield, which is not the annexation decision. Um and so when and I've heard the council use that like keep the conversation or keep this issue moving forward as like a broader discussion around siting a a facility like this versus applying the annexation criteria to the application and how many more meetings the council continues to deliberate on the specific annexation

2:14:15 criteria. So, um the what I will say is that the city's annexation decision does not stop any public discussion or city efforts to you know, help identify land or like any discussion on this facility. Um and and this need for this kind of service in Springfield. It does not stop development from happening in the future on this land. It simply denies the application based on the the annexation based on the application you have in front of you. There could be a different application. There could be a different set of facts. There could be different plan designation um or an agreement you know, to seek a plan you know, there could be some other set of facts in a different application that the council

2:15:02 might reach a different decision. So, I I'm just wanting to be really clear when you talk What do you What do you mean when you talk about the conversation moving forward? >> So, to be clear, I mean talking about this piece of property applying the annexation criteria, not necessarily the broader the broader policy issue around around mental health. Go ahead, Council. >> Agreed. That's what I'm talking about as well. Acknowledging that we could we could apply the annexation um criteria and do that and as we after that happens, there could be a whole lot of other things. We might not get to agreement about other pieces of it. >> All right. All right. So, I think we got to decide how we want to move forward here. Do we want to just take a a brief straw poll about which one of these versions you see it as? Um looking at Christina to

2:15:49 make sure that >> You can certainly do this. The record and the hearing are closed. There's no issue of bias. You are allowed to start coming to a decision. Um I will say your straw poll on how you would interpret the comp plan does not bind you in any way to any future vote. It's just to sort of help you narrow down where you're at, where you might have a majority for a vote um in the future. >> Okay, so do do folks want to talk about it more, have more questions, or just take an initial cuz we've got we still have other items to get to. Um so want to take an initial kind of count about kind of what they're thinking. >> Um >> Go ahead. >> Mr. Mayor, this is this is one of the first opportunities where we've actually had to speak about this topic that we've heard quite a bit about at time. I would actually be in favor of and I

2:16:36 know you love hearing this, of moving this to a following meeting so that we have an opportunity to digest the final information that's presented to us here. And if that's not okay, I understand that, but I'm just saying there's a tremendous amount riding on this. I'd like to be able to think through it and take a little bit more time with it. >> I I think that is a I think that is a reasonable I think that is a reasonable approach too. If people aren't ready to start making some decisions to to take a little bit more time to think about it. I'm going to look over to this side and see what All right, you guys are going to have to jump in here because no matter what we our obligation is to keep moving this moving this thing forward, but we get to move it forward at the pace that we want. If you want more time, we can take

2:17:21 some more time cuz I know it's on the agenda for next week to deliberate more further. >> Yeah, my intent was to deliberate on the infrastructure issues that the council gave that direction. Um I'm not sure what you would like me to do if you're still not resolved on this matter because that I I don't know how to prepare for that work session without direction on the sort of condition precedent. >> Okay, so let's do this. Hang on to that thought. Let's see where everybody if people are ready to either start deciding uh kind of path one or path two or if they want a little bit more time to think about it. You want a little bit more time? Council Quadros, are you are you ready to kind of pick a path or do you want more time?

2:18:09 >> I think that I'm ready to pick a path. >> Okay. So, why don't why don't we try why don't we try that? So, Councilwoman Quadros, what are you thinking about a path? >> I am more landing in the path two at this point. >> All right. We'll we'll let Councilman Stout have a little bit more time because he asked for it. Councilman Webber? >> Okay. So, >> Okay. >> You have to interpret your comp plan in order to make a decision. And so, is there a different interpretation? So, to be clear comp the the There are other interpretations, but my recommendation is that these are the two that are obvious to me. Um interpretation one is

2:18:54 broader, may allow the annexation. Interpretation two does not allow the annexation. >> So, let me propose an alternative here. Do folks want to go to the next week work session and work the other issues and then come back to this one? Oh, we can do whatever we want here. Well, I shouldn't say that. We got to we got to You guys know. >> I need to have a framework under which the council wants me to discuss infrastructure issues, which is going to depend on what do you see this comprehensive plan policy meaning meaning? Um And so, I'm not sure how to present meaningful deliberations to you and relevant information without one of two approaches. >> Okay. So, Councilman >> I I got it. Yes. Thank you for for

2:19:40 adding additional clarification for me. Um path two. >> Okay. Councilwoman Rodli? >> Path one. >> Councilman Buck? path path two. I mean, I could get to path one, but I'm I'm path two right now. >> Okay. Councilor Moe? >> Well, I'm path one, but again, annexation is a big bright criteria right now. >> Path two. So, that Okay. So, that would effectively direct you to deny it. Uh for the record, I would be path one. I think talking about this thing is and continuing to work the other issues, but if we go down path two, then then we

2:20:25 should just make a motion now to deny it. >> I I don't believe you need to make a motion now. One option is the council could bring it back with an order to deny based on an interpretation under path two, um for review at your next regular meeting on October 5th. You could use the work session to review that staff report um and reasoning um an order in more detail at a work session. Um Those are both options. Um I I don't recommend the council needs to vote tonight unless the majority of the council was feeling like the order in the packet with the findings there were they were very confident about that being the right set of findings for an order to deny based on this interpretation. >> No, let's let's This is a big enough and complicated enough thing that us continuing to work the order a little

2:21:11 bit more a little bit further is going to you know, would probably help everybody. >> Okay. >> Um so, I think we let's bring it back next week when we have the work session. >> Okay. >> And then we can work that and then we can work that piece. >> Okay. >> Um and then and then I get and then can you give us other options for what what might happen next, right? Because we're denying this application a different set of facts may change it. >> Correct. Um I think that, you know, I one thing I think I want to caution the council on is that I'm expecting you'll receive new ex parte contacts um as a result of the meeting tonight. And so, um it is not So, if you want to factor in new information you learn that's outside the record into your decision-making, you

2:21:57 have to reopen the record in hearing. Um and the council can decide to do that at a later regular session if you get ex parte contacts and it or things submitted into the record that are too late, which is what, you know, they might not be they might be in business from the audience at a future regular session, for example. Um so you'll have that option. I would still caution you to respond that you can't discuss it. Um that it's still an ongoing process in the same way that I believe councilors have been responding. Um and I um you know, provide any communications you do receive to planning staff um and to city manager's office and city attorney's office so that we can keep track of things um and the council can make decisions in the future on if you want to reopen the record um for additional information. You can also just vote to um be clear

2:22:44 that you're excluding later submitted information into the record, later submitted information from your consideration. So, you don't have to consider things that people tell you um going forward. And I think no matter what direction I got from council tonight, you were going to hear from people after this meeting um probably regardless. So, that's just some some caution. And um yes, I can have um options available for you or just information to consider at the work session. >> Well, and I >> to be a tight turnaround, so I probably won't have a lot there, but we can definitely discuss. >> Well, if we need more time, we got to take more you know, we we got to take more time, so that gives us >> a decision in the work session anyway, so it'll be time for Yeah. >> And I think the other question is what we just did what we just talked through right now is non-binding, right? >> Correct. It is absolutely non-binding. It's just It's just a way for you to

2:23:30 gauge where you're at currently so that we can figure out where it's most beneficial to council to spend more time um discussing and and what document staff should bring forward for further consideration. >> Okay. Are there any other questions? All right. Thank you, Christina. Next item, please. >> Uh the next item is under resolutions. This is a resolution of necessity of walking and biking network improvements, project number P21196. And Jeremy Shear is here for this item.

2:24:17 >> Good evening, Mayor, counselors. Um this subject is uh no less weightier than the last, but hopefully less complicated. Um City of Springfield um approved walking and biking, which is a project intended to improve pedestrian and bicycle uh um connectivity. This project is our first federal aid project as a certified city, federal certified city. So, this is our test. The city must acquire various permanent and temporary uh construction easements and uh utility easements from affected properties along the project corridors.

2:25:05 Adoption authorizes the city to negotiate with affected property owners, and if necessary, proceed with condemnation proceedings pursuant Oregon law. The right-of-way acquisition phase is a critical path for a successful project. And it will help maintain the project schedule and allow construction activities to proceed in a timely manner. And that's all I have. I'll take any questions. >> Does anybody have questions? All right. I think we're ready for a motion. >> I do. What what? >> The term actually I power of eminent domain I don't see that very often. I see that hidden back in some documents,

2:25:51 but this is very prominent here. How does that apply? >> The power of eminent domain it is the power that the Yeah, well, it's the powers that you have um to uh enter into um con- condemnation proceedings. And and really condemnation is a process. So, it begins through negotiations and so on and so forth. Uh and that is your your power of eminent domain is is the process of condemnation. If that kind of makes sense, I'm not sure if it does, but

2:26:37 I'm I'm sorry. I can't >> Are there particular properties that are impacted right now? >> So, there there's um essentially there's uh five properties in this packet here. Um one of them happens to be Odot property, which they're going to uh relinquish to us. So, we're really not going to condemn on them. >> I think we should. >> Okay. Um and then the other is um McKenzie Willamette, and they've already agreed, you know, that they they want to um play. So, the rest of them are just pri- private um >> Yeah, I I I imagine most people will do go through that, but I just haven't seen it that prominent before. >> Yeah, the the these are these would be considered strip takings. They're very

2:27:22 minimal. Um so, uh and um mostly um temporary construction easements to allow us to do the work. So, they're they're not uh we're not taking up a lot of property, let's just say. >> Yeah. Or property rights. >> Thank you very much. >> Councilor Quadros. >> If you were to incite the eminent domain, uh would that come before us again? >> Um I don't think it would be necessary, but I think we would do it as a courtesy. You can talk to our council, but this this this would I'm let me just state this. Um that is the last resort. So, there's other processes we can go through arbitration. There's a lot of other things that we can do through negotiate

2:28:08 to negotiation process before it even gets there. So, um if we did go had to go to condemnation and it was something that was um that we well, I think we would we would just come. I would make that recommendation. We'd come and let you know, but this order, the way I understand it, already gives us the authority to to initiate the um condemnation proceedings. >> Uh Councilor Bucknum. >> It it just to clarify, I think this is what you just said, but the the approach forward is to engage with property owners, have conversations, see if we can't come to some sort of

2:28:55 arrangement so that it really has minimal to no impact on their property, the property value, all of those things, and then we're doing all of all of what can be done to ensure that we're maintaining, you know, private the integrity of the private property. So, so the the home owners are going to or property owners or whoever it is is going to be able to have conversations around, okay, these would be my concerns, how can we work through that? So, the with consideration to um privacy and safety and property values and all that, like that's all baked into the process that we try to get to an agreement um long before we start talking about eminent domain.

2:29:41 >> That That That's correct. So, uh the the the the law says the greatest public good for the least private injury. So, when the engineers are designing this, they're considering what's the least amount of impact for the greatest public good. And so, part of what uh we do prior to negotiations is right away is involved with this process to make sure that uh the impacts are minimized as much as possible. And a lot of these things have to do with uh design and and engineering and what's what needs to happen in order for the project to be successful. So, we have our input and usually they'll give

2:30:26 it to me and I'll say, "Okay, do we really need that much? Can we do a little bit more?" So, there's We We have There's some internal negotiations that occur as well through the process. >> Okay. I think we're ready for a motion. >> I move to adopt a resolution exercising the power of eminent domain and authorizing a resolution pursuant to ORS 223.005, ORS 223.105, and ORS 35.600-625 concerning acquisition of right-of-way necessary for walking and biking network improvements, Project P21196. >> And I will second that. >> Any other discussion to the motion? All

2:31:11 right, Neil, call the vote, please. >> Councilor Weber. >> Yes. >> Councilor Moe. >> Yes. >> Councilor Rodley. >> Yes. >> Councilor Quadros. >> Yes. >> Councilor Buck. >> Yes. >> And Councilor Stout. >> Yes, thank you. >> Motion passes six yeses, zero noes. Thank you, Jeremy. Next item, please. >> Any business from the city council? >> Councilor Stout. I just want to bring up with my fellow councilors. I know that our police chief does a great job looking at e-bikes and also the speed and where they are operating. Um but I I just want us all to be aware about how it is a bit more pernicious than we might think. And that it is is causing upsets to many of our neighbors, many of our friends, and a lot of people have very justly raised safety concerns about e-bikes. So, I just want us as a

2:31:56 council to do what we can in small ways and certainly in coordination with our excellent police force, uh consider ways we might um if strengthen our policy on e-bikes uh even to make it more restrictive than uh the Oregon state law might have on there. Um and I'm doing I want to make that suggestion primarily out of the respect for public safety and also the overall livability of our neighborhoods. Countless bikers telling me how they are very concerned about getting run off the road uh by e-bikes or just regular uh folks. So, I just think it's an important conversation to have um even more publicly um even though I know we certainly have the state laws that apply um but I think there's more to say on that. Thank you.

2:32:46 Councilor Buck. >> Uh I just want to comment. I I appreciate you bringing this up uh Councilor Stout and um one of the things that I appreciate about the experience that that we have on our council is is Councilor Quintero actually has quite a bit of history with this um and and has watched other communities go through exactly what we're going through with e-bikes specifically and how um those and and it's kind of the routes around safety and all of those things kind of kind of impact each other. So, I'm really excited to have those conversations. I wholeheartedly with you. I'm really excited that we have the experience and an expertise on on Council to to speak to

2:33:31 what other communities um comparable in Oregon comparable to ours um have experienced and gone through with this particular subject. >> All right, thank you. Anybody else? Council Quadrus. >> Does anyone have any more conversation about e-bikes or a different topic or two? >> Go ahead. >> Okay. So, um I'd like to talk library for a moment um and I'm interested in circling back on the library discussion from our budget process. Um during those conversations, there were several clear questions that were raised about library services, priorities, and how we make the best use of the resources that we had of have available. And I don't think we necessarily have

2:34:16 uh those answers uh from those questions yet. Um I also know there was a survey conducted this summer that specifically sought input from library users. Um I'd like to understand what we learned from that survey, how that information is being evaluated alongside the questions that Council raised during the budget process, and what next steps staff are considering. Um I'd like to make sure that we can get some follow-up on the questions that were left outstanding and understand what we can expect will come back to Council this fall. >> Uh thank you uh Council Quadrus. Next week we have uh our library director scheduled to give a presentation to Council. And um part of

2:35:03 that would um I've she and I have talked about this presentation because the library does do a lot of things in the community and there's a lot to report on. So, you know, in the um interest of prior excuse me, prioritizing time, Um I requested that uh we first address that some of the questions that may still be outstanding from the budget process and then also um talk about the survey and um what some of the results were and it was um not necessarily a conventional survey in the scientific sense, but but rather more of a customer satisfaction and awareness type of survey. And um you know, talking about both the library and uh to a lesser extent the museum. So, um more to

2:35:48 come on that and I I I think we should have some continued discussions as we um move through the year. Thank you. >> Go ahead. I think you had one more. >> Perfect. Thank you. I do want that back um in front of us. Um and then uh after a crash at 35th and Oregon Streets in Ward 4 this summer, uh staff, council, and the mayor spent time in conversation with neighbors about their concerns. And I'd also like to get um to hear from staff about the outcome of that work and whether there are any further considerations or next steps that we're going to make. >> Councilor again, I think I'm I would uh say that first of all, I appreciate the rapid response of yourself and other

2:36:33 members of the council, um our public works crew, and our law enforcement community. Um I'm going to have Neil Andadi give a little bit more specificity. There were some things that we did right away to uh address this and then uh there are some some things that were still in in the pipe. So, Neil. >> Yeah, thank you, Nancy, and thank you, Councilor, for the question and for your time out there that evening. So, we, as you remember, put together a list of interested parties that were at that meeting and two in particular uh residents in a leadership role to help us work through the problems and then report back to the community. Uh, initially we went out the next that very week and re installed the kind of

2:37:19 stop bars they're called. It's the thick white line that's in the street. And also there was a stop stencil in that street that had worn out. So we ordered those stencils and those will go back in. We also trimmed trees around the stop sign to give better clearance. Um, and over the last I think week and a half we've had cameras in the area that are counting traffic and looking at speeds and really getting that data so we can answer the questions properly. Um, and continued discussions are happening with our staff and the two neighbors who've um, been assigned to keep in touch with us. So that's ongoing. Once we have that data put together, we'll have a more broad broader picture of what can be done in that area.

2:38:08 >> Thank you. That's great. I appreciate that. >> And one note, we also forwarded the concerns related to Willamette Lane to Willamette Lane that came out of that meeting. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Next item, please. >> Uh, next item under business from the city manager is the Springfield Police Association or SPA 2026 through 2029 collective bargaining agreement CBA. Chaim Hertz is here for this item. >> Good evening again, Council. Mayor, Chaim Hertz, HR Director here at the City of Springfield. I will be reasonably brief. I know it's been a long night. I am here seeking a motion

2:38:53 to authorize or not authorize the city manager to sign a 3-year successor agreement with Springfield Police Association. The details of that agreement are outlined in the packet and I'll pause if there's any questions. >> Any questions? I thought we just did this. >> Was it 3 years ago? >> It was 3 years ago. >> Go ahead. Go ahead, counselor Stout. >> Um and this is different than the sergeants um >> That's correct. Yeah, the police sergeants negotiations are ongoing. >> I move to authorize the city manager to execute the successor collective bargaining agreement between the city of Springfield and the SPA for the term July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029.

2:39:38 >> I'll second that. >> Is there any discussion to this? All right. Neil, could you call the vote? >> Yes, Counselor Weber. >> Yes. >> Counselor Moe. >> Yes. >> Counselor Rodley. >> Yes. >> Counselor Quadros. >> Yes. >> Counselor Buck. >> Yes. >> And Counselor Stout. >> Yes, thank you. >> Motion passes, six yeses, zero noes. Next item, please. >> Any other business from the city manager? >> Just quickly, I want to thank Jane for your efforts in getting this contract completed and as well the leadership of the Springfield Police Association. No further business for me. >> Any business from the city attorney? >> No, no business, thank you. >> All right, thank you everybody. We're adjourned.