Springfield City Council — October 12, 2026

0:06 >> I'm going to call the special um the Springfield City Council special session to order >> with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon >> here. >> Councelor Weber >> here. Councelor Mo >> here. >> Councelor Bradley >> here. Councelor Cuadras here. Councelor Buck >> here. And councelor Stout >> here. Thank you. >> All right. We have one item for which is the TERA hearing request for bond issue. Good evening, mayor and council. Thank you for um having the uh time tonight to consider this request um before you this evening to request that the city council give authorization and request Lane County to conduct what's called a TERA hearing and authorization. Uh the materials in your uh packet describe uh the background. This has to do with

0:52 Springfield in that the Mackenzie Wamit Medical Center located in Springfield is part of a merger that just received OA authority or authorization uh to become part of a nonprofit hospital system. Part of that merger includes obtaining a bond issue for interestf free um public bonds. There is a legal requirement through the federal tax regulation that there is a public hearing and a um authorization from the local jurisdiction. Uh Lane County has received a request. We also received a request. We are asking uh for authorization to ask Lane County to conduct the TER hearing. And I'm available for any questions.

1:45 >> Okay. The one question I had is, okay, we're going to authorize asking. How are we going to do the asking? Are we sending a letter or is it authorizing staff to ask us? >> Yeah, I think if you make the motion tonight in the vote, then we can relay that to uh the county officials through our staff. >> Okay, perfect. >> Is there a motion on the >> We're we're getting organized here. under the action requested um the uh approve or not approve the request for Lane County to conduct a TER hearing. So you could say I move uh to request Lane County to conduct a TER hearing and approve the issuance of bonds on behalf of QKA Corporation. Got it. Thanks. I approve, sorry, and move to approve the

2:30 request for Lane County to conduct a TERA hearing and approve the issuance of bonds on behalf of QKA Health Corporation. >> Second. >> All right. Is there any discussion for this? Okay. 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 Steppp, >> yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Six yeses, zero nos. And I think we're good. >> That's all. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Uh we are adjourned and we are going to Are we switching links at all? All right. Then I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session to order and have you call the role again? >> Mayor Ang Gordon >> here. >> Councelor Weber here. Councelor Mo

3:15 >> here. >> Councelor Rodley >> here. Councelor Cuadro here. Councelor Buck here. >> And councelor Stout >> here. All right. We have one item this evening that is the international way annexation who is our city assistant city attorney. >> Well, good evening mayor and council. We are here on the international way annexation. I've condensed the title slides down for you a little bit since last time. Um, we will start out um with since this is not a hear a regular session unless council has concerns about new experte contacts you may have received. I have direction last time to include findings for final adoption to

4:01 reject exparte contacts. So I don't um need you to make any new disclosures unless you have new verbal or meeting contacts um to disclose. Um but I do need the council to go through your conflicts of interest disclosures. Start with you, Steve. >> I have no conflicts of interest for next party contact. >> Um, the only potential conflicts of interest I have are that I'm insurance agent, that I do business in the community, and our office is impacted by the traffic on gateway, which may or may not relate, but is a potential. I have two potential conflicts of interest. One, as a property owner in

4:46 the gateway area, and two, um, my employer is Lane County Health and Human Services, even though I work for a different division and is working on this project. I haven't had any additional expporte contacts. Um, I do have one potential conflict of uh, interest. The I am employed by United Health Group, which does business with Peace Health. >> No conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest or exparte contact. >> I my employer is 4J School District of which uh this property lands on their service area.

5:31 >> We're going to get pretty good at this by the time this is over. >> I'm hoping that's not that many left to go. >> Okay. And you would think that I would know how to to direct the slides. It's not even on. Okay. Um there we go. Thank you. Okay. Um just a reminder again, this is quasi judicial. It's governed by criteria of approval. These are the three criteria that will relate um to your discussions tonight. From last week, the council directed that you have three issues that um remain for council discussion until you're ready to make a final decision. And those are first revisiting the transportation system discussion from

6:17 last week. Um second, the public safety fiscal impacts um and how those are addressed in the annexation agreement. And then last revisiting from earlier in September the campus industrial designation and consistency with comprehensive plan. So unless the council wants to make changes, that's the order that we plan to work through the topics tonight. Okay. So as a reminder, transportation impacts mainly this criteria whether the proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which minimum level of transportation services in this case can be provided in an orderly, efficient and timely manner. And as a reminder of the factual context where this is sitting, um the information in the record from

7:03 the applicant's transportation engineer is that there will be trips, new trips generated by the annexation. and the specific anticipated uses will generate fewer trips than the typical campus industrial um development would and fewer trips than certainly like general medical uses would like um an all-purpose medical clinic for example. Um and so but there will be new trips that wouldn't be generated if the property remained unannexed. And what we have done for council to help guide your discussion is combined some of the maps that were previously prepared. I'll go through them really quickly and then Michael is also up here to answer questions. Um and we can flip back to whichever ones our council wants

7:49 to look at. So the first is the status quo without this annexation. Where does the city have um planned right away in the TSP? Um, and then just also to help you orient where's the gateway belt line intersection. So the red line is the property. I think you're very familiar with that by now. The blue roads are where there is a planned road in the current TSP and there is some right of way or agreement to dedicate right of way that exists. The green are roads planned in the TSP where there is not right of way and there is not any plan to provide right of way or not plan agreement. So that's where the city would have to negotiate for additional

8:34 right of way to achieve those projects. The next sorry next image is what facilities does the annexation propose? So in this slide the we add the light blue which if you can see there's a um light blue along the western property boundary for a future um it's just wide enough to accommodate a future minor collector and then there are narrower lines that is the um public access easement over a bike ped path. Um that is the narrow line that goes to the the east west and the the north south on the western boundary. And then the last map for you

9:21 is um not being decided in this annexation but this was an image that was previously given to the council. um under the proposed I if the council gets additional potent right of way in that light blue what options might exist for the council to discuss in a future process a legislative future process to amend the TSP. So, at a very conceptual level, that could free up development on the Royal Caribbean site by getting rid of that conceptual green line um that is a minor collector without any dedicated rightaway and it could or or that could remain um and the council could explore whether a dot one of the dotted orange

10:06 lines is a better alternative to the existing plan, but that would not be required um in any manner. That's just how those lines relate to what's being proposed. Okay. So, I'm going to go back to the middle slide just what's proposed for the annexation and then we can move it around as you have questions. But the um question for the council's deliberation is um if the annexation proposal meets you know what council's looking to adopt. If the council has further questions that the council doesn't think the criteria are met, what are the facts that um we need [clears throat] to pull out of the record for that? If the

10:53 annexation proposal does meet the criteria, what are the reasons so we can make sure the staff report mirrors those. >> All right, Councelor Rodley, >> I'll kick us off. I really appreciate this. I kind of wish we would had it sooner, but I'm not picking on you, but I think that um it it's really helpful to actually see it overlaid um because it makes it clearer all of the things. And I appreciate the coding around, okay, this was already in the plan. This is where we could do. So, it actually um it it makes it it doesn't feel like a stretch to me, like we already have these things planned out. Um, I think I mentioned last time I

11:39 assume, you didn't say it out loud, but I assume the green circle that's the intersection because you're coming off the freeway there. >> Yes. Sorry, beline. >> Perfect. So, I think I mentioned last time that um and looking at this, it it it reinforces it for me that I am not as concerned about that as part of this annexation. in seeing that I'm more concerned about the sort of inter the inter traffic that might be happening like between the hospital and here and you know folks coming from Springfield. So that's and I mean I don't I don't know that that how that impacts it. It's just that's the part that I'm like oh that's something we have to think about. So I appreciate this. Um it makes it much clearer to me. So thank you.

12:27 All right, Councelor Stone, >> just one question on the annexation required road path, the light blue, I'm curious, um is that light blue road um is that one uh expected to have any impact on the neighboring property, specifically the FedEx building. I just want to make sure that because I, you know, I've driven out of there a number of times. I just want to make sure that whatever is done there is not causing trouble to uh their facility there. And I I I don't know the details of that. So, this is more of a hey, have we worked that out with FedEx? Is there is there going to be a future issue with, you know, the trucks coming in and out and that sort of thing. Um that that that's it's really more of a I'm uh a

13:12 detail that I would want to bring into the annexation agreement to make sure that that is clarified. And I don't know the answer like, hey, has this conversation been held with um the property owner of the of what FedEx currently o occupies for their use? Um, I I can have Michael talk about conflicts, but what I will say is that the 2000 um not 2000, the 1998 agreement that we were reviewing in the initial public hearing and then discovered a 2005 agreement that calls some of that into question that actually provided for half of the street going north to be on the FedEx side. Okay. And so this would actually be less impactful to FedEx in terms of their property because it would I mean the city would basically not um

13:58 further pursue that local street. Um and so their private driveway would not need to be converted into a um public street at their cost. That was the agreement in '98 when they and the site plan that they developed under. >> So that's still in place. Correct. Well, the site plan, their site plan is in place. It doesn't require us to have them build the road, but it provides that if we did, um, they would have to provide that property to the road. So, they would not be doing that. Um, so that minimizes that impact. And then in terms of safe, um, sort of safety and and how that might >> ingress and egress, that's my concern. >> Yeah, I would say that right now the site kind of operates on its own in

14:43 circulation. So most of the areas for its loading docks, backing and other things, what really matters is if we put something right next to it, is there is there any area in terms of accessing those that that could be that's really at a time of design to talk with that facility, you know, what their needs are and to make sure you have the proper offsets from drive aisles and and and other areas. Um, it also kind of pairs with R3, which we haven't gotten, you know, the rightway for, haven't aligned exactly where that intersection to go north would go from there. Um, so there's some flexibility with those lines to maybe move it a little west, you know, move it a little bit farther away from the FedEx if there's a driveway or a drive aisle right next to there, right? >> Um, and get the proper spacing and get the proper kind of design that would

15:28 work with their operations as it sits right now. So the upshot I'm hearing is that it would be more in the design stage that we would actually address the exact concerns that the FedEx property would have in this case. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay, that's perfect. Thank you, >> Council Weber. >> Um, in relation to this R3, the green line that's here, and connecting it to the hypothetical future road, it looks to me like it's offset a little bit this way. So what what would be the best path for connecting those two in the future? >> Well, we we would want to make them align. >> Yeah. >> Um and so without having survey of exactly where the buildings are at, how how the how the current development to

16:14 the south works as well. Um but there's different intersection types that we could work with that work better with offsets. But once again, it's another if that was the chosen path there, we'd have to work with those different property owners and their existing sites to make sure that their circulation, their emergency access and others worked as well. But those lines can can meander um a little bit off of their thing once we get to a design where we actually have survey and we're actually ground truththing at that point. >> So at that point, you don't really see any major issue with with achieving that connectivity there. Wow. Um, at this high level, yes. Um, but once you get really into the granular, like

16:59 really deep into it and you look at the storm water facilities, all of those, there could be issues that arise. But that's what's fun about engineering is solving that challenge. So, >> I'll take your word for that. And I will also say that the green lines because there's no existing dedicated rightofway, the green lines on the TSP are much like looser than what then lines become once we have dedicated right away or an agreement with a legal description. And so I I you know when I put this together, I drew them as close from the plan as I could, but they're not intended to be to the property line precision level of detail. So from a not just from an engineering perspective but a legal one that line can shift to accommodate the infrastructure and you know whatever negotiations are with

17:44 affected properties or that there's a whole level of processes there that can be applied. Okay, great. Thank you. >> Uh councelor Buck. Oh no, councelor Mo. No, let's go council Mo first, please. >> I said this at the beginning. annex it and decide how you're gonna run it afterwards. And I go back to the e-web annexation that that happened sometime not too long ago. The applicant acknowledged they would be required to amend the Springfield development code to list high impact facilities before applying for a site plan review. So in other words, they're annexing the city. Then they come in and do the site plan review and decide what's going to happen there.

18:30 That was simple. Why isn't this simple? Um, I think one of it's it's not related to the transportation issue, but in the e webb example, the city council could defer some of the findings uh of compliance to a later noticed quas judicial process or other process. And in this case, because of House Bill 2005, there's no future process to defer that decision-making to. So, it frontloads all of those questions at annexation. And that's one reason why it's more complex. >> Anyway, it's going to be annexed sometime. Let's get that done and move on. >> Thank you, Council Mo. Councelor Buck. [clears throat] >> So, I'm mostly aligned with um my my fellow

19:17 counselors. The only place that I that I would differ a little bit from um councelor Rodley is I I am concerned about the traffic here. Um, I do think the intersection is is is part of part of this, but I will also say that intersection is problematic no matter what you do, how you do it. I mean, it it's it's a problem. And so, I guess I I guess the for me it's not necessarily like the the critical critical piece there. I guess what what I'm how I'm looking at this is and the map is really helpful. Um my expectation is that is that the

20:02 applicant understands like there's work to be done when it comes to transportation. That's that that's always been true. That's been acknowledged in um in the application. Um, so to to me it's it's one of those things where um what I'm looking for is to make sure that we're doing it as as with the least amount of impact as as possible. Um 100% right there with councelor Stout on that and um acknowledging like we have work to do on on this like it's not there there's no way around that. we we've got an issue there whether we we annex this now whether we don't like it's it it's it's a part of the puzzle out there and so um I really like

20:49 looking at the options and I think that options uh options are certainly good um I'm you know I'm I'm less fond of the the orange lines um just because of the way that impacts the um those existing part uh pieces. But for me, I I think that I I just want to state this really maps it out clearly that we have an issue that's going to get have to get addressed um when we move beyond this application. There's there's there's going to be an issue to address there and I think we're all clear on that. So the the question that I have and is the orange dotted lines are an answer

21:36 that we're not we're not figuring out as part of this annexation. It is the TSB process that's going to do that. >> Correct. The orange dotted lines merely are what staff to be to sort of not make it seem like so that council can be fully aware of what consequences in the future another council might not not even necessarily consequences but just the results like if this right ofway is added what options would that provide to a council. Um, but the council could a future council could also decide to pursue none of those and do something that staff haven't. I mean, we don't know what results are going to happen in that legislative process and it's legislative, so it's a bigger look. Um, there could be options we've not looked

22:22 at as staff or aren't aware of. The council could keep the, you know, existing layout. So those are there's a whole slew of potentialities that you do you are not deciding tonight >> right and when I think about us of you know sort of planning efficiently and effectively right it's the annexation agreement as a as a get well I guess the application gets us the light blue chunk >> yes >> and then that sets us up to sort of start painting in the rightway that we need for north gateway even though we could have to make different decisions for in the future. So when I think about how we do this efficiently, right, it is taking the opportunity when there's no building there to get, you know, to to

23:09 get the land that we're going to need to actually put a road in there someday, even though we want to maximize the amount of um options the future council has. >> Correct. >> Okay. So are I think does anybody have other questions or are they comfortable thinking about the the north gateway transportation problem saying because the proposal is the light blue line right and some of this some of these others decisions are effectively deferred and I'm just kind of checking in before people we tell them we're okay to move forward. Okay. And then I don't know that you have another slide around that gateway intersection, but the gateway intersection, our answer was effectively

23:56 the applicant's going to pay for the study so that we can figure out what the new plan for the gateway intersection is going to be, whatever that looks like, and that we're effectively saying that that their contribution to the gateway intersection is getting us to whatever that new plan is. And then the TR transportation planning and funding and all the other stuff would have to be figured out later. >> Correct. That that they're going to impact this intersection. And so um that's not in dispute and I think the facts are the transportation studies are really clear now about what that impact is and how it kind of sits where it would have sat if there was campus industrial. It's less than the gener generic campus industrial development. um but there is still an impact and so

24:42 to fiscally mitigate that impact on the city they're going to contribute to transportation planning costs um and then the city will use that for the study and so the amount of that contribution is based off the um previously stated amount of the study rather than trying to aortion out some cost to construct intersection improvements that the council may decide to pursue something else. >> Right. But in our previous conversations on different topics around gateway, we've all decided that we like the the plan improvements for gateway are things that we don't want to build. Yeah. >> Right. So on a normal cycle, we would be asking for them to contribute to some set of plans that we wanted to build today, >> but we've said we don't want to build those things. So we're saying we want money to plan for whatever the new

25:27 gateway is going to be like. And that will mitigate the impact that they would have on this intersection to move by moving the city closer to a study to replace the project the capacity that project represents with something else. >> Yeah. Because the reality is we don't have any methodology to you know to sort of uh calculate their their section of it and we don't want to build what we have in the plan anyway. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. I think we are ready to move on. I think we are good with transportation or right now as we move we're moving forward. We're saying we're good with transportation. We're ready to talk about public safety. Anybody have other questions about transportation? >> Okay, I think we're good. >> All right. Thank you, Michael.

26:20 this was just further context if the council needed to go back to some policies, but we didn't. So, we're going to move past that. This is the so the fiscal impacts to the city are in criteria D. So public services the property can be provided with public safety services. Police will report you know respond per any other annex property EMS and fire same thing. Um but there were comments raised in the record um and concerns from some neighbors that there would be potentially some outsized impact um on police services or other emergency services. So, your memo has um they are bullet points. They are not ranked in terms of relative importance. I did not assign credibility to any of these bullet points. Um, but I just went

27:06 through your public hearings and the documents in the record and tried to pull out in the CBM every um evidence or argument, not legal argument, but every sort of statement made to the council at this proceeding that might relate to fiscal impacts on public safety services. So that all the information you've gotten on this topic is in one place. If the council wants assistance in in um weighing these or talking through that, I'm happy to provide that. But I just wanted to be clear that putting them in the CBM is not saying that these are all um accurate or more important than any other factors. Um it's just trying to aid the council in your discussion. And the same thing goes with the um second set of bullet points

27:52 on campus industrial. So, the proposal in the annexation agreement is that um there's the impacts on police services are somewhat uncertain and so the applicants are willing to enter into anou with the city. Um and there's testimony in the record that there's already uh with the city around um Riverbend Hospital that have to do with security coordination. And so theou reflects that. Um I if if the pro neighboring property owners want to engage on this topic at when we're ready to go there and um have discussions with peace health and lane county to be part of an agreement then we would use you know we would accommodate try to

28:38 accommodate that process using effort you know best efforts but it doesn't require agreement from neighboring property owners for this project to move forward because that would not be a permissible condition I think in an annexation context. Council Rodley, >> thank you. I'll start us off again and people can agree, disagree, throw shoes. We'll see. Um, so this has been one of the the um concerns that I am least concerned about and I will share why. Um, some of it is, you know, experience and some of it is, I think we it's opinion. Um, in my experience, and I work mostly in human services, having dedicated places that are like providing services for people act as opposed to

29:25 we're picking them up here, we're taking them here, we don't know, you know, what to do actually improves public safety and provides resources that we don't ordinarily have. I would argue that the, you know, our justice center here in Springfield was a a key pillar to our redevelopment of Springfield and actually increased public safety in many ways. And we've got, you know, some of our most active businesses are right there next to the justice center where the people are coming and go and and nobody knows and nobody cares and they feel extra safe because they know that those facilities and that infrastructure is there. So this has been something that I have not been terribly concerned about. My concerns were like what if a ambulance had to make a tight corner. It was really more about those logistics.

30:11 Um because I do think and in reading these and in the feedback that we got from our public safety officers and our firefighters and our direct responders is having places that are providing treatment for people is only a win-win for public safety. So I'm going to start there and you all can do with it what you please. Thank you. Great. Who wants to jump in next? Councelor Buck. >> Um, I I definitely um see this very very much the same as as councelor Rodley. I I think that when we consider um what we have right now um and then you consider giving people an option for

30:57 treatment, an option for a place to go um with the resources, the staffing and support. Um I think that it certainly can and will improve um public safety throughout the throughout the community as as well as being mindful to the to the neighbors there. um you know, a very obvious concern is well, if we're bringing we're bringing folks um in that could be a safety concern, then then they're there. [clears throat] And I and I think that what I've seen in mental health facilities is that they do a very good job of managing the the the foot traffic, managing the people. And this facility as it's proposed would give uh the mental health community uh

31:42 the resources to to direct traffic so to speak. It's not hey you need to leave in x number of hours whether you have a place to go or not. Um that's the situation now at the ER. Uh the the ER keeps people for a finite amount of time. Whether they're whether they are safe to be on the street or not. um when that clock is up, the doctors and the medical staff have have no other options. And so um we've seen that in our communities uh time and time again. This facility um solves that because they don't have the same kind of clock because of the way it's it's designed. So having a place for people to be while they're waiting and a lot of times the

32:27 clock at the ER is much shorter than than what it actually takes to get somebody served. So I think that what we will experience is an is um is an improvement in this. And let's not forget Peace Health, there's no substitute for experience, right? And Peace Health um has the experience with the Johnson unit uh previously in Eugene. They understand how this works. they understand what people need and that's why this facility was proposed. So I think what we will see is an improvement in in public safety and it'll give us more options and more research resources. So this is actually one of the things that I feel is going to to be a positive for this for the not only the neighbors that are that are

33:13 there in the area but also um the rest of the community. Hi, Council Weber. >> I'm gonna keep my shoes on. Councelor Rodle, it's okay with you. Um, so, uh, around the the MOU or the good neighbor agreement in the annexation agreement as we've received it to this to to date, it says such agreement if any, shall include. So, if any implies to me there's some flexibility in whether or not we do have one. Um, I think in order to provide some comfort to the neighbors that have concerns around public safety that it's important that we come to some

33:58 agreement around this and that that it's signed by the parties and there's a commitment to following through on it. >> Councelor St. I just want to echo what councelor Weber said and also um the police have not said that policing the hospital at Riverbend has been terribly difficult because of theou correct I mean that's not I know I don't know if that's part of the record or not >> what I will say in the record is that um you know as city and I want to be very careful to stay inside the scope of the record so if they seem like I'm like qualifying things it's because I'm trying to make sure that we don't step outside the record but there is ample public testimony with city staff and SPD in the room about how well thatou works

34:46 um with with meetings between SPD and um Riverbend and that that's a regular occurrence and that it's a a cooperative and positive relationship. And so if if as staff we felt the need to correct that information for the council that has not been brought into the record if that um so I think the council can make inferences based on the fact that there was a lot of testimony from the applicants about the ongoing relationship and how that coordination works and although we didn't put a statement in from SPD or from the city manager on that point exactly the lack of contrary evidence um is something that the council can make inferences from. So just to that I would say they're doing a great job with the

35:31 hospital. It seems that that seems to be I gota careful again how I say this for the same exact reasons. Um what would be important to me is in fact a memorandum of understanding just like councilor Weber said that we do have some agreement there and that it's similar to the uh to the memorandum of understanding that we see at the hospital at peace health and so because they've been able to execute that very successfully with um the police force as it is. So um that's that's where my mind is on that one >> and the information in the record about that agreement is that it covers communication protocols and just general collaboration on security. So, I think that those are things that could be accommodated. Um, and then whether that could become a larger agreement that might give neighbors a pathway to participate would be entirely up to the neighbors. Um, and that was the main

36:18 reason why it had said if any. Um, but we could definitely revise that to bring back to council. Um, a clearer statement that it there will be an agreement between applicants and the city on how we're going to coordinate these things. Um, and you know, it would be subject to the applicants agreeing to that, but we could, um, I mean, it would be sub I would need to confirm with the applicants that they agree to that language before your next meeting. I'm not trying to say after the next meeting it would be subject to something. Um, but I think that that's likely workable. Um, and then we could be clearer about um, providing an opportunity to work with neighbors if they want to engage. >> Perfect. Thank you.

37:04 So I've got a couple of questions here. So historically when we've seen these type ofus good neighbor agreements in in this contextou and the good neighbor agreement is effectively the same thing right. Okay it was discussed in two different ways because it's a good neighbor agreement if neighbors are a party but if neighbors aren't a party then it's a we wouldn't call it a good neighbor agreement we would call itou. So the annexation agreement uses two titles because it may change depending on who participates >> and and you stated previously we we use these types ofus often, right? To cover, you know, how we work with, you know, bigger partners in town. So how long are these effective? Do they get redone every year? Do they get redone every 5 years? Um, I

37:49 don't know that off the top of my head, but I believe that we've had it ongoing. Um, and I would say that the information in the record leans towards it's may not be the same exact document with the same exact terms and conditions, but um, I believe we've had an ongoing collaborative agreement with the hospital since it was located in Springfield in 2011. So we could create a situation where in the short term, you know, we offer the neighbors an opportunity to participate and maybe as you know, is everybody learns to work together in the medium term, they might have an an opportunity to come back and and participate. >> Um potentially I think that that would remain I think I think as a city if there become problems in that area um from an economic development

38:34 perspective, it's in the city's interest to help parties find a solution. If there are calls for service that are unusual or that are impacting neighboring properties, I think the city would want to be an active participant in helping reach a resolution. And I think that that is the case no matter what the context is for whether that's an existing business or um one that's being newly proposed. So would in in theory, right, if we got to anou, it it could just simply say we work together or it could effectively, I don't know, cap the calls of ser to service to this area, right? Like nobody's I don't think anybody's saying that we're going to have we're expecting

39:19 excessive calls from service. I think what the way I'm thinking about it is right people are concerned about it, right? The way you move past that point is that you create a mechanic that you talk as a neighborhood, you work on the issues and you create some sort of metric, right? But that theou could be the avenue for for how what we would expect from a public safety perspective. >> Yeah, I think it opens up the lines. It makes clear the lines of communication so that there's proactive problem solving opportunities if there start to become some sort of issue. So the other I guess question around the criteria that I have and if I think about what I saw in the record right I saw kind of two different stories. One of them is sort of strategically right across the

40:04 city you had a lot of feedback saying that that the public safety impact this would help our overall public safety system right and then you've weighed that with tactically kind of on the neighborhood level concerns from the neighborhoods about the publica safety situation that is specific to their neighborhood. So how do I think about weighing those two things? Um the this is one reason why I've kept the criteria up. The this really is not about neighborhood impacts. I would say the criteria of approval is about fiscal impacts to the city as a whole. Um they are obviously going to be tied into a site because it is annexation of one site, right? >> But the general requirement is for the city to identify its own fiscal impacts.

40:50 Um, and so I think that the if if the city council finds that there is a net fiscal benefit to the city, then there may be a there and I don't know that the record shows there's a going to be a localized impact. But um, a localized impact would not outweigh a net citywide fiscal cost savings. >> So from a law pers like from your perspective, I kind of have to weigh them both as the same thing, right? like either, you know, we're saying the public safety systems better off or the public safety systems effectively worse off. >> I it's a it's a dollar for-dollar analysis. So, if the city's going to save costs on a city-wide basis um that are more than higher costs in one area, then you you're going to look at

41:36 citywide. So, I'll just use numbers um to give an example. If the city is going to save $100, these are just made up. um $100 citywide on less police um resources needed because this facility is now in our community. Um but they're going to spend $10 more per year at this area than they would have otherwise. The city's saving $90 a year. That's a net that's not a fiscal impact um that's detrimental to the city. So I think that is the way a court would look at this criteria that it's not looking at fiscal impacts on a one location. Go ahead, councelor Stton. >> But to that end, do we actually have a baseline data with the police department and an agreed to methodology for agreeing on exactly what that impact is

42:21 going to be? >> Um, no. So there is not a quantified impact. What I'm I'm saying like hypothetically if the council's looking at like we may have a greater cost savings, but there could be some localized. It's sort of the opposite of how you do transportation. So for the transportation, that's about timely, orderly, and efficient provision of service. you would look at like maybe citywide traffic's going to decrease, but if I'm having this localized impact, I need to address that. Fiscal impacts are different where you're you're looking at the citywide fiscal impact. I don't think that we get to divide off ge geographic areas to look at fiscal impacts. But I think where I'm coming to is let's just say that this was and this is not a hill I'm dying on at all, but let's just say that this was actually in front of a judge to adjudicate, you

43:07 know, was the was there actual fiscal impact. We have no data. >> Correct. >> So it's almost an erroneous requirement in this case. >> The the data that we have is that there um is likely to be uh new tax revenue. >> Okay. Um and but we also know that no matter how much new tax revenue like because of a structural imbalance, you're never going to have an annexation um short of like a scale that's not at play here. Um that's going to like pay for itself in terms of public services. So every annexation that you look at is going to have this like um so what I'm trying to say is the data that we do have is about property tax impacts but those property tax impacts are not going to solve sort

43:54 of a citywide issue that we have and and I don't think they should be expected to. So the data that we do have is sort of not helpful in terms of dollars >> to answer this question. So I think what this council looks at should look at are what are the fiscal impacts likely to be? What evidence is there in the record about what fiscal impacts might be? Um, and even if you can't quantify those fiscal impacts, if you know XYZ circumstance will will create some fiscal impact, but we can prevent that from happening through this mechanism, then we don't need to know if it's $100 or $10,000, it mitigates that impact. And so what staff is saying is it's uh the recom staff recommendation in the annexation agreement is that we don't know what the fiscal impact would be or if there would

44:39 be any fiscal impact negative or positive but there's a concern that site security could be something that created a detrimental fiscal impact. And so the because the applicants are willing to enter an agreement with the city then that that existence of an agreement is sufficient mitigation for whatever potential fiscal impact could result based on a lack site security if that happened. >> Is that because the the whatever the this theoretical would be would define how we mitigated the impact. It would provide the city with the tools which are going to be coordination and communication to help resolve those issues. And then if there really was I mean this is not there's no evidence on

45:24 the record that this is the situation that would happen. But if we think about what are the tools the city would have outside of this annexation we do have ordinances on disorderly um properties that can be used. the the city council historically has a lot of other tools at its disposal. If there was a really outsized impact to public safety that was happening from one property and the council can look back to like Springfield's downtown 15 to 20 years ago, that is there's no I want to be very clear there's no information in the record that that would happen. that there it's not the only way the annexation agreement is not the only way the city can address a problem that might in theory arise in the future that we but we have no findings to say that it would

46:09 >> yeah and and I agree I don't think there I don't think there are tangible findings in the record that this is going to be a problem I think what we're we're talking through is trying to create a situation where you know where we have some anecdotal evidence that has been entered into the record from from my perspective, but we need to create some sort of avenue that like we all we all got to work together here, right? So, we're trying to get to a process where we all work together. And we know that in big medical facilities, we've used this as a avenue in the past. >> All right, other questions. Councelor Cuadras, >> thank you. I may have just tripped over something. So, um, you're talking about, um, the city having the imbalance, this

46:55 walking in the door, um, and that it's not resolving, um, our structural imbalance, but is there an analysis that shows whether it improves or worsens? Um there is no analysis whether it improves or worsens um explicitly but what I would say is that the there's evidence in the record that it would result in a net um reduction in police time spent on mental health resources and considering that the city would not be undertaking any activities associated like we are not providing mental health services ourselves. So, it's not a matter of if police spend less time on mental health services

47:40 because community members are accessing that resource through Lane County or Peace Health. That's shifting that response cost off of the city. And so then any tax revenue that comes in would be an overall net benefit. Um that requires the council to to um find credible the amount of testimony that you've gotten. And I and I think there's a reasonable basis to find that the record says there would be a net reduction in police calls for service related mental health issues once a facilities are operating. So I hope that that explains that well enough. Okay. Happy to answer questions if that didn't make sense. >> Okay.

48:26 Uh, Nancy, >> since you're talking about the budget, I feel an obligation to kind of weigh in here a little bit because it's a it's complicated. Um, the structural imbalance that is that present in the city is present in almost every local government. So, there's no one solution that's going to solve um Oregon's property tax structure. So, I think it, you know, that I' I'd like to set that aside. I don't think that should be part of your consideration on this issue and I don't think um the city attorney's office is suggesting that it should be. Um so it's I I would probably just not even I I don't see that earlier in the record either as far as the the city's overall uh general funding balance.

49:11 >> It was discussed in the record, which is why I pulled it into the memorandum, but mostly to be able to explain that it's not it's not a standard you should be looking at. you shouldn't be looking at whether an annexation solves a structural imbalance, but it was discussed in testimony that the city has budget concerns and issues. And so worsening those would be uh a negative fiscal impact to the city, but there's not um the evidence in the record. I think we're on the same page here, but I do the same page. I just further clarification also about uh the use of our police department and their response time to what could be a uh behavioral health incident that then maybe rises to

49:57 activity that they would then need to respond to. And I think um it would it's um clear that this uh proposed use could take some weight off of the officers because if not for a designated area to to take people to potentially they would be um depending on what was occurring they could be potentially housed in our jail um which would be I would assume a considerable cost and uh to the So there are other ways to look at costs to the city beyond property taxes and I guess that's the other part I wanted to inject as the person that puts the budget together. So thank you.

50:42 >> Okay. So I think what I'm hearing us uh talk through is yes like we want stronger language around anou. I think an MOU is the trick is the is the avenue to get to get us here, right? And the original annexation agreement sort of has a if we could get to an MOU that would be nice. Um I think what I'm hearing is us say we no anou's got to be part of this. To be clear, that's anou between the city and the facilities themselves. And it's not a requirement that neighbors sign on. I want to be clear because I don't think we can do that. So I just want to be really >> Yes. And I think my question is can we

51:29 create an avenue that like that in invites the invites the neighbors in right I don't need this to like to me it's not a deal breaker if like I understand that tensions are fraught across the neighborhood. Um but if we can invite them to the table and I totally understand if they don't want to participate. Um, but as this kind of goes forward a couple of a couple of iterations, I think continuing to invite the neighbors in would make a ton of sense. >> Okay. Okay. So, um, I will work with the applicants on some revised language to that section of the annexation agreement to bring back to your next meeting. >> Okay. So, we're saying we we're good on transportation or like that we've talked through transportation. We've talked

52:15 through right the annexation agreement. What else do we have? >> Last topic is back to um looping it up to the very beginning. Um so consistency with comprehensive plan. You had discussion about this council wanted more time. I have pulled out um in the CBM every fact that might relate to how this um property would the proposed uses at a high level. These are not like very specific, you know, is that fence going to screen things adequately, but just conceptually as described, do crisis stabilization center and behavioral health hospital a behavioral health campus? Does that meet um the annexation criteria? The policy,

53:03 the urbanization element, policy number one, it's my advice that this reads as a mandatory policy. The urbanization element is about establishing the urban growth boundary and then how property annexes to the city. So I I believe a a land board of appeals or a court would say yes this is mandatory criteria for an annexation. So then what does it mean in this context? Shall be converted urbanized land unannexed land shall be converted to urban uses as shown in the Springfield comprehensive plan map and more particularly described in the gateway refinement plan. Um that leads us um to the text around what's the campus industrial designation. And so um the council does not need to find that the campus industrial land use district,

53:50 the zone allows this use, but that it's consistent with the scope and description of this designation. And you can look outside the text of this for um other helpful information and evidence. So you've had testimony and there have been arguments from the applicant about um how this furthers city council employment goals. Clearly um there is a policy in this campus industrial designation to provide employment land. So you could make that connection. There's been testimony opposed to the annexation um about how this is not one of the very specific examples given in this text. So you could take that more literally um if that's what's important

54:35 to the council. Um and I want to again remind the council that this is not a question of the council legislating what types of uses ought to be allowed here moving forward. You're not making a decision on hypothetical other proposed uses and how they might fit. The council has legislative authority to address this later and in a future quasi judicial application, you'd be looking at what's specifically proposed in that annexation at that time. Um, and how it relates to whatever policies apply at that future time, whether they're the same ones or different ones because I think we also got into some discussion that was like hypothetically in the future. Um, and it's I would recommend that you try to keep focused on this application and this um, property at

55:23 this time. >> Council St. >> Sorry, did you have more, Christina? Okay. Um, I would love that last little bit in a memo that's for the future just in case anybody ever asks so that we talked about it because I think it's an important one to keep in front of us all. Um so so I'm coming back to I I appreciate the context that you're giving. Uh something that's important that I see to achieve this designation is uh employment and making sure we have employment. I know we're not specifying like a minimum employment here. I'm just kind of curious how um I I am operating from the assumption that all parties are acting in good faith and I want to make sure though that that good faith happens. you know

56:08 that and within part of this annexation agreement h what what is a way that we can helpfully and health healthfully as a city um discuss employment numbers that are expected to be there um I fully expect the applicant will you know build out everything that we've been talking about and employ many people and be a great benefit to the city and do great work um but sometimes things change as we've seen like the the this is not related to to this, but as an analogy, uh when the interest rates are high, sometimes things don't get built very quickly. Um what's what's our avenue to kind of move things along in this way or make sure that we're building the full scope of what we're talking about in

56:53 this agreement? >> Um I think the first answer is I can answer first I think with what is already known or already in the record. Um they'll the record includes information there'll be more than 200 jobs. The record also includes reference to the fact that peace health has to get a certificate of need from Oregon Health Authority. Um I think the council can just observe as a matter of record that they're in the process of like it's just known that they're in that process. I don't think that even if no one said that specifically in the record, I think that's known and there's not anything to dispute there. So they will under House Bill 2005 um this the preeemption of the zoning code does not apply unless it is a crisis stabilization center colllocated with the behavioral health hospital and they apply for both of

57:39 those at the same time and they have to meet state requirements for both of those facilities. So if they do not come in with a proposal to build both facilities next to each other on the site, if one of those facilities does not meet the state requirements, um, which typically would involve like level, you know, there are state standards that apply to healthcare facilities. the city. I don't know what those are and they're not in the record, but generally the types of standards require, you know, you have to have people working there to be able to meet whatever the state licensing standards are. Um, and it just generally if there are insufficient staff, that can cause a problem for um, meeting state standards. So, I think there are some built-in ways

58:25 that House Bill 2005 um continues to play a role in guaranteeing that what is described is what's delivered is because that won't apply unless it is a crisis stabilization center. It is a behavioral health hospital. Behavioral health hospital will have to comply with the OA requirements through the certificate of need and the rules that apply. Crisis stabilization center will have to comply with state rules as well. Um in terms of the size of the facilities that's um OA approves that as part of the um licensing for peace health side on the crisis stabilization center side um I I'm not aware if the state rules state how many beds they have to have but I will say that the process through um because it's link county doing it. It's

59:10 a public process for how that facility is going to look and they will be making public decisions along the way. So even though even if it's not an explicit part of the annexation requirements, um there'll be ample opportunities for the city council's elected officials to engage um in those discussions. I don't there wouldn't it's not like private development where decisions are made behind the scenes and then we learn about them later for on the county side. just um I guess I need a little little more help with the whole um piece about the the conditions of the

59:55 application because one of my concerns with with this part of it is well in this case there's there's kind of unanimous agreement of of the the value and the need to the community for for this. Um, you know, the discussion is the the concern that was raised by um by the neighbors is is what's the best location for it? Not not the need. However, if my concern on precedent is what's to say somebody couldn't come come back and say, "Well, we do qualify as campus industrial because we are a

1:00:41 campuslike and we're going to apply employment by what makes it more complicated than just those two things. If those are the if those are two of the the factors that we're using to apply this criteria here, could another applicant then come back and say um I want to put whatever it might be because we're going to construct it in a campus-like uh setting and it's going to be um you know provide employment and if that's the bar we're using for campus industrial I just help me understand why that doesn't create a precedent there for that. >> Um first I think the law around what creates pre precedence in quasi judicial

1:01:27 decisions is around what applicants in the future have to have notice of. So if the council adopts a particular interpretation in the findings for how you approach campus industrial that leads to for example approval or denial of this application then in a future proceeding if the council thinks well we actually didn't approach that correctly and it could be a different council we didn't approach that correctly we need to change how we apply it then it requires that the council give notice to the applicant at that time of how the council may change their interpretation allow that applicant to respond. So the council does there's no principle of star decisis which is what courts use um to say that council doesn't get to change future councils don't get to change how they interpret the plan. Um it's certainly a recommendation that the

1:02:13 council be consistent. That's what I recommend. Um because that gives the community more certainty. Um but in this case it's an extremely unique circumstance that won't be created again. Um very unlikely to be created again. And so there's just I don't see that it's likely the council will need to reinterpret in a different way the campus industrial designation for future application. And I'm not and the recommendation from staff in the approval um findings are not that it's just because it's a campus and it's a providing employment. There are also connections to the city's general policies around um health care and the um wanting that being a regional industry cluster that the city's actively trying to recruit. There are

1:02:58 other regional industry clusters as well. Um this use doesn't conflict with the um the wellhead protection area that applies for example. Um and so there's a requirement to you know get a permit under there. There could be other campus industrial use, non-campus industrial uses that might want to apply and ask for a similar interpretation that might not be consistent with that because there could be industrial uses that don't. I mean, there's a lot of ways that this is unique um that would be really hard to exactly capture in a different in a totally different use if that makes sense.

1:03:49 >> So, this criteria has been the hardest one for me to wrap my head around whether it fits or not. And because I mean nothing in here says medical use fits the light industrial campus industrial designation that we've given this area. Um, I I was pretty clear that the one-off decisions are starting to really concern me. Um, and that we need to find a way to to decide what changes we want to make. I I think we can all agree that the designation that it has right now isn't attracting businesses in the way the council who made that decision probably thought it would. Um, but I get still concerned about these and and I appreciate the the comments that you're you're making around the one-off component here, but I'm still I'm not

1:04:35 quite there yet. And I I think I need somebody who um is really firm as to why this fits here to help me get there. >> Actually, before we do that, could you maybe take a half a step back? Part of the problem is that the superersiding bill really has eliminated like limited the zoning conversation in a place where that that I'm trying to think through is what's the difference in the plans between a designation and a zone. So you can kind of think of this like um layer levels of specificity. So the way that the Oregon statewide planning system works is that at the very top the

1:05:20 state sets statewide goals. Every community has to think about and coordinate on these topics. And one of those is employment. Um from there the city adopts plans for how we're going to provide employment. And part of that is that we designate property to provide employment need and we flavor those um designations. So we say this designation is a mixeduse employment and it's going to provide a mix of employment and residential and all kinds of other things but like there going to be jobs there. This designation is campus industrial. And so there are no rules that necessarily flow from campus industrial, but there's a policy direction about what the council that adopted that plan wants to achieve in

1:06:06 this designation and what kind of employment need and that higher level plan they're trying to carry out. Um then below that once that plan is done then the city council adopts and applies a specific zone and sometimes there's more than one zone that can implement it as a plan designation. A classic example is mixed use. You can have mixeduse commercial, you can have mixeduse residential and they're both implementing a mixeduse plan designation but they're doing it in like slightly nuanced flavors. So, you know, Coca-Cola's up here and like you can have diet or you can have zero, for example, um or you know, vanilla. And so, there's the zoning code and the development code that goes with that sets. Okay, here's how council specifically wants to implement this

1:06:51 highle policy. Here's the um specific uses that we're going to restrict in that area to give people more certainty when they come to the development counter. Okay. Well, I think I've got a campus industrial um business, but like does it really fit? Well, I can go to the code and I can read here's all the rules for how council wants me to implement has said to implement that designation. Um this property will not be coming in under that list because of the supersiding. But that doesn't mean that the council couldn't I think you know one of the questions is like well would it have been approvable to add that use to a list? That's what EWB did. in the annexation that's in and this is in the record. So EW came in and

1:07:36 said, "Hey, we've got this plan designation. We've got this zoning. We think high impact public facilities like a water treatment plant can fit in that designation." And so we want to ask council to add that to the code and make sure that and and capture that so we can come in and that's the decision that council ultimately made. So here there's not a touch point for council to come in and amend the code to add this, but it's sort of like you're being asked, well theoretically would that be possible? In theory, you don't have to go through all the findings for a zoning map amendment. Um, you don't have to show that it meets statewide planning goals that would apply to economic impact analysis, you know, if that happened. But you're sort of being asked like conceptually, can this fit in a campus industrial designation? like if the city council amended the code or did a zoning map

1:08:22 amendment. Um you're just not doing those steps. Um and so I think that's sort of the framework and and also that's not a binding legislative decision that then requires that the council later amend the code. The council could still say you know what we don't actually want proliferated medical uses here. So, while we can find that this facility does not conflict with the campus industrial designation, um doesn't cause a problem to the city's coordinated citywide employment plan, um we don't want to concentrate that medical development here. So, we're not going to open it up more broadly. Like that decision is again part of something that would be made later. But that gives you sort of an analogy to where zoning sits um if House Bill 2005 hadn't come into play. So, I hope that answers the question. >> Oh, no. I think that's helpful.

1:09:08 Uh, councelor Rodley, >> thank you. We're going to be such experts by the time we get through this process. So, just um I think this is why um to council rubber's point, this is why a few meetings ago I asked, "Do we have a designation that says medical?" And you were like, "We do not." So, um, for me that was like, okay, well, could it fit into this designation for these reasons? Um, and I do think that it's it's um, and we've all we've all talked about this too, is to think about, you know, at any one snapshot in time, the council was doing the very best they could to make plans. It's kind of like I say about budgets and things, it's a it's a plan, it's not a promise. So, you had a council that's like, here's what

1:09:53 we think is going to happen in that land because historically, this is what we've done and this is where our our industry has lied in Springfield. Well, we have definitely seen over the past 1015 years that we have leaned into as you were talking about medical sector as one of our primary employers. We have two hospitals in the city. Um I I'm talking to nurses and doctors and people all the time. So I think that that for me was a few meetings ago when I realized we don't have a designation that includes medical. Um >> is it can it fit in this likely? And when I look at things about like office uses and um you know the controlling the noise and pollution and vibration it's like for my imagination in my mind that is why it does fit into that um because

1:10:39 we don't have anywhere else for it to go and this is I think has some room to um at least for now because we're going to have to come back and future future us is going to have to come back and talk about those zonings and hopefully there will be some legislative work at the state level that can help to make it easier or to clarif verify it for folks. So that's why um this does not hitch me up like folks cuz you just because you don't see medical in there. We're not going to see medical in any designation. So we have to figure out does this work. >> Thank you. I do want to clean one just one little thing up um so that it doesn't become an issue on appeal because I think I understand what you're saying and I want to make sure so we've got a cleaner record. The commercial designation does talk about the types of ser like medical uses not explicitly but

1:11:26 it's like more intended for um that and medical services zoning than implements commercial. So there is a specific zone but there is not a single designation for that sector of the economy and I think that's what you're saying but I want to be really clear for the appeal record if there >> that is what I'm saying. Thank you. Yeah. Right. other folks. Okay, then I've got a couple more questions. Uh there's a bullet point in the council briefing memo that is talks about the existing character and safety of of the campus industrial area is important to existing industrial owner uh property owners. So when we are dealing with this sort of this plan compliance, right, like how do we get to

1:12:11 the character question? >> You know, that was um I put that in quotes because that was the testimony that the council received and it wasn't defined by the person that testified, what was specific about that character and safety. Um so I don't know that I can answer that question for the council. the council may need to interpret what or decide if that's not does it relate back. Um, but I think the council's best statement of what the character of the area is is to just look at how it's discussed in the policy. Um, and I think that's the best assistance I can give right now. >> Well, that's that's perfect assistance. Um, in the way I'm thinking about it is when I look at how that area is developing, it does look like it all

1:12:57 belongs together. Like when you look at the type of the buildings, where the parking is, you know, how you're accessing the front, right? And a classic example of that to me is actually the annex building, right? That went from a manufacturing facility when it was CDs to being, you know, basically the Sacred Heart Ruben Annex right now, right? That tells me this these spaces are a little bit more portable than what we're than what we're thinking about now. Um, when we think about this designation question, right, is it enough to simply say, because there's a bullet point about, hey, we really do have underutilized land out there. >> Is it is it enough for us to just simply say, hey, this meets our employment, you know, goals, right? These are higher

1:13:42 these are higher wage jobs than what our than what the median wage in the uh in the city is. and that we still have an abundance of campus industrial land that exists. >> I think that that is one way the council can apply this designation is to talk about the designation for the area and especially as it relates to the gateway refinement plan because this is a designation that ties into a refinement plan that has an area line drawn around it. Um I think the council can say what's important is that we continue to provide um places for light manufacturing to go. Um, and the council can then find that this one annexation proposed for a different use does not prevent light manufacturing uses from being able to find a place in campus industrial when they want to come to

1:14:27 Springfield. Um, and then we would also need findings around it does fit um with the policies around campus like environment and mitigating impacts. Um, and I think the council could make that finding based on requirements in the comprehensive plan that the um, facilities have to meet the same um, sighting standards under site plan review that other properties um, developing with light manufacturing would have to meet. Um, and so some of those are things that are not going to be an issue for a hospital or medical use like outdoor storage. They can't bring in heavy equipment and store it in the parking lot um, after construction's done. There's obviously like during construction you're constructing, but you but also a hospital wouldn't do that. So, you know, those are some of

1:15:12 the things that um the campus industrial standards are designed to get at that help maintain that campus-l like environment is that we're not doing light medium industrial in the way that you have like stockpiles of supplies out. Um yeah. >> All right. Other questions? Are are you guys are people comfortable at saying that or that it feels that like it they want to talk more or that it uh that it meets the the plan designation or we could punt until the until the second and pick the car. At some point we've got to say which way it is.

1:15:57 I I think for me um where I land with this is as I go through their criteria I mean I know they give some examples but I don't see I don't see when I look at all the designations that that we could that we could come up with. I feel like there isn't necess there isn't a clean or easy or good one to pick and I think this it functionally meets the criteria when we talk about noise and we talk about um you know office uses campus like all those things I feel like it it fits here as well as it fits anywhere. So I'm comfortable with with that. Um, I feel like as as

1:16:43 councelor Rodley was was getting at, [clears throat] we might not have the best zoning piece yet. I mean, I don't think that there's something that's really designed for what we're developing in in Springfield here with our our medical uses. So, for those reasons, I mean, I'm I'm fine with this. Before I call on Councelor Weber, can I ask a clarification on slide seven? Oh, the last slide. I don't know what number it is with the refinement plan. So, are we saying is this the boundary of the refinement plan or is it is everything that is in the kind of dark hashmark is that the campus industrial designation? >> The hashmark is the campus industrial designation. Um, and then the campus

1:17:29 industrial sub area, the SLI special light industrial site is everything that's in the hashed area plus the already change designation and resoning um, pink that is where the rehab hospital is. >> So the I don't know what the new building is called, but the what we would think of as the old Haw building, >> right? That that's not a we would say in theory, right? That would be in the campus industrial designation and that is not a campus industrial site. >> That is a campus industrial designated property zoned campus industrial complies with the amended campus industrial standards for business parks specifically. >> Okay. Right. Okay. So the way I'm thinking about this right is we can have

1:18:15 we can have as a council we can find that we can have properties inside the designation that aren't explicitly manufacturers. >> Correct. Yes. There are ample examples of uses that have been um concluded by counselor staff to be consistent with campus industrial that are not light manufacturing. Um and it's absolutely accurate that not every property is um been developed with light manufacturing uses and it's generally been looked at as like we make provision for that. >> Okay. Go ahead. Council Weber. So, I didn't hear everybody jump in with enthusiasm to commit to this tonight. I think that um again, I I'm just going to ask that we all have a little bit of

1:19:00 time to think about all of the the things we've discussed tonight, the information we've received, and just contemplate it. We have it on the agenda for November 2nd. So, I think if we can just have a little time to to just think about it. Councelor Stone, >> I I concur with councelor Weber in my request just to just for a little bit more time. One of the things I've noticed in this process has been as we've had the time to thoroughly digest material and really compare it to the record and the overall temperature of the conversation has been turned down with time to digest and think thoroughly, I think we're able to make out a little bit better decision. So, I would also want just a little bit more time.

1:19:46 I don't mess around. I'm gonna get something done now, but I'll go with everybody else. >> Okay. And I I think, you know, this question about whether it it complies with the designation, it seems clear to me. I mean, I know we got all got to talk through it a little bit more. Um, so would it help you? It sounds like we're ready to move to the second. Would it help you if you tell us what kind of m if we tell you what kind of material we want for the second? Yeah, I was going to ask about that. So, um, in order to make a decision, the public hearing is closed. So, normally final adoption comes back to you on consent calendar for things because they don't have to go, you know, in front of you again. I would not bring something back on consent calendar because I'm hearing there's not consent. Um, unanimous. And

1:20:31 so, um, what I would am hearing I should bring back is a complete ordinance that could be adopted with findings for approval and then also bring you the order to deny based on the comp plan criteria only because some counselors are not that would be the deciding um the the crux of the decision point. Um, I have heard in counselors that are in favor of it meeting criteria. I have heard some additional facts or points that I can revise those approval findings to reference some additional information I think or or clarify some of that to reflect your discussion and but if the council does not wish to adopt and wants to adopt an order to deny the annexation I haven't gotten

1:21:16 clear direction on any changes to those draft findings. So at this point I would keep them as they were brought forward to you on September 8th. Um and the council can just consider that or if you have a motion to deny it, you could provide direction to clean up findings at that time. >> Could um this sounds good. Um so we have 70 minutes the that should be plenty of then we then we would vote in the in the regular session from there. Okay. So I think the other thing that would be helpful is if you could take the three kind of areas that we that we've described right that the three issues those being the comp plan you know the the sort of annexation agreement/moou and the transportation those have been the three issues we've really wrestled

1:22:02 with over about the last month. If you could just give us a summary of where what you've heard us decide around those three issues up you know up until this point. Um, if we can get through those three issues, I think we are ready to vote. I mean, we're getting really close here and then I would look through Go ahead. >> I want to clarify. So, a summary and a like a council briefing memo rather. I mean, the the staff report the ultimate findings should also reflect what council's decided. So, I want to be clear. You want a CBM that says these are the things you talked about on October 12th. Here's where the council got. Um, I would flip it, right? To just meaning don't give us the the timeline of what we talked about. Give us those

1:22:47 three. >> But these are the three issues you talked about on on October 12th. And here's the staff's understanding of council's direction on those issues. >> Correct. >> Got it. >> Okay. Anything else from folks about what they think they're going to need? >> Okay. One other question I would have for the council is if you think there is another issue that is in the record that you want to talk about that you need to make that decision, now would be a really good time to say, "Hey, we missed I don't know ports." No, just kidding. So does anybody have any other issues or questions around the record that they that so people are okay? I think we are

1:23:32 I think we're good then. >> Yeah. Then I should clarify both versions of staff reports will address excluding experte contacts from the record um based on the council's direction from last time. So there will be changes to both versions for the second in that regard. >> Oh yes, that's perfect. I was worried you were going to clarify that ports were not part of the uh >> Yeah. Um yeah, the further you're if the council gets any exparte contacts um between now and then um and the second if you could shoot me a standalone email so that I can get those findings drafted and anticipatory of you declaring them at that meeting that would be fantastic. Otherwise I would just really ask any members of the public who are listening to refrain from exparte contacts with the council to help them get to a final decision. >> Yes, please don't call us or email us.

1:24:19 All right, thank you for your patience. I know that there's a lot of people in this room that have joined us several days the last week and I appreciate you guys coming out. Um, we are adjourned. Um, we are going to reconfigure the room for CEDA.