Springfield City Council — October 5, 2026

0:11 Are are we recording? I didn't hear the recording, lady. Okay, thank you. I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon >> here, >> councelor Weber here, councelor Mo >> here, >> councelor Rodley >> here, councelor Fuadros here, councelor Buck >> here, >> and councelor Stout >> here. Thank you. >> We have two items this evening. The first one is the transportation funding for the 42nd street with Emma Newman. Good evening, mayor and council. I also have Stan Petro, our city engineer, here with me. So, I'm Emma Newman, the transportation planning manager. Thanks for having us tonight. We have a brief slide to show a nice little visual. Um,

0:56 the request is to direct staff to use or not use a portion of the remaining House Bill 2017 transportation funding dedicated to 42nd Street for a small corridor study to inform how to use the remaining funds available. The funds available total about 9.8 million. Up on the screen, the second slide, please, you will see the location that we are talking about. Always like to have a visual. So, you'll see the Oregon 126 Expressway going through the middle of the slide there. And then there are three intersections. So there's a stop controlled westbound off-ramp location at the top there followed by two traffic signal um controlled intersections that we have today at the a eastbound ramps and Olympic Street. So first starting with the problem, it

1:42 is not clear how to best use the remaining $9.8 million for 42nd Street given that the dollars will not go as far as originally intended due to in inflation. We want to demonstrate good stewardship of the funds we received to make progress on addressing the needs that they were intended for and to help us with future funding requests. Updated traffic analysis has not been completed to determine preferred solutions for the three intersections shown on the screen there. Oregon 126 expressway at 42nd westbound ramps, eastbound ramps, and Olympic Street. It is important that any solution implemented at the westbound ramps is analyzed to ensure that it coordinates well with the eastbound and Olympic Street intersections since they are in close proximity to one another.

2:27 Typically, it would be ODOT's responsibility to fund interchange projects on the state system. However, this location is not a top priority for the Oregon Department of Transportation, and it is unlikely to be funded by the department anytime soon. The city was fortunate to receive funding from the state legislature. The city has funds that can either be used to make progress or risk being eroded further by inflation. Using the funds in this way will help make progress on implementing the projects in the Springfield transportation system plan. So, we have an opportunity. There's been a shift in ODOT's approach which presents an opportunity to rightsize the planning efforts for addressing the local transportation system needs. ODOT confirmed that the full requirement for an interchange area management plan, an

3:14 IMP as it's called, um that would not be needed to complete minor modifications at these locations. ODO confirmed that intersection modifications that the study will consider are indeed minor modifications and do not require an IMP. A streamlined and efficient study will inform how to strategically use the funds to improve safety and operations in this location on the transportation system. ODOT also supports the city leading and managing a small corridor study and we know that from staff conversations between city staff and ODOT. So what does approving this request mean? Approving this request would support the city using funds to pay staff and hire technical expertise necessary to inform how to use the remaining funds. The study is anticipated to cost about $200 to

4:00 $300,000. And so that proposal is about 3% of the total remaining dollars to figure out how to um effectively use the remaining 90% 97% to continue making progress and show the good stewardship of the funds that we received. Staff are here to receive direction or answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, >> Councelor Rodley. >> Thank you. Um, and I I'm just going to say it again because I think you kind of got to it because I had it at the beginning, but this 200 the 300,000 is going to come out of that 9.8 million, right? >> Correct. >> Um, um, I support I mean, anything we can do to keep this project moving forward and

4:45 keep showing our due diligence around it, I think, is great. Um, and I think 200 I mean 200 closer to the 200 than the to 300, but that's all right. But I'm curious and I'm I'm imagining that the public is also curious when we have a pot of money like that like that 9.8 million. Is that money that we have sitting somewhere drawing interest or is that money that we draw down as we need it and use it? >> So in this situation, the House bill in 2017 allocated the funds. It took until 2023 to actually receive the funds. When we received the funds, that was just money transferred to the city. The city then spent a little bit over two million doing the pavement preservation project, but the dollars are acrewing interest as they are sitting in the account in the

5:30 meantime. Um, but they're not acrewing interest at the rate that inflation is increasing costs. >> Who would want to know that? >> Council Buck. >> All right. So, I'm glad Jeff is here because Jeff has invested years in training me on how to think about these things through planning commission. So, [clears throat] um one of the things like kind of using that intersection and and having awareness of that traveling at different times I have my perception as to how those intersections are performing. Um, and I think I know that there's a difference between performance at like peak times versus performance at like all the other

6:16 times. Um, I'm particularly concerned about how would we measure that performance. Um, when you're when you're coming off and trying to make particularly the lefthand turn where the stop sign is, the other two have stop lights and so there are protected left turns. there's not a protected left turn at that stop sign. And so I would be really interested to see what our what our data if our data supports what I think is an intersection that's maybe underperforming. I don't know that it's failed or anything like that. It just seems like it's maybe not meeting the city's um standard. I don't know for sure, but I would be interested to know more about that because I definitely

7:03 um have a lot of interest in in seeing what what can we do to protect people that are I mean turning left or right, but particularly left. I mean, cars are moving pretty fast there and um it's having made that left turn turn hundreds of times, there's been times I've misjudged it, too, and it's like that car was moving a little faster than I thought. I definitely have a lot of interest in knowing more about what we can do there. >> Councelor Stoke, what is a minor modification and what are some of the things that we can try doing that are within that scope or like that would answer the study. Um, I think I'm also curious, um, tease out a little bit for

7:50 me, uh, you know, what what are the some of the capacities we do and do not have within our staff, uh, here because I'm not a professional traffic engineer. I I'm just kind of this is this is more I'm genuinely interested, but also what is a minor versus not minor in this case. I'm not sure technically the 100 100% of the answer on this, but I think if you're changing the alignment of the entrance and exit ramps on the interchange or anything, you know, like that. Um, I wouldn't think that signals there or roundabouts would necessarily be like interchange modification or major interchange modification. Kind of a minor thing. And then as far as internally, um, on this one, we'll probably just be managing the consultants that will do a lot of the like traffic analysis and transportation

8:35 design on it. Um we have some capability in house of doing like ADA ramps and some transportation work but and traffic work but on this one most of this study is kind of higher level and traffic analysis looking at like the intersection there how it functions the safety issues and the interplay between the different intersections and we don't have that um capability in house to do that >> council. So I I was curious about um the original plan and the ADA uh carveouts. Is there and this is just kind of a basic question. Can those be removed from this project at an early point to be put back at a later point to perhaps no

9:20 >> the ADA improvements? >> Yeah, pretty much anywhere we do work, we'll have to do ADA improvements. Sometimes we can lessen the amount that we need to do, but we have there's a minimum amount that you have to do to meet ADA requirements, but sometimes there's there's the kind of optional ADA that we would typically do if it was a permanent it's going to be there forever >> type [clears throat] of a deal. So, yeah. >> So, in that original plan, was there more than was needed? >> The original plan >> the I guess it would have been um >> I can see. >> Yeah. So felt like the two 200 2017 plan something like that you had before >> where we are now. >> Yeah. So when the city asked the state legislature for funds back in 2017, we recognized that the corridor had a number of intersections that were not

10:06 brought up to be compliant with the Americans with Disability Act. An example of that on the attachment, you can see the photo where we have a staircase and then people who are using a gravel ramp that is much steeper than someone in a wheelchair could access. So the initial ask was saying, "Hey, we have a problem. We haven't brought these intersections up to compliance and there is nothing that has shifted away from saying we wouldn't comply with the federal requirements. This continues through as intended." >> So I guess my my my eventual question or my point is that exact picture that you're talking about. So that particular ramp is actually cut into the levey and and I feel like it's probably degraded the levey in some way, shape or form that we maybe don't know. And um the

10:53 steepness of it is so steep that in order, my imagination tells me in order to make it ADA compliant, you would need to dig into it even further. Is that perhaps? Yeah, potentially you might do like a longer ramp that goes like the the length of the levey, but that wouldn't necessarily be required as part of this project depending on what the improvements are. You know, if we're doing a roundabout or something there and we're getting into the levy, we probably have to address that. But, um, the solution that this study might end, that's partly why we're doing this study is to look at the different options that we can do and how much it's going to cost for different things. But, we we may not have to touch that staircase as part of this project. And so then so then are we taking into consideration the levy, the street, the park?

11:38 >> We're kind of >> all the parts and pieces because I can't imagine that we would go forward with the 9 million or whatever whatever we can go forward with to then have to turn around and potentially tear it out because levy requires something a little bit different. I'm just trying to get to all of those pieces. >> Yeah. I don't think we're going to have a perfect scenario where both the projects are happening at the same time or like combined somehow. So, we're gonna we're kind of separating them into two projects, but at the end of the day, all the ADA stuff will be addressed one way or another, whether it's with this one or with the with a levy project. Kind of depends on the scope of the levy, too. If they're going to touch that, if we're raising the height of the levy, if we're focusing mostly on the river side, not touching it, then some of it would be addressed with this project as well. >> It feels regardless of what we do to the

12:25 river, it feels that there is going to have to be something with the levy. And so, that concerns me. Um, and so then on that stairway specifically, can it just be ignored altogether and just not even put into the scope of the project while we're working through the levy? >> Well, I think we have a ve very real constraint of these dollars will not build everything on the full corridor. So, if you don't touch an intersection, then it continues to be in non-compliance. But if you start to do construction work and touch a ramp, then you need to address it. So depending on what we choose to do with the outcome of the results of the study, the investment may or may not be at this location. >> Like we may be able to repare a bunch of the pavement and do that northernmost

13:10 intersection that we know is like the biggest safety issue there, put a signal in and that wouldn't touch that area of the levy. And so that would be the project. Um, it may be that we do the entire corridor and we're able to do improvements to the two existing signals in that signal and then we also be able to do all the ADA or maybe the levy project is raising the levy through that section and then they're addressing it. The projects are kind of going to be going concurrently so there will be some coordination between them, but we don't yet know, you know, which one's going to happen first. >> So, not necessarily an option to put the ADA access to the levy in the levy project. Yeah, we could we could still do that potentially depending on but this I know the scope of the levy it's a whole another topic but it's in flux right now too as far as what that solution is going to be. So >> all right, councelor Stout.

13:56 >> Uh just one thing that's really important to me is that whatever solution we do come to, we have also asked our employment partners. So specifically International Paper, Sundance Lumber, even possibly Kingsford, I'm not totally sure, but any of the major users of those intersections, I think that's really important just to have the conversation and a checkbox. Yes, we had a conversation with so and so it's going to make a big diff bunch of difference to them. Thank you. Yep. Council Weber. >> So, just um is there a deadline on use of these funds at all or obviously the deterioration of the or the impact that that will have with erosion? But is there like a specific time deadline to use these funds by? >> Uh so to be clear, this is for the transportation part, the west side of

14:41 the levy. The levy has separate uh funding in a separate project there. I don't know that there's a limitation. Although, you know, if this this study that we're doing identified like phases to where the 9.8 could be used for a certain portion, but there's remaining that we can't get to, then, you know, would help us to make progress on this project and move that forward to get future funding for like the next phase of it um to be able to do all of it. So, >> okay. Just a quick followup when um >> when we talk about how to incorporate if we approve going forward with this which I'm in support of >> if we are talking about how to incorporate this management or project into the timing and management of you know staff time to do all the work around it. Do we have some idea when we

15:26 would want to start that or have we reached out to potential consultants to find out what timelines they have available? I think it's more the staff limitation working it into our staff work plan so that we have staffing capacity to procure procure. Um to your previous question I don't know of an a time period in which the funds would expire because it's in the city's account the funds are sitting there. Um, there is the broader context of if the city is approaching the state legislature for additional funds for other needs, then it would be really good to be showing good making good progress on this and having a plan of how we're continuing to address the needs for the previous ask. >> Okay. Again, I'm in support. I just with the cost of dollars increasing, it's probably quicker sooner than later would

16:12 be best. But >> council meatly on the other side of the council buck. >> Thank you. You saw me. Uh, I looked at that ADA ramp the other day and it just appears to me that it could be turned along along the path with a ramp going up and that it should be taken care of very easily. So, that's my that's my solution. Yeah, exactly. You can make a long a longer ramp that goes along and just slowly rises up. I've done that in Pendleton on a levey there. Um the the thing is that when you touch the levey and you do anything on it, you know, it it ends up you have a lot of permitting and other things that go along with it adds a lot of cost just to do one single ramp. So yeah, it would be more economical feasible for the levy project

16:57 to do it. It's just we don't know yet if the scope of that project. >> Councelor Buck, I I think one of the things that I wanted to clarify and I I'm in support of this this project moving forward. I I'm also very much agree with the the concern that councelor Codrus brought up about the levy. I mean, I think the levy in general is is a high is one of those things that's of high concern to all of us. And I also um want to make sure that we're not in in in going to run into a a place where we're having to give this these funds back. Um because I definitely don't want to do that. And so, you know, sometimes you you can't h have

17:42 all of your, you know, you can't always have your cake and eat it too, right? But at the same token, it's like I don't want to hold off on ADA funds, um, concerned about the levy and lose opportunities for for funding for for the street as well. So, I'm not sure how best to navigate that. Um, and again, I you know, my position is very much in line with what councelor Stout brought up. Um, I'm just wondering if if there's a risk of losing those funds. >> I think like Emma said, I don't think there's risk that we'll lose it. It's just the value of that money decreases over time. Things get more expensive and it's hard to go ask for more money whether even if it's a different agency or different pot of money. It just looks

18:27 like, hey, Springfield's sitting on money and they're not they're maybe either not capable of moving it or they're not willing to and it just lessens our position as far as asking for more. >> It's the political leverage we need if transportation takes a serious conversation in the in Salem. Um I had one comment, two questions. It's so tight out there between the street, between the levy, between, you know, every other project, the water. You know, I'm sure EW is working on the water project and the power project. It's really important that we minimize the risk that we're going to put in infrastructure that we're going to have to turn around and take out. Like whatever happens, that's we got to figure out a way to phase it. That's just being a good steward with the with public stallers. When I looked at the

19:13 map, my question was it's focused on these couple of intersections, right? Does that mean the study is really um regional to those intersections or are we going to get a broader view across the actual whole corridor? >> The small study would focus on these three spec three specific intersections because this is the area where we don't have as much detailed design and analysis with current traffic counts as we would like to have to inform what to do with the funding which the funding could be spent a bit more broadly than this geographic area on the corridor. And we should expect as as a policy body that like 9.8 million is not going to get everything we need have done out there. We're going to be out asking for more money for 42nd Street. Okay. So

19:59 that that and then lastly um how much when you look at the interchange itself right the big concern I have is always how much traffic we have backing up onto on towards the freeway you know and so that should help alleviate just doing these three intersections should help help alleviate all of that like we got councelor Buck's left-hand turn and a lot of other unres risky activities But also that that will cover the interchange as it comes into the into that intersection, right? >> Yeah. Intersection analysis looks at all of that. >> Yep. Go ahead, Council Rodley. >> I know you gave us like 10 minutes to talk about this and we're all dug in.

20:44 >> 42nd Street. >> I I know. And because when you were mentioning what your concerns were, I kind of liked where you were going with the the um is this just it because I know you know up there where Marcola intersects with it. I worry about that a lot. Um I think for me one of the things I am looking forward to hearing more about is you know that really is very much an industrial area and we have the buses and things out there. So I worry about like those sharp turns of trucks and things happening. So I'm sure people will be paying attention to that. Um but just thinking you know especially if we continue to increase traffic out there >> I think you've got your head nod to go forward. Um, and I think it's a good reminder for the rest of the council that is there's a lot of interest around

21:30 this intersection and we'll we'll have to just keep reminding the community how much work there is to do. It's this isn't going to be just it. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Right. So then we have the code compliance program update with Charlie Kent.

22:19 All right. Good evening, council. Uh my name is Charlie Kent. I'm the code compliance program manager. Um and most of my updates uh to council over the past few years have been about rebuilding this program. And tonight is really about what we're going to do with the capacity of what we built. We're we're in the me uh we've matured. Uh we've got some staff. Uh uh we've got a good code. We've got software. We're there. Um but really before I get into that, I'd like to um recognize the exceptional team I have. Um and so that's um Officer Brenda, um Officer Hawkma, and Sarah Weaver. Um you know, they're they're awesome. Um, in fact, um, Officer Hawkma was just, uh, uh, made the distinction of being the city's first certified code enforcement officer, uh, from the American

23:04 Association of Code Enforcement. So, tonight is our annual uh, code enforcement update. Um, over the past several years, most of those conversations, as I said, have been about rebuilding. Um, and those specifically were um, including staff and tools, um, procedures, and really building out the capacity of what we did. uh my first uh council presentation, I was the city's uh sole code enforcement officer. Uh we've now got a good team. Um so this is an update on uh the services that we uh provide. Uh thank you, Alison. Um and also um we've got a request for direction on a couple items and and so that's lean recovery. um how to set priorities um and then also uh what we do with um proactive information gathering, not

23:50 proactive enforcement. Uh see if I've got it. There we go. Um at its core, this is still a compliance program. Um our first objective here is education and communication um and building a workable opportunity to correct the problem. uh formal um enforcement and abatement um are tools that we use when those things don't work or when there's a risk that requires a faster response than that. Um Springfield's built a municipal function capable of owning the response to community complaints um from intake to resolution and that's that's pretty unique within uh city programs. Um we're

24:37 also able to um really move those along by coordinating the specialized city's uh resources uh behind the scenes. Um the question here is now how how do we systematically deploy those resources? Um moving on, we have a um we're fortunate to have a sanitation grant um which is essentially a I think we're in year three now. Um it's a good example of of what I mean when I say that compliance um doesn't always mean enforcement. Um sometimes the the primary barrier to uh these folks complying um isn't an unwillingness, it's a lack of resources or maybe a practical ability to resolve that problem. Um and so if we're able to remove that barrier, this has been the

25:23 the main driver here. And I'd like to share some of the the numbers here because it's pretty significant. Um uh since inception, we've issued 272 letters um outreach letters to folks um asking if they'd like this free sanitation service. Uh we've served 71 locations um individually. Um we've um arranged for 170 or I'm sorry 107 um dumpsters and these are 20 yard dumpsters. These are these are big. Um and that's that's um removed about 155 um tons of garbage um without uh formal enforcement procedures in the city.

26:09 So um sidewalks are a a simple example of the operating u model that we're trying to build out. Um in our um capacity we respond to complaints of sidewalks. Uh we are not out uh looking for these, nor do we um operate from an operations um uh list of sidewalks. These are purely in response to um uh community member complaints and an issue because it's an ADA access um issue. Uh these are these are significant things. Um but more than just sidewalks, I don't want to get lost in that necessarily, but that process and how we're able to build that out is really what I'd like to highlight. Um, you know, we're working in partnership where we don't necessarily have the technical expertise, but we do own the communications and compliance models that that go along with those community members.

27:00 Oops. I was hitting the laser button and put one up on uh behind you. Excuse me. Um, the windshield survey. Um so um in November of last year uh we asked the question, what's going on out there? Um and so we worked with GIS to build out a model to where um we surveyed uh the roughly 20,000 residential properties in the city of Springfield looking for conditions that could constitute violations. Um this was um to establish a a point in time picture of those visible conditions from from right ofway. Um it's not a scientist. Um, and it's not a scientific survey. It's just an observation.

27:47 So, the survey tells us something about the conditions, the current conditions of this city. Um, but it doesn't tell us very much about what the community values and prioritizes. Um what we'd like to do is um pursue that a little bit uh more in depth with um uh some outreach through our communication staff, but uh really facilitating that that conversation. Um and I think it's really important to um distinguish that um the observable um community conditions are different than those priorities. Um and then on the other end of the spectrum, uh uh we've got nuisance lanes. Uh so overall the city has um acrewed about 1.8 million in overdue fines uh from uh court um adjudicated uh

28:36 findings. Um essentially um a a community member was found as a defendant of being guilty of violating the code. Um uh that can be nuisance code, land use or otherwise. Um, we've got about $1.8 million in in associated fines and court fees there. When you look at the specific code enforcement fines, it's about 1.35 um, right around there. Um, what we're looking to do is um really identify um what's the best way to do that. We've got the legal mechanism um uh we've got the u the uh the procedure in place. We're looking for some policy guidance here, and I'll and I'll circle back to this as well.

29:23 So, in in regards to that, I'm I'm not talking about necessarily a um a dollar amount tonight. Um I'm asking for direction about the operating uh philosoph philosophy, excuse me. Um, and really do we continue what we're doing and addressing these properties one by one on a case- by case basis or do we establish a minimum fine amount? Um, or do we, you know, um, identify some of the higher risk or higher valued violations or conditions that the property uh that community members prioritize in the community and address those. Um it it's very important to to note here that uh these recovered funds would go into a um a special fund for um abatements and to augment the um

30:09 sanitation grant. Uh we've had huge success there. Uh we had a little bit of seed money initially um uh through CMD. We're about exhausted there. So we're working backwards and really trying to establish that fund. This won't pay for staff. Um this it's very important to keep that uh distinction. Uh C could you let me ask a clarification about the million half dollars? Do we have more than a million half dollars of expense already into those? Is this recovering our expenses or are on some of these higherend pieces, right? Like are we asking people for more fines than they've actually incurred in staff time to remediate the situation? >> Yes. >> Uh we there the >> which one? >> Um the um so they're on that list of 11.

30:55 And I think our our three highest um amounts are right around $100,000. We don't have $100,000 in staff time um directed towards these. Um that's not to say again, we're looking for voluntary compliance here. This is that last step uh to recover those funds um that were issued um uh legally by the court. Um you know, it's a it's a punitive measure. Um but that doesn't mean that we can't negotiate those down um if we get into a compliant state. >> Okay. So some of those were our costs plus what the court is sort of adjudicated for penalties. >> Um yes, it would cover the municipal court costs. Those are baked into each fine.

31:41 Um uh but those nuisance lanes um uh don't um they aren't built to recover staff time uh for code enforcement. >> Okay, council. >> Um I can be finished. Um I've got uh um let me hit on one piece and then we'll circle back. Um and so while while we're working through these policy directions, um we're still doing the work. Um and and that's partnering with ESD and with business licensing and those folks and creating those pathways, those pro uh process documents, uh to where we're really working towards a um a a coordinated pro uh process where it's an expectable response, right? uh when I

32:26 went to uh Jeff, I was preparing for this and really wanted to walk out with what's the vision for code enforcement and I came at him really really hard um and he said predictability and I think that rings true. Uh it certainly does for me and so this is this is part of what we're doing currently. Not necessarily expanding, we're getting better at it. Um, and with with that, I I do have a couple policy questions um uh for discussion, but please uh councelor Rodley, if if you'd like to >> Thank you. And first of all, I've been here for all of this work since you joined us. And so, it's been fantastic to see how we've professionalized it and we've grown and we've, you know, had a lot of conversations and tightened it up. I will share um like full disclosure

33:12 I've been all over the city and um have been talking to a lot of folks who this is a this is a big issue for a lot of people right like we often think it's these huge global issues and people are like let me tell you about this house in my neighborhood or let's talk about the sidewalks and these sorts of things and I will also say full disclosure my thinking on this has evolved and is continuing to evolve um I have you know some in word three we have some we have some challenges ing properties in W 3 and um some of those have become dangerous or have ended up catching fire and then neighbors are very frustrated because they've shared about it. They've like we've been telling people for years but it hadn't escalated to the places. So it's got me to really thinking about, you know, how do we identify those

33:58 dangerous properties? How do we respond to complaints without, you know, we don't want to trample all over people's rights and their, you know, that's that's where the tension is. Um so but but it often people don't people who are living amongst it they don't they don't see the results they don't see what happens until something terrible happens. So um when I think about the sort of nuisance lean recovery process 100% right I'm think I in my mind I can think of a couple of properties in W three that I know we've had conversations about and there are people who are like we would totally develop or we would do a thing but because of these properties we cannot do that. Um, so I'm really interested in what does that look like? Because I think some folks they get a lean and they think whatever, like

34:43 I'm gonna die in this house and I'll never have to pay. Um, so I would I really do support that. Um, and the community condition data like I don't have a specific answer, but I wonder if there could be a way to, you know, take data and maybe target neighborhood by neighborhood. I mean there is the idea of like here's a thing here's a thing but there are some neighborhoods and some you know particular block areas where there might be a few places where really intensive work could make a big difference for the people who live there. They could be like other properties are great and we have these three houses. Um and so to that point that leads me into number three. I do think the community could help set priorities and probably people have very passionate opinions about this

35:29 particularly in parts of the city. You know, like I think I'm not going to name some of the schmezier nicer neighborhoods where they don't have this issue, but in like W three, W four, like you know, W five maybe we we have some of those areas um where people really want to invest and they want to live a great life in those um neighborhoods and there's a few places that are really bringing them down. So, um, I really apprec appreciate this work. I have been out there on foot seeing it firsthand and hearing how what a difference it makes to neighbors if we're like, you know, get in there and help them help get cars off the lawn or help people that are living too many people in a dilapidated garage. Those kind of things can make a really big difference in livability and safety. Thank you.

36:17 Uh, councelor Buck, >> thank you for the presentation. Um, un unlike Corey, I'm I'm new to this conversation. So, um, so [clears throat] I very much appreciate it. Um, I'm also interested to in um, how does how does the process uh, create opportunities for for collaboration? I mean, I think every property has a story, right? and um and they're all unique. So if if there's barriers to um to compliance, you know, whatever that looks like, I'm just curious, you know, how how we can bake into this process. Maybe it's already here and I just don't know like, you know, what led

37:04 to us to to get to this place? How do we how do we get it to where it's um no longer out of code compliance and how do we keep it there? And I and I think every property is going to have its own unique story and history and and path forward. Um I I think that if we if we limit code enforcement to simply, you know, compliant or not compliant, then I think we'll we run the risk of of struggling with the same properties year after year, you know, over and over. Um I and I don't know how we can do this necessarily, but I'm interested in in the conversation to see what can we do to identify collaborative conversations to to get

37:49 into compliance and stay into compliance if that makes sense. And and maybe it already exists and I just don't know. >> Uh yes, that's the million-dollar question. How do we get a property into compliance and keep it there? Um and um there's no every single violation or or case that we have is going to have a different answer. Um fortunately we work with uh some really great officers um and um allow them to work um and so uh we trust them to to make the distinctions between um black and white um and facilitate a lot of different um options. there there aren't a lot of code compliance programs um that don't that have the sanitation grant or that

38:35 through the abatement process we work handinand with uh somebody who you know we've we've got one right now that is we've really been struggling working through it but we fin just today we got the asbestous survey uh and so we can move forward with this abatement project um uh removing a dilapidated structure so in that regard and when you look you know maybe across the nation certainly across the state. Uh we're in a really fortunate position in that we have some funding, we have officers, we have an incredible uh uh support from executive staff all the way to the council. Um we keep doing what we're doing. Um I don't think that there is um a huge um uh discrepancy between um working collaborative collaboratively

39:23 with um our community members and our current process of trying to re trying to establish a report in person speaking with that person um and creating those compliance plans. It's holding people accountable through those compliance plans. Um, and you know, that's an officer's distinction to make. Um, and I support whichever way they go. But we also have a, you know, every citation I review and I get the foundation of what this is. So, it's not just the officer, but it's my, um, my approval as well. >> And could you clarify like some of these are not just education, some of these are long-term or taking folks court and or struggling to gain that same compliance. Right. >> Right. Right. Um, yes, there are. Um I I

40:09 don't have an exact number for you, but there are a plethora of uh multi-year uh properties um that still aren't in compliance. Um uh largely those make up uh the majority of those abatement or excuse me of the nuisance lane list. >> And would it be fair to say that any of the 11 properties that are on that list are not are not properties that have been easy to work with? Like you know, they've got hard problems. They've been hard to work with. We've had to go to court a couple of times on them, right? This wasn't just a grant was isn't going to help some of these properties. >> Yeah. Our top three properties have well over 30 citations to each of them, if not several abatement procedures uh within that. So I think when you think about the philosophy piece, right, I always feel like we're trying to thread

40:56 this arrow through, you know, on one hand, who do we have to take to court to get compliance cuz the goal 100% is to get these properties in compliance from a health and safety perspective and who through just light touch and education and maybe an availability of a grant will, you know, take care of their property or help address the issue or maybe they've always wanted to address the issue, they just couldn't didn't know how. And I think that's an important distinction. The other piece, um, so when I think about the nuisance lean issue, I really think about kind of a mix between the two of them. To me, before we move to a nuisance lean, like we got to have the we've got to have the project sort of the issue fully, you know, uh, closed, if you will, right? Like it's got to me it would make sense that it ran its course, right? Because

41:42 then you're done with the negotiation, then you're done with you've addressed the issue, we're done going to court, right? like this seems like it's the end stage. >> Uh that's correct, mayor. Yes. >> Um the other comment I want to make is about the community condition data inform our work. Um >> I struggled with this one. Like I I was glad to see the information and and see, you know, kind of what was where we were good and where we were where we were not. But I think if if we're going this is back to the initial conversation we had about an administrative driven work versus versus complaint driven work. If we're going out and we're um doing windshield looking, I really think we

42:28 need a high standard before we're actually going to go beyond education for folks. I would be I'm okay if you go into a neighborhood and you're like and you're and you want to deal with cars in the lawn or you want to gather some information, right? But if we're driving around initially just, you know, so to cite everybody, right, we shouldn't be doing that. And and I'm going to say that with a with a caveat. There are things out there in the world, right, that are health and safety level that you do need to intervene with. So like whatever that line like if you go out and you want to use that windshield neighbor uh windshield time to look around and work on a specific thing I'm supportive of that knowing that you're going to educate versus sight and there

43:13 are things in the world that I understand that you're going to use your judgment on and would have to intervene with. >> Yes, it's a it's a very fine line to walk and and I agree. Um I we are not um driving around looking for violations. um uh we're looking for information, but also how can we approach code compliance strategically rather than react, right? And so moving into that, we've got to have data. And so that that's where this started was let's build um a strategy here. Um let's capture the data, let's refine this, um put some very clear curves on it. Um, one of the things that we um did proactively um was reach out to the uh the three, excuse me, out of the 20,000 um

43:59 inspections, if you will, or uh uh properties that we viewed, uh there were 160, roughly 160 that had three or more conditions um uh that would constitute violations. And so that is um a car parked on the front yard um a a pile of garbage uh bigger than uh the square footage of a fridge um that's used materials or these aren't just single violation single condition um uh properties. Uh we then went backwards and offered them a large uh offered everybody a sanitation grant. Uh so you'll notice with our sanitation grant reporting uh for uh last fiscal year um that was about 70 maybe 80 letters. We issued more than um uh 160 170 letters

44:45 this year because of those uh those three conditions which may be violation properties. Um of those uh we began with that list um checked it a month later that winnowed that list down to about 120 because they selforrect. Y >> um and then um based off of that, we issued uh those letters. Uh and then after that, we even went back out to see were people taking advantage of this. And so we're we're we're approaching it not as we're knocking on your door, you need to clean this up right now. Um we're trying to gather some data there, time frames included. >> And thank you for doing that. Like and I'm glad and uh with with that kind of approach, right? that consistent approach to to address to address the issue. Anybody else? Council Cuadras.

45:34 >> Uh so, uh I appreciate the work um in rebuilding the code compliance. I'm even newer than councelor Buck. Um but I want to talk about Ward 4 data um because 20 basically 25% of our tax lots have uh at least one observable condition and that's my ward. um it's the highest percentage of any word and um I realize this isn't a scientific survey but I can acknowledge that these observable conditions are real. Um part of me wants to be honest um about the city's side of that equation. Um there are parts of this of W 4 where residents don't have the same basic

46:20 infrastructure as these other wards over here. Um, and so sidewalks, paved street, curves, covered drainage, um, don't exist often in Ward 4. And so when we're we're looking at expectations for, for example, parking on the front lawn and there isn't a distinguish distinguishable difference between the street and and the sidewalk there is because there isn't one. um I would be concerned that we would um put forward the same expectations um in W six as we would in W 4. Um and so I'm concerned about um community outreach. I would expect um that the

47:08 feedback that you get is of similar circumstances, not award six feedback that is then applied to W four. Um I feel very strongly about that. Um like conditions should be considered together. Um and then uh the residents of those should be the ones that are spoke to because um for example, you're probably not getting the calls of the complaints because in a different ward you might see um one observance out of 10 houses and it would be the opposite at times in ward 4. You might have one that doesn't have it. And so to to make a phone call would be just it

47:55 would be pointless. Um yeah. And so um I I'm really concerned about the feedback that we solicit that we solicit it from like circumstances. Um as far as I'm just going to go ahead and answer all three of the questions. Um on the nuisance leans, I'm going to continue to support option one. Um because in Ward 4, folks do want to, as we said, die in their space. And what I can tell you that happens in Ward 4 is after that happens, um we typically there the property is raised and something new goes there. And I guess I want people to live in peace in that neighborhood. Um and then on the GIS, um I would be going

48:41 with option two on the community condition data. um perhaps supplemental information um rather than targeting enforcement when I'm speaking to my ward if you will. >> Yeah, >> councelor. >> Thank you. I think maybe councelor Stout was before me. Are you you want to go before me? >> I don't councelor Stout. >> Sorry, not um just a couple things. Um [sighs and gasps] I'm I'm curious. So I've got like three small questions. I'm curious to the extent that you've seen the condition of commercial properties adjacent to residential properties because this appears to be only residential properties uh or residential tax lots. I'm curious if you've seen like does the condition of the commercial property impact the condition

49:28 of the residential properties. I'm just interested if there is a dynamic there. Um I'm also interested to see like hey are there things that you're observing that are not part of current code enforcement? we're like, "Yeah, oh, this person has, you know, um I I don't know, they're doing something in their yard or whatever it is, and it's not technically enforceable by code, but we just don't know. We don't know if it's a helpful thing to bring up and to actually add as part of the code or not part of the code. Um it's just I'm just kind of curious about feedback outside of the scope of what you're looking at in terms of enforcement." And then finally, I'm kind of looking at the side of you're out there, you're spending the time out there. what's positive, what's working to make a place better, where where is something where we can say, hey, I would

50:14 like to see more of this thing here. Um and I'm you know yeah I'm just I'm looking at that and say oh okay because we added this small feature because there's this you know park here or whatever it is that has brought up overall you know the level of code compliance not as a marker of like it is one marker of well-being but maybe that's not the marker of well-being in this neighborhood. So just sort of the the nuance and the um perspective I think that can be offered by the great work that you're doing out there I think is really valuable for us to have just as a communication piece as opposed to like you know we don't have enough time to talk about I feel like we could spend a long time on this one but like just a communication piece to us here's some things we're observing I think would be

50:59 welcome by us. That's all. Thanks. >> Yeah if I I can take a quick moment there if that's okay. Um uh the the first um impact it it's um at this point it's more anecdotal than than anything but certainly commercial properties or the nature of of business uh that's immediately adjacent to versus across the street. I mean you could probably look at some uh pretty significant standards or or degradations to the property um based off of like the the footage away from that maybe tax lots or otherwise. uh uh for instance, if you look at um uh where Walmart is located, you've got Centennial uh below that. What's the neighborhood look on the other side as well? Are they facing the same challenges? So, yes, anecdotally, I can tell you there is a direct correlation there. Maybe both positive

51:44 and negative. I don't know. Um but the ones that I see are mostly negative. Um uh I'm not I I'm not quite sure I I tracked on the the second question. Um uh but uh to your >> the second question is like we might be looking for cars parked in the yard, but is there actually something else out there you're saying? Hey, there's I I don't know what it is, but is there some other thing some other >> nonviolation that should be a violation? I hate to say it that way, but um out there >> um I would um classify those more as um maybe community issues rather than code violations. Um it really makes me nervous um when I see kids walking down the sidewalk uh where there or where

52:30 there's no sidewalk. Um you know, so maybe little simple things like that could be a big um in in my professional view that makes me super nervous. Um I think um everything else is a violation to me. I've got to be honest with you. You know, I mean it's uh we've got it's it's awesome that I love the city of Springfield. We've got some great people here and nine out of 10 of the folks that we deal with in this this capacity where our officers are coming to your house and we're telling you you got to fix your stuff. Um we get a handshake afterwards. Um uh so there's some good people here. Um it's painful to get there but we usually get to um a mutual yes. Um and then one more time on the

53:16 third question if you will. >> Positive things. What what's really working well that you're like saying yeah you're you're in code compliance. you're on the negative side of this. I mean, not receiving negativity, but I'm like, you're on the negative side of this. >> What is the positive things that you've seen when you're doing your code compliance work? Like, hey, this thing in this yard, a street tree, a uh a small library, a, you know, whatever it is, this thing is making this neighborhood seem to have more pride and more, you know, self-maintenance and more uh just just overall self-respect. Um, I think it's um when I see neighbors, you know, after we leave, we usually drive about a block away um and usually um turn around while we're doing our paperwork. And when I see neighbors

54:02 come to check on places that we've just left, um that really kind of makes me feel good. Uh you know, I mean, it's a difficult situation all the way around, but that community is supported by their neighbors, and Springfield has that in abundance. um specifically with those long-term um uh communities. >> Councelor Rodley, >> thank you. Um and I I I really appreciate councelor Cuadro's calling out the reality. We talked about that a little bit, I think, last week about W four. Um and I think that gets to the thinking about it neighborhood by neighborhood, right? Because I don't think it's the same when we're talking about those some because you've got, you know, some paved things and then you've got, you know, whole blocks that are not paved. And I just really appreciate you calling that out because it's real. And so there may be things we can do. Um,

54:48 and I know the mayor and I have talked before about we would love to see a way for us to invest in these kind of infrastructure improvements like sidewalks in neighborhoods like that because it doesn't take very much to make a really big deal. So, I think that yeah, to to my earlier point about could we go neighborhood by neighborhood because I might be a lot crabbier at somebody who's got, you know, seven things on their lawn if they're, you know, on 10th Street than if we're over off Virginia or something. So, I think that that's a way for us to think out it a little more layered and nuanced about it. Um, and as opposed to like one big swath across the city. So, I I really appreciate councelor Quadr's calling that out about Ward 4. Councelor Buck.

55:34 >> So, so first, so first of all, you're just to clarify, I'm not supposed to park on my lot. Um, sorry [clears throat] about I I couldn't resist that one. Um, so, you know, Ward Five is very interesting, right? Obviously, um, obviously we I I feel like in W five, um, I have a little bit of both, right? And so we have um we have areas that you know as councelor CL just brought up like looking at minimum expectations and those kind of things and I think that at some level you have to have a citywide minimum expectation and in order to do that I want to make sure that we are not contributing to the problem. Right? If

56:20 if barriers for what we've what we haven't done as a city have put them in a spot where it's like, hey, compliance is harder here. If we're talking about an area where there are no sidewalks, if we're talking about an area where there's safety concerns and there's a lot of infrastructure barriers, um I mean, I think those are very important things. I mean, when I look at the intersection at 42nd Street in Daisy, um, you know, those neighbors all very concerned about the the long-term plan for a roundabout there. They're like, you know, is that going to solve problems for for us and what's going to look like for our neighborhood and what does that mean for us? And at the same token, they all very much understand like that's a that's a dangerous

57:06 dangerous area. there's there's a blind corn corner there and and all of the things that go with that. And so, you know, when you look at the reality of of that that area, um I would say I would say that that's that's an example of where the city kind of owns some of the some of the issues that go into that because of of the lack of what's there. And and again, that's not that's not an issue not the fault of of any one person. And it's it's just one of those things like it's it's just not there. And so I want to make sure that as we're looking at e expectation, I I think it is reasonable to create a minimum community standard, but at the same token, we have to make sure that we've done our job to provide them with the

57:51 minimum level of infrastructure to meet said standard. Um, and if I'm hearing councelor Cuadros correctly, and I think I am, like that's that's really what we're talking about here. It's like if we putting somebody if they're starting out at a dis disadvantage, then what do we need to do if anything um to help them kind of level the playing field there? And again, my ward has has a little bit of everything. And so um yeah, and you know, I I can just feel the mayor smiling when I bring up Daisy Street, right? But it's just one of those things where it's like that goes right through my ward. And at the same token, um, I want to make sure that that we're doing our part. If we're going to hold people accountable, then we got to

58:36 be accountable, too, to say, "Hey, do you have the infrastructure here to to meet whatever that minimum standard is?" >> All right. I think you've gotten plenty of feedback. Um, this is a topic that's really, you know, of a lot of community interest and we've done a ton of work and I just want to tell you and your team, thank you for that. Thank you, Mayor Mayor. Um, and and just to to clarify on the nuisance lane, that that's really the distinctive um uh or the distinction that I'd like to make tonight. Uh, do you support which option would you support in moving forward um as a body? >> Can you pull up the options again? >> Uh, certainly.

59:21 We had to cover all the questions. We'll get you an answer. >> Just had difficult >> May I ask a question while >> Yeah, go ahead. >> So, for example, on a on a nuisance um are these homes inhabited? >> Uh so the the homes um being leaned, are they inhabited? >> Yeah, the nuisance the ones that are at the at the top. >> Um several are not. I'd say probably roughly uh 20% aren't inhabited. Um uh they're either vacant, abandoned, or otherwise. Uh several are. >> So, I'm going to stick with my my recommendation of continuing to address

1:00:06 them case by case. >> So, I thought you had a different slide that had three options on it. >> Um I can list them for you. >> That'd be great. >> Okay. Uh so, option one is continue it um continue this on a case-by case basis. Um, option two would be to establish an objective threshold. Um, and then review every qualifying property based on that threshold. To be clear, there are uh certain cases where we wouldn't pursue a nuisance lean because the the defendant doesn't own real property. Um, and and so maybe we'll have a $30,000 outstanding fine out there with no property to lean. Um and then option three would be a structured pro process um with initial prioritization by the balance um and

1:00:52 then by um other framework that you'd like to see that could be risk or otherwise. >> Okay. Uh councelor Rodley. >> Thank you. I think um and I and I appreciate where counselor Cuadrus is going with that. But I will also say that in W three like some of we've had some those vacant properties have been really problematic and people have died in some of those vacant properties. So I think I think option three is the most nuanced one, right? Like we're creating structure but maybe there's like I kind of want a combo, right? that we've got a threshold. We're dealing with it case by case, but I I I want there to be some sort of structure that we kind of all know where we're at, but I am one opinion on this. And I think I think the fact that the wards

1:01:37 and the neighborhoods are so different speaks to how we kind of are coming to different sort of thoughts around this. So, I'm not it's not a hill I'm going to die on. Um, but I I do worry about those vacant properties because that's just been my experience in my ward is that we've had some stuff. Yeah. Councelor Weber. >> Um I'm actually in favor of option number three as well. I think it does have some um flexibility in it and we can we can identify what we decide to process later or as part of the process like how do we prioritize different areas for different reasons. I assume we can work some of that into into that process. like considering council or ward four has its own set of issues, you know, just I think we can probably find a way to bake that into the into the

1:02:23 process. >> Anybody else? >> That was >> could we disagregate between a vacant property and a and a >> I think option >> I think option three is the thing that allows us to do that. >> Okay. So, I think we're saying option three. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. We are adjourned. Do we need >> I'm going to call the regular session of the Springfield City Council to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon >> here. >> Councelor Ritter >> here. >> Councelor Mo >> here. >> Councelor Bradley >> here. >> Council Quadros >> here. >> Councelor Buck >> here. And councelor Stout >> here. Thank you. >> Please join me for the pledge of allegiance.

1:03:19 stands one nation indivisible and justice for all. >> We were a little off our rhythm. >> We're ill. >> There are two times designated for public testimony this evening under public hearings and 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 the tablet, smartphone, and computer and wish to speak at either of those times, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. The order of public testimony is as follows. Anyone in person in the council chambers, then anyone who has raised their virtual hand. First item, please. First item is the consent calendar. I move approval of the consent calendar.

1:04:05 I will second that. >> All right. Any uh discussion for the consent calendar? Councelor Rodley, >> even though I just whispered to you. Um I just wanted to follow up because we were just talking about W four and I did go by that property on Virginia. Um I think it has three trees and not one tree, big cedar tree. I I think I'm really excited to see that we're moving forward with that negotiation. Um, and I think that that's going to be great and I just wanted to say that. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Mo, could you call the vote, please? >> Yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes. >> Councelor Mo, >> yes. >> Councelor Bradley, >> yes. >> Councelor Cuadros, >> yes. >> Councelor Buck, >> yes. >> And councelor Stout, >> yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Six yeses, zero nos. Next

1:04:52 item, please. >> Next item is public hearings. You have one public hearing. It's the fiscal year 27 supplemental budget number one. This is a resolution adjusting resources and requirements in the following funds. General Street, special revenue, transient lodging tax, community development, building code, fire local option levy, police local option levy, bond syncing, development assessment capital, development projects, regional wastewater capital, street capital, sanitary sewer operations, regional wastewater ambulance, storm drainage operations, Booth Kelly regional fiber consortium, insurance, vehicle and equipment and SDC administration. Jessica Mummy's here for this item. >> I'm always impressed when you do that, Neil. Good evening, mayor and city

1:05:37 council. My name is Jessica Mummy. I'm the city's deputy finance director here this evening for a public hearing on the city's fiscal year 27 supplemental budget number one. Um, as you may know, at various times during the fiscal year, council is requested to adjust the annual budget to reflect needed changes in planned activities to recognize new revenues, including grant revenues or to make other required and necessary changes. These adjustments to resources and requirements change the current budget and are processed through supplemental budgets request that are brought to you by the finance department. This is the first fisc year 27 supplemental budget request to come before council. This supplemental budget is typically the largest always. Um, this has the beginning cash adjustments and any carry

1:06:23 forward requests for funding that was appropriated in fiscal year 26 but was unspent. And so we're uh for or carrying forward that so that departments can spend those funds that were already approved in 26 to be spent in 27. Uh just a couple items I wanted to highlight really briefly. The beginning cash adjustment. All funds beginning cash adjustments occur because prior year expenditures were not as high as predicted resulting in more money being available in the new fiscal year. So how this works is in January we put on our wizard hats or grab out our crystal ball and we try to estimate what the ending fund balance is going to be on January

1:07:08 30th. And we do this in January. So there is uh differences and the beginning cash adjustment is going to uh solidify what those differences were. A variety of factors can cause this. It could be such things as the carry forwards where we tried to purchase equipment in fiscal year 26 but that equipment wasn't received and so we need to now have the authority to spend that money in fiscal year 27. Uh holistically the beginning cash adjustment is the city's way of hitting the refresh but button on the ledger. It assures that every dollar carried over from the previous year is accurately accounted for, legally appropriated, and strategically aligned with the new year's budget. And just a couple items, specific items

1:07:53 to the supplemental budget I wanted to highlight. One is we're requesting to increase uh fires um revenues by $1.4 million. This is from the ground emergency medical transportation coordinated care organization program revenue from the Oregon Health Authority that the city expected to receive in fiscal year 26, but we didn't receive it until fiscal year 27. Another item I wanted to highlight was the move of the street sweeper program from the street fund to the storm drainage fund. This move uh better aligns the budget with the benefit of street sweeping. This was planned to be accomplished in the fiscal year 20 28 budget, excuse me. However, new information regarding the five-year forecast of the street fund indicated

1:08:38 significant projected deficits occurring sooner than anticipated. Jeff Pascal's team will be at a work session before you on October 28th to talk more about the street fund. And finally, I just wanted to highlight as well that we are requesting to increase development and public works operating expenditures by $100,000 to repair the city hall stairs. This project was planned for a future fiscal year, but recent increases in deterioration of the stairs occurred, requiring expediated repairs to take place in fiscal year 27. >> All right. Are there any questions? All right. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. I don't have any cards for this item. Neil, do you have anybody online?

1:09:23 >> I don't see any hands for this item. >> All right. I close the public hearing. I move to adopt a resolution adjusting resources and requirements in the following funds. General, street, special revenue, transit laundry tax, community development, building code, fire local option levy, police local option levy, bond syncing, development assessment capital, development projects, regional wastewater capital, street capital, sanitary sewer operations, regional wastewater ambulance, storm drainage operations, booth, Kelly, regional fiber consortium, insurance, vehicle and equipment and SDC administration. Second,

1:10:09 >> Eli, do you have any discussion? >> I do. I have a lot to say tonight. Um, I am very excited about the stairs. I know that we have been talking about them. And as someone who can now go up and down those stairs, I have seen how much they have deteriorated. So, I am sure I speak for many people who are going to be very happy that we fix those stairs. >> Anybody else? All right, Neil, could you call the vote? >> Yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes. >> Councelor Mo, >> yes. Councelor Rodley, >> yes. >> Councelor Cuadro, >> yes. >> Councelor Buck, >> yes. And councelor Stout, >> yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Six yeses, zero nos. Next item, please. Next item is business from the audience. All right. I've got three cards this evening. Um, I'll call you up one at a time. State your name for the record, and then you'll have three minutes for the council. Uh, Curtis Blankenship.

1:11:04 Uh, hi, I'm Curtis Blanket, shipboard 4. Um, at first I just want to apologize for uh saying that the revitalization project has big box uh uh stores in it and uh so that I was wrong and I just want to officially say that I was wrong about that. Um, I talked to you guys at the um, development uh, board meeting and you mentioned that the p you own the pawn shop and would would like to see it painted white. Um, I have several muralists that would be interested in painting that. Um, councelor Mo just gave me his card, so I'll go through that. And and also the Springfield Arts Council, I would hope I was like to talk to them about that. Um, you know, one I just want to throw something out for you to you. I don't know if you guys remember the neon horses that the guy had that that were all over the highway

1:11:50 at one year a long time ago. Maybe you're not old enough to remember that, but um there was a lady in 20 in uh San Bernardino County, they have these things called Jack Rabbit homesteads that are these abandoned buildings that were homesteads. Lady painted those and lit them with fluorescent lights. So, I'm just saying that I I don't want to go that far. I don't want to scare you, but I don't want to but um I wonder how far we could go with that. Um, and on the hippie note, um, Berkeley, California has a vacancy tax. And, um, you know, it's not really it's not really a communist or hippie concept to have a vacancy tax. Um, again, I don't know if you remember, Lou Rukhauser wrote a book called What's Next for the Economy? Rukhouser was the on Washington

1:12:35 week in review for years and what he was saying was you want to tax uh behavior that you want to discourage and use that money to for for things that you want to encourage instead of regulating you would tax. So I'm talking about a carrot and stick approach where you would tax absentee land owners and vacancies. And that that's who I'm really targeting is the absentee land owners, not so much the retired couple that owns a owns a house here in Springfield that they're renting out or um or things like that. Um a little calculation, you know, if we raised if you used these funds to uh make these houses look nicer, you know, and raise the tax base 1%, I I'm thinking you could make $300,000 a year in tax revenue. Uh certainly $100,000 a year. So, um yeah, that's what I'm

1:13:21 advocating is a uh vacancy tax and I can send you um information. I sent information to the um sign up line. I'll send it to your general email about uh Berkeley's vacancy tax. Thank you for your time and your work in the city of Springfield. >> Uh thank you. The next person I have is Dan Isacson. And Dan, you have down the stabilization center is a topic. The record's closed on this. We can still we we we'll still take your testimony, but we're going to we're going to have to disallow it on the back side. All right, mayor and city council. My name is Dan Isacson and I'm a volunteer with the National Alliance of Mental Illness here in Springfield and also a TIP volunteer and I'm asking you tonight to approve

1:14:07 the path forward for the lane stabilization center. We could talk about annexations, zoning, comprehensive plans, and lines drawn on a map. But while we have those conversations, there is a body count. People are dying here in Eugene and Springfield in the Cross Lane County from suicide, overdose, and violence. And those statistics are not new to me. A few weeks ago, I stood on a street corner staring up at a parking garage in in Eugene while someone was threatening to jump. We tried telling him that his life mattered, desperately trying to reach him before he would end his life. That was not the first time I've done that. It won't be the last. I volunteer with the TIP program. I've spent hundreds of hours responding to someone's whose world is about to end and whose life we have to notify their loved ones that is gone. I know the sound of a parent when they lose their child in an ER bay. I've stood to families in emergency room trauma bays after they've been told that there is no

1:14:53 hope left. And I've held a 2-year-old walking them to sleep knowing that they will wake up in a world without one of their parents. Those experiences teach you something. By the time Tip gets the phone call, prevention has has failed. And that's why every dollar, every hour we invest in prevention matters. Every person who gets help through an organization like NAMI is one of fewer potential phone call people like me have to make. And that's why Springfield knows us. When Nami Lane County decided to make a home, we chose Springfield because Springfield welcomed us. They made it an investment in mental health. And I'm asking you to make an investment. Again, I understand the complexity of land use code. I'm also land a Eugene planning commissioner. Those decisions are not simple, but we have to navigate zone changes in gray areas between uses for businesses and development all the time. So often in

1:15:39 public policy, there are reasons to say yes, and there are reasons to say no. I'm asking you to find a reason to say yes. Tonight, this community is asking you for look at reasons to say yes. And I know that being a public servant is hard. There are real tangible wins can sometimes be very difficult. But I promise you this. When you cut the ribbon on the stabilization center, you will feel the healing in this community more than you will on a crate and barrel or a baby gap or something else. Inside that building, somebody who is ready to die will find a reason to live. A parent will find a way to have their child taken care of. A police officer will have someone to take somewhere to take someone in crisis. And a family will get their loved one back. This is a win that you can carry with you your entire life. So tonight, when there are reasons to say yes and reasons to say no, I'm asking you for again for a reason to say

1:16:24 yes. My tip shift starts in 20 minutes. Somewhere in this community, there's going to be a knock at the door potentially, and I'm going to have to let them know that their loved one is no longer here. I would like to make fewer of those phone calls. I'm hoping that you will help me in that. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dan. Um, the last call I have is Zachary Proen. Good evening, Mayor Van Gordon, members of the Springfield City Council. My name is Zach Pau and I live in W 2. I'm here tonight to ask the city of Springfield to recognize our growing problem of

1:17:09 stray and feral cats in our community and consider a coordinated, humane approach to addressing it. Lane County estimates there are roughly 40,000 stray and feral cats in our area area, including thousands right here in Springfield. On local social media, residents are constantly finding stray kittens, asking for help, or trying to handle abandoned animals. Our local shelters are completely overwhelmed and frequently turning people away, leaving citizens with few to no options as the population grows. If we ignore the issue, it will only get worse. Cats reproduce at a alarming rate. They can start having litters at less than a year old and can have three to four a year. Overpopulation means more sick, injured, and dying animals, creating a public health and nuisance concerns for our neighborhoods. Research proves that trapneuter return or TNR is the most effective and humane away way to address

1:17:54 this. Simply relocating or removing cats will not work. It creates a vacuum that surrounding populations quickly fill. Trapping, neutering, and returning stabilizes the colonies. Fixing the community cats. Fixed community cats don't exhibit nuisance behaviors like fighting or late night yelling. and vaccinating cats prevent the spread of disease. Right now, the entire burden of this population falls on individual residents and volunteers. Under current regional guidelines, a resident who steps up to feed a stray cat for 6 weeks is legally deemed its owner, which effectively penalizes kind citizens because the city lacks a coordinated framework. Expecting volunteers to handle this alone is costly, fragmented, and inefficient. The city doesn't have to solve this overnight, but taking a first step, acknowledging Springfield has a community cat issue could make a

1:18:40 significant difference. City recognition would help coordinate residents, volunteers, and veterinarians. It would increase community awareness, open doors to pursue outside grants, and mobile span neuter clinics. I'm asking the council to formally recognize Springfield's community capabilation is an issue that deserves attention, and to explore TNR as a coordinated community response. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. I have no other cards. Do we have anybody online? >> No hands for this item. >> All right. Thank you. Next item, please. Any business from the city council? Councelor Rodley >> came prepared. Um, I just want to thank everybody who came and uh shared testimony. I want to thank all the people who sent us emails. I mean, I'm speaking for myself. Thank all the people who sent emails about the

1:19:25 community cat issue. Um, I actually would be interested in us maybe having a conversation about what you know what that looks like in terms of what you all are asking. Um, I will say that you know my spouse and I with a couple of other neighborhoods have definitely been folks who have gathered up the cats and have taken them to Green Hill and so I don't know if there's a way that we could coordinate with Green Hill for the um the trapneuter and what return um because you know we we don't have something in Springfield. So, I I don't know where my other counselors lie, but I just want to acknowledge that and acknowledge we got all that I got those emails. I would be interested to see if there's something that we can do to um you know, sort of acknowledge it and own it and you know, without it costing us a bazillion dollars. So, thank you to

1:20:10 everybody. >> All right. Anybody else? >> Stop. >> Uh just briefly to Mr. blanket chips comments. Um the concept of a vacancies tax was something that was brought up during the fiscal um task force on sustainability for the city. So I know it's a conversation we've had. I'd be interested in having that conversation more in depth to see what's possible because I know that there's a lot of laws in Oregon for how we do our property tax structures that make that a very difficult lift uh possibly. So um that said, I also want to recognize that um all of us who sit on city council also sit on the CEDA board and are interested in economic development overall. So we do appreciate you inputting the ideas and perhaps there may be a time uh to get some of these more concretely down with a member of

1:20:56 staff to help to help us have an opportunity to take action on them. Thank you. >> All right, anybody else? Next item, please. >> Next item is business from the city manager. Item number one is the lease agreement approval for 5699 Main Street. Ben Gibson is here for this item. Mayor Van Gordon, members of city council, good evening. My name is Ben Gibson. I am the interim director of operations. The uh item I have for you here this evening is um to see if you would authorize the city manager to negotiate and enter into a lease

1:21:41 agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for the property at 5699 Main Street. This property you might notice and I on attachment two you have a site plan of this area is old LTD used he operates LTD park and ride site and I think it's probably been a couple of years now that uh ODOT had approached the city with an option uh for us to lease it from them. At that time we didn't have um real clear idea of what we could do with it but I know operations um one knew that we wanted a satellite site in the thirst then area and this would be a great opportunity for us to have that. So um over the past couple years we've researched through a

1:22:27 lot of different options what um we might be able to use this site for and I think we've landed on that as an operation satellite site. Our goal for this property would be to reduce trip count with our operations staff. Currently um for things like uh filling stations for break times and that if we have staff working in the thirsten neighborhoods, we have to travel from there clear back to central Springfield which uh we estimate creates hundreds of hours worth of lost staff time. Uh we also see this as an opportunity to use the site in times of incident management uh so that we can better respond to the thirsten area and also um be able to

1:23:12 provide more uh information to the neighborhoods in East Springfield as well during times of incidents. Uh but really the goal here is to um reduce trip counts. We're looking at currently to start the lease 732 a month. Uh for uh that would be uh increase by 3% each year for 5 years with the option for two additional 5-year terms. Uh there would be some initial costs towards this and that would be once it were secured we would then uh well once if we had this property we then need to secure it with fencing which um is going to be a cost associated well as well to begin with. Um and then right now any additional

1:23:58 uses we would have for it we would need to take back to ODOT and negotiate um uh additional uses. Right now there's a facility there for breaks, bathrooms, uh any kind of office space would change the usable space which could then uh uh change the terms of the agreement at that time too. >> Councelor, >> thank you. Um I I do support this and um when I was looking at the map earlier um and you started to mention it when you talked about fencing. I mean I think there is a potential concern for say vandalism in that area because you're near residential and you're also near um sort of retail and and there hasn't been stuff there and so it could be this invitation for vandalism. Um but it

1:24:45 sounds like we're maybe making a plan for it. But overall I support this and would love to see it used. Council I noticed in the uh lease agreement the second and third renewals um listed it as fair market value. Do you have any concerns that that would all of a sudden [clears throat] outpric you? >> I don't currently. I think that the what we have here as the option is is a good um is a good value to us especially with what we're going to save in those trips that um I was talking about. And uh you reminded me something when you noticed reading through this lease, there is one portion of it where there is a uh a tax lean from 1997 that is still recorded. So we'll be working on that with the

1:25:31 negotiation too to make sure the city's not responsible for that. >> Great. Anybody else? Councor Buck, >> you want to go first? Yeah. Okay. >> All right. [clears throat] Um O overall I'm I'm certainly supportive of this. Um you know it's definitely uh important to me to look at the e economic development out in out in that area. Um while we know that there's going to constantly be a need and and and push from the state um and and and elsewhere for for more housing. Um, it seems to me that there's also um some

1:26:17 limitations on on infrastructure and and so this is a property that isn't really currently being used for anything. And um it's frequently where you'll see people advertise their their truck for sale and and these kind of things. It's it's also um does does bring in um uh you know opportunities for vandalism and whatnot. Um, you know, I think the thing that's attractive to me about this is that you guys having a presence out there hopefully will help facilitate um some of those some of the other surrounding properties as they're developing as well because we need to find ways to invite

1:27:03 businesses to be out there and want to be out there. And um I've been very curious about what the future of that particular piece of property is. And since it is an ODOT property, it's not like there's a ton of options. Um, so I think this is a really good one that would help have a presence out there that I would like, you know, and I envision it being a very positive one. So that would be my hope. >> Council Ro, Springfield is what called a linear city. Very, very long, like pretty rare. But we had Thirsten and we had Springfield. Springfield sort of merged with the city, but they're not represented out there. They don't feel like it. And I think something like this would help that because because we need

1:27:48 to have some help out there. And then I go from that to something else. It's going to be we're going to be developing it further. I don't know what that's going to be, what's going to cost, but uh there's plans in the future we're going to have to make for that for that for that use. Uh, councelor St. I I appreciate all my other fellow counselor's uh comments on my ward. Um, the the and Okay, yours too, Andrew. [laughter] Um, I'm I'm generally supportive of this. However, I drive by this lot three to four times a day. This is really important. It's a really important lot. And so, I'm I'm begging and pleading. I I think the lease is fine with you know

1:28:34 just make sure you're double checking with at at that fair market value per council cuados please do before you execute your renewal. Um so the lease is fine how we use this site is way more concern to me and how we in so many ways I think the heart of every person who lives in either ward five or six wants that place to be more than just a bunch of city trucks parked out there. We have no issues with that. But to truly conceive of if some spark plug of a person comes out there says, "Hey, could we put a farmers market? Could we put temporary whatever it is?" That's not precluded by the lease. Could some of the signage is precluded, but whatever. Um I'm more concerned about

1:29:19 are we treating it well? And if that fencing is ugly, I will scream. It cannot be ugly cuz I don't want to look at it so many times a day. Um, sorry it's a little a little emotional, but you know, it's my home, so I care about it. Thank you. >> All right. [snorts] Um, I had three quick things. Um, first of all, make sure it's got a City of Springfield sign on it, right? There's not very many buildings that we have in that part of the city that have our logo on it, and it's a reminder that we're out to serve all of Springfield, including the east part. Um the other piece is this is a I think this is a real step forward around emergency management because you're right if we have to deal with an ice storm one of the things we struggled with was space to put you know sort of stage supplies stage equipment and I'm I

1:30:05 think this is a tangible step forward to our commitment to the community to continue to work on emergency management and then I think there's a third piece that you know we're good stewards with taxpayers dollars right just to hear you you know discuss around Hey, we've had this place where we've lost a bunch of hours trying to serve Thirstston from an operations perspective and then we're going to make investments to try to capture that back so we could serve Thirstston better. That is a good signal to this community how good of stu fiscal stewards we are. So, I really appreciate it. >> All right, I think we're ready. I move to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute a lease agreement in substantially the form of the draft lease agreement provided with the Oregon

1:30:51 Department of Transportation or 5699 Main Street Map and Tax Lot 17-02-33-44-01307. >> Do you want to second this because it's in your ward? Councelor Stout. >> Second. Thank you, Councelor Rowley. Is there any discussion to the motion? All right, Neil, could you call the vote, please? >> Yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes. >> Councelor Mo, >> yes. >> Councelor Rodley, >> yes. >> Councelor Cuadros, >> yes. >> Councelor Buck, >> yes. >> And councelor Stout, >> yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Six yeses, zero nos. Next item, please. >> Any other business from the city manager? >> Uh, just briefly, uh, career first. I've never seen an elected official do a courtesy second of a motion. So, nicely played, councelor Rodley. Um, I just

1:31:38 want to touch base with council uh regarding Eugene's Springfield fire. We haven't talked about it in a little bit. You were on on recess. Um, as when we last checked in on this, uh, the city of Eugene had provided notice under the current IGA and I continue um to be optimistic that there are um areas for collaboration where uh that still makes sense and can provide benefits to both of our communities. Also recognizing that our two communities have distinct and individual needs. Um we value our partnership with Eugene. Um I have frequent meetings with their new city manager. I I think she's great. Um so I'm optimistic that there are areas where we can strengthen that relationship. And I am anticipating

1:32:25 coming back to you um soon to talk more about this, have have greater discussion. But I wanted you to know that it's it's not fallen off the edge of the earth. It it's not existing in a void. It's um you know, we're I'm looking at how this um how where that collaboration makes sense and and I think that there's been a good model in place that we can draw from. So that's all I have. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Next item, please. >> Next item is business from the city attorney. Item number one is International Way annexation. Christina Kra is here for this item. Hello, council um and mayor. Uh we're going to begin tonight with um

1:33:10 disclosures of um exparte contacts as well as your conflicts of interest um actual or potential. So, um, for exparte contacts, what I would like from the council on this is to declare any exparte contacts that have not been by email, um, or to your city council email because I have reviewed the emails submitted to the council with the assistance from it and we'll summarize those on behalf of the council um, back to you. So, we'll get those disclosed, but I want to before we get into that, confirm that the council doesn't have additional verbal exparte contacts or um other types of written contacts that were not would not have been provided to staff um or through your city emails, if

1:33:56 that makes sense. Um and then after that, we're going to talk about what the council would like to do with the record um in this matter, and that's the main focus for tonight's uh short session. Do you need us to do exparte cont uh contacts and conflicts of interest? >> Yes, both. And you can decide if you want everyone to do conflicts of interest and then go back around for exparte contacts or just get them out of the way together. >> All right. Why don't we try to get them out of the way together? >> Me first. Okay. I have no party contact or conflict of interest. And the emails we've received, I have not read. I I know I know what they're for. I don't want to get involved with them. and I'm waiting for my decision to be made on the facts that's produced to us.

1:34:46 Um my conflicts of interest remain remain the the same that I have potential conflicts of interest in that um I'm an insurance agent in the area and um our office uh is in the gateway area which um I'm [clears throat] not sure that it it's an actual conflict but you know listed as a potential expporte contact um yeah I [laughter] I you know, so um thank you for saying that you've captured the email. So I'm going to assume that we're good there. Um I've

1:35:31 so the the experte contact that I've had kind of falls into two categories, right? People that are supportive and people that aren't. Um I've been numerous. Um, so I think and and help me know how detailed I have to be in terms of of all of this because I don't want to forget anybody, but mostly the calls that I've got saying that they're concerned about it um have brought up um have brought up their concerns around the zoning and around um wanting to make sure that we stick with a a standard. Um, and then some people have expressed interest or concern that we we do this and the

1:36:16 project still doesn't come to fruition because they're concerned about PEL's ability to actually um kind of get the funding to complete this. I have no knowledge as to whether that's a real concern or not. Um, I'm just disclosing that that was said. um the people that are supportive of it. Um you know, obviously there's the ongoing conversations around the mental health need, which um my perception is there's no disagreement anywhere. Um Richardson agrees with that. Everybody agrees with that. the the issues that um people that are for it um have kind of brought up are, you know, a lot of nuance around the

1:37:02 legislation, what it mean, what what it doesn't mean um and their various opinions. And then lastly, uh lots of conversation around what does this mean for traffic? What does this mean for how we're going to manage these things and and and all of those things. So, um I don't know that any of that has significantly swayed my perception of this one way or the other, but um of the numerous conversations I've had verbally um though that's kind of how it falls down. Is that detailed enough or do I >> I would ask through those conversations, have you been made aware of facts about

1:37:49 the zoning standards? um House Bill 2005 super sighting bill traffic impacts um for example that are different or outside of in addition to the record um in the matter which is the documents that have been submitted by the applicants or provided by staff or any members of the public or any of the testimony that came in during the two public hearings because I think that's what's a a key factor if any of your contacts have raised new facts or evidence or arguments ments that are not part of the developed record, then that would be something we need more detail about. >> I don't believe so. I I think I think

1:38:34 everything that people have said and in in my conversations really are things that have been said in the emails on the you know um person and then um I think a lot of the the issues that I uh had been hung up on and stuck on um had been clarified uh not only by you but by by city staff. Um, so I don't I can't think of anything that isn't on the record. >> Okay. Um, and then the other concerns that you talked about, what happens if there's not funding um, support based on the community mental health need, those are not relevant to the criteria of approval. So, I think those can be dealt with the same way the council would deal with um, the emails on those topics.

1:39:19 Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. So, I have two potential conflicts of interest. one as a property owner in the gateway area to um my employer is Lane County Health and Human Services. Um as for the exparte contacts, um there have been many. Um my pat answer to folks is that I can listen, but I am not responding and I am not saying anything. Um, and if if it comes down to it and you're like, I need dates of that meeting in a coffee shop or or the places that you've been. Um, and it so there's been several meetings that I've been to. There's been, you know, I've been just in public and had people come up and want to talk to me about it. I've

1:40:05 had people in my neighborhood show up on my doorstep and want to talk about it. Um, because I work for Lane County, it is a topic that comes up very often in meetings and emails. So, I've been exposed to those. there is nothing that would be new to this. Um there's just been a lot of it. So that's what I know. And did I say I did read those emails, just so you know, I did read the emails that we got and forward them on to you. >> Yes. Thank you. And and I would say councelor Rodley and councelor Buck, I appreciate that both of you um went through a lot of effort to forward those emails in particular before I was able to get it assistance. So I apprec I appreciate that. No, I app it was it's a lot of work. Um, and I do that was a lot. Um, and I really appreciate it and it did allow me to keep up with what was

1:40:50 being submitted to the council. Try to flag issues if they had come up earlier. Um, for conflicts of interest, I have a potential conflict of interest. My employer is United Health Group who is a healthc care provider. Uh, for exparte contacts, I've had numerous exparte contacts in in public as I've just gone about my community needs. they've been consistent with what everybody else has described is just generally people being in favor of uh of this and or not providing any additional information that would be not considered in the record. Um generally I've referred them back to the reporting out of register guard or lookout if they wanted to find out more information about it so that

1:41:35 you know that we weren't ending at a awkward point. Um, I did I did get a text message from Commissioner Levelvel today, um, talking about the scope of the stabilization center. Um, but it's not on par. It's not on point to any of the annexation criteria. >> Okay, you're ready? >> Yeah. Thanks. uh no conflicts of interest and uh like my fellow counselors everywhere I go somebody wants to discuss their um their feelings around this annexation request my response is also I can't respond to that

1:42:20 I even know I I hear what they're sharing with me but I'm I am not allowed to respond I received the same text message that the mayor received from commissioner Levelvel um again not relevant to the criteria that we are uh being asked to look at or anything on it. Didn't share anything that's not already on the record. Um, and just briefly, I was able to briefly speak with applicants um this evening and they confirmed they're not aware of information about any proposed changes that would be relevant to the council's decision um in terms of like annexation criteria. >> No conflicts of interest. Uh plenty of exparte contacts. Um nothing that is

1:43:05 would be considered outside the scope of the record. >> Uh my employer is 4J which apparently this piece of property lands on for 4J. Um although I there would be no students um seen at 4J for this. So, I'm just stating that and I have no exparte other than um the emails that I've read and I believe that I had two emails that were addressed directly to me and I forwarded those to you. So, that would be um in terms Thank you, council. Um I didn't hear anything that would um change my advice um that the council does not need to reopen the record. So, I want to begin by addressing the it was

1:43:50 about 200 emails that the council had received since the hearing and record were closed. These communications all clearly reflect community members heartfelt concerns and experiences and the council you can acknowledge that these concerns are real and these experiences matter to people. Um but the emails that are describing experiences personal and professional toward a general need for community community behavioral health services and facilities don't address the evidence needed to make a decision under the criteria of approval for the annexation. So 153 I think was the count of emails express just a general need for the facility um that are proposed after annexation citing um personal or professional experience without additional relevant

1:44:37 facts that would relate back to the annexation criteria. Um about 15 of these were from members of the general public. Um and the remainder were from individuals who selfidentified themselves as medical providers for um the applicant or um recent for you know recent employees um or public or health providers. There were 24 emails about the general need for the facility that did site facts um relevant to the annexation. But all of the facts cited were information that's already been provided into the record either through um the applicant's written materials or staff report findings or um public testimony. Some of these um included the same bulleted list describing some of the benefits to the city of the annexation, including economic benefits of um job creation and

1:45:25 um property tax revenues. And a few emails explained that the proposed mental health hospital and crisis stabilization center would be secured facilities. And I've um confirmed that all of this information was either included in um written testimony from the applicants or verbally shared at the May 18th public um hearing. There was one email that discussed discharge planning needed for patients leaving the facility and this was the same type of information cited in um the staff report proposed findings for the first public hearing. Five emails asked the council to apply the criteria of approval and make an impartial decision um or referenced the procedural concerns about the process to date. But these contacts did not include any evidence or facts that are not already in the record. And four of these communications were

1:46:10 opposed to the annexation and one was in favor of the annexation. Um, and then tonight you also heard um a similar comment asking the council to um my my interpretation of the public testimony you heard that is outside the scope of the record and outside the hearing tonight from Mr. Isacson was um generally um in support of the annexation based on personal experience including some reference to information that's already included in the record. So you do not need to admit that testimony in order to consider the information provided because the scope of information is already in the record. Um, there were three emails sent to you regarding concerns for patient care and safety and adequate staffing for patient health outcomes. Um, and how to prioritize investments between Timber Springs and the existing emergency

1:46:55 department. But there is no clear connection to any criteria of approval for this information. There's no fiscal impact to the city if there are um poor patient outcomes, even assuming that testimony was would be relevant information. um the Oregon Health Authority has oversight over patient health outcomes and adequate staffing for mental health treatment and so the city wouldn't play any role in that even if those were um concerns that were supported by evidence. The city does not regulate how Peace Health or Lane County manage their employees or employee satisfaction. So that's also not criteria of approval. And um there were there was one comment expressing general concern about the condition of a patient upon discharge which um is already a concern that's been expressed in the record and there was no specific facts in that email. Um

1:47:42 just a general concern. There were also eight we also discovered through the email search eight emails that were submitted when the public hearing was still open but had not been provided to staff for the record which is um understandable considering the magnitude of comments that you received. Um, but seven of these emails were just about the general support for the facilities and not relevant to the annexation criteria and had the same types of personal and professional experiences in the emails that came in later. And one email was opposed to the annexation based on the individual's perceived experiences with peace health, but that person then testified at the continued hearing on June 1st and shared those um perceptions with the council. And so those records are those uh substance of that communication was already placed on the record. Um, and so my recommendation is that the council not admit these

1:48:28 emails into your evidentiary record and therefore do not consider them in making your decision on the application. Um, and also the one comment that was received tonight as well as the comments that you described, your additional um, verbal contacts. Um, these communications either don't address criteria of approval or else they raise facts that are not are not new to the record and therefore wouldn't affect your decision-m or outcomes. There's also a practical reason to exclude these communications from the record. If the council admits these contacts into the record, then interested parties would need an opportunity to respond and then the applicant would need an opportunity for them to have a final response and the council would need to consider whether those responses in turn for required additional potential opportunities for response. And during that process, because this continues to

1:49:14 be a general concern of the communities, you're likely to continue getting emails and verbal communications um that are exparte, which would start the cycle over again. So there's really no practical point at which we could say, well, now all exparte contacts are done and there's no more need to address them. So my recommendation is that the council address them by explaining why you're not including them in the record. Um and that we staff would provide you findings to memorialize that in your final decision. Um, I recommend the council should only reopen the record tonight if you have evidentiary gaps in the record that you believe some of the expartiate contacts would fill or if you want staff, the applicants or other interested parties to provide new evidence to support and I would recommend that the council be really specific in the scope of what you're reopening the record to address.

1:50:00 Um, so are there any questions about that or do you want me to discuss the options if you did feel the need to reopen the record? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. I just want sort of a clarifying question conversation for the many people who did share even though we would not necessarily depending on what this council decides to be opening the record to bring those in on this. They're still they were still sent to us. They were still they're still part of public record like any other comments. So it's not like we toss them in the burn barrel. We actually they will they are considered public record even though they're not public record related to this. Correct. They are part of the public record. They I use record in a very specific land use sense. So I can clarify that um in a quasi judicial

1:50:47 proceeding in front of the council on a land use matter. The council has to cons make their decision based on facts in the record and those are that's defined as information put in front of the council specific to this application and criteria of approval. um similar to if you were at a you know a judge was at a trial uh you know you would offer you know exhibits to the judge. It's the the equivalent of that. So this is a legal procedural move to say we're going to draw the line at the um facts the council can site in support of its decision to not include things submitted after a certain date. But it does not mean that that's not important testimony for the council um to consider in your separate status as legislative officials for the city. So the council can hear those comments and consider them in

1:51:32 other legislative matters outside the scope of this application, but we're just drawing the line for this decision only. >> Okay, perfect. You want to go through the options and then who? >> So the option is to um not reopen the record and we will just proceed with your deliberations. We'll have a work session next week to cover um transportation system and resolving loose ends from last work session on that matter to discuss public safety and the um concept of um some type of agreement between the city and applicants that could involve neighborhoods around um public safety impacts of the facility and then revisiting the um comprehensive plan campus industrial criteria from the um even earlier work session. Sorry. Um, so

1:52:17 those are teed up for next week. Um, so we would move into that either way. So the question is if you want to reopen the record for more information, um, we could have a process to do that before your meeting after next week, which would be November 2nd. Um, otherwise at your deliberations next week, we'll try to wrap up the last remaining questions the council has based on information already in the record. And there is a lot of information that is already in the record. um and then come back to you November 2nd with adoption ready documents um whichever way the council directs. >> Okay. Any questions or opinions? So, well, it's closed now. We don't want to re So, we're saying we don't want to

1:53:02 reopen it. I don't >> You need like a >> I don't think we need a formal motion. I think we just need a head nod that we're not reopening it. >> Yeah. I ironically um what I'm asking the council to do is not make any decisions that need a vote. >> We don't understand. >> Yes. [laughter] >> So, okay. So, if we don't open it tonight, we're going to we're going to have work session time next week. We're going to have more work session time the second if we need it, but we're moving along to a vote on the second to get this thing wrapped up. >> That's my understanding. Um and I'm assuming that that decision not to reopen the record includes a headnod to address the exparte contacts in the staff report and findings the way I've described. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. And then if there's anything in particular that the council wants information about um in your work

1:53:47 session next week, I have a little bit more time like you know I have 22 hours left to finish that packet. So, um, you can, if there's high points that you want me to touch on, I will come back to what decisions are you making around the transportation network now versus decisions that would be made later. And I have a visual better visual aids for that discussion. We'll talk about the information that's in the record about public safety and the options that the council has on how to address that through the annexation agreement. And then um we'll talk again about campus industrial and policies from the record or information in the record around fit with campus industrial policies. But if there's any other topic that the council needs to discuss before you make a decision, now would be a great time to let me know.

1:54:34 >> I think I've always seen it as those three topics is to get us to get us to the finish line. So does anybody else have something else? Okay. No, I think we're good. All right, next item. Any other business from the city attorney's office? >> Uh, no. No business. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you everybody. We are adjourned.