City Council Agenda

Mayor City Council Christine Lundberg

City Council Agenda Sean VanGordon, Ward 1 City Manager: City Hall Steve Moe, Ward 2 Sheri Moore, Ward 3 Gino Grimaldi 225 Fifth Street Leonard Stoehr, Ward 4 City Recorder: Springfield, Oregon 97477 541.726.3700 Marilee Woodrow, Ward 5 AJ Ripka 541.726.3700 Joe Pishioneri, Ward 6 Online at www.springfield-or.gov

The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours’ notice prior to the meeting. For meetings in the Council Meeting Room, a “Personal PA Receiver” for the hearing impaired is available, as well as an Induction Loop for the benefit of hearing aid users. To arrange for these services, call 541.726.3700. Meetings will end prior to 10:00 p.m. unless extended by a vote of the Council.

All proceedings before the City Council are recorded.

February 4, 2019 ______

6:00 p.m. Work Session Jesse Maine Room ______

(Council work sessions are reserved for discussion between Council, staff and consultants; therefore, Council will not receive public input during work sessions. Opportunities for public input are given during all regular Council meetings)

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL - Mayor Lundberg ___, Councilors VanGordon___, Moe___, Moore____, Stoehr___, Woodrow ___, and Pishioneri ___.

1. Downtown Sign Code Amendments [Kristina Kraaz & Sandy Belson] (30 Minutes)

2. Housing Diversity Tax Exemption [Sandy Belson] (20 Minutes)

ADJOURNMENT

Council Agenda February 4, 2019 Page 2

______

7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Council Meeting Room ______

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL - Mayor Lundberg ___, Councilors VanGordon___, Moe___, Moore____, Stoehr___, Woodrow ___, and Pishioneri ___.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT

1. Mayor’s Recognition

2. Other

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Claims

2. Minutes

3. Resolutions

a. RESOLUTION NO. 1 – A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CITY PROJECT P31035; A STREET BUSINESS PARK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PIP).

4. Ordinances

a. ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 5.100, 5.104 AND 5.128, REPEALING SECTIONS 5.058, 5.059, 5.117, 5.140 THROUGH 5.158, 5.250 AND 5.260, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE

b. ORDINANCE NO. 2 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 1.205, ADDING A NEW SECTION 1.205(4), RENUMBERING THE SECTIONS 1.205(4), (5), (6) AND (7), AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE

5. Other Routine Matters a. Endorsement of OLCC Liquor License Application for Bo’s Wine Depot, located at 1879 Pioneer Parkway, Springfield, OR 97477.

MOTION: APPROVE/REJECT THE CONSENT CALENDAR

Council Agenda February 4, 2019 Page 3

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others.

BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE - Limited to 20 minutes. Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to Speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others.

COUNCIL RESPONSE

CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS

BIDS

ORDINANCES

BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL

1. Committee Appointments

a. Planning Commission Applicant Appointment. [Sandy Belson] (05 Minutes)

MOTION: APPOINT MICHAEL KOIVULA TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A FULL TERM EXPIRING FEBRUARY 4, 2023.

b. Library Advisory Board Applicant Appointments. [Emily David] (05 Minutes)

MOTION: APPOINT CLYDE MILLER TO SERVE ON THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD WITH A FULL TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2022.

MOTION: APPOINT HEATHER MILLEHRER-HUERTA TO SERVE ON THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE REMAINDER OF A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2019

MOTION: APPOINT CAROLYN MILLER TO SERVE ON THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE REMAINDER OF A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2019

3. Business from Council

a. Committee Reports

Council Agenda February 4, 2019 Page 4

b. Other Business

BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER

BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY

ADJOURNMENT

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/4/2019 Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Kristina Kraaz/CAO Sandy Belson/DPW Staff Phone No: 541 744-4062 Estimated Time: 30 minutes S P R I N G F I E L D Council Goals: Encourage Economic C I T Y C O U N C I L Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships

ITEM TITLE: DOWNTOWN SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS ACTION Review and discuss recommended amendments to the sign code pertaining to the REQUESTED: Downtown Sign District. Direct staff to: (1) prepare the proposed amendments in Attachments 1 and 2 for first reading, public hearing and adoption; (2) recommend alternate language, or (3) request more information from staff and another work session on this item. ISSUE Signage is a very important visual element in the Downtown, thus the Council STATEMENT: directed staff to include consideration of design standards for signs in the Downtown Design Standards project. The City’s sign regulations applicable to the Downtown area reside in Springfield Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 8 Signs, Section 8.250 Downtown Sign District. The proposed amendments are necessary to ensure that new signage appropriately addresses the purpose of signs under SMC 8.200, and contributes positively to Downtown’s unique pedestrian scale streetscape character, welcoming ambience, and economic success. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map: Proposed amendment to Downtown Sign District boundary 2. Proposed code language with staff commentary 3. Committee discussion and recommendation (November 9, 2017 Downtown CAC Meeting Minutes) DISCUSSION/ As set forth in SMC Sections 8.200 to 8.268, the City recognizes the importance of FINANCIAL an aesthetically pleasing community to the continued welfare of its population, and IMPACT: to the economic development of the city. The proposed amendments to the Downtown Sign Code (Attachments 1 and 2) address the design and placement of signs within the Downtown Sign District. The proposed amendments were reviewed and recommended for adoption by the Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee, with a focus on identifying and encouraging specific local design characteristics that contribute to Downtown’s sense of place and vitality.

The proposed amendments in Attachments 1 and 2 are intended to: • Provide consistent sign regulations on both sides of South A Street between the river and 8th Street, and from the river to 10th Street north of South A Street; • Address sign types that are currently permitted in the downtown but do not contribute to a pleasing aesthetic environment and are not pedestrian- oriented, to help downtown transition away from a highway/strip commercial look; • Incentivize downtown businesses to provide at least one sign per business that meets “pedestrian orientation” criteria; and • Limit how far projecting signs can encroach over the public sidewalk zone to prevent interference with streetscape elements (decorative lighting, street trees).

Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1

1 Proposed Amendments to Springfield Sign Code 2 Downtown Sign District 3 As recommended by the Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) on November 3, 2017 4 5 Proposed draft code amendment text is indicated by underline. Deleted text is indicated 6 by strike-out. Unchanged text is shown as plain text. Staff commentary is shown in the blue 7 boxes. 8 9 Commentary: The purpose of Downtown Design Standards for signs is to encourage the effective use of 10 signs as a means of communication and advertising in a manner that reduces the negative effects of 11 signs on safety and aesthetics. 12 13 8.200 Signs 14 15 Commentary: The purpose of the proposed amendments to the Downtown sign code is to support 16 commercial success of downtown by ensuring a pleasant and safe experience for business patrons, 17 visitors, and residents. The Council recognizes that the Downtown Mixed-Use Plan District is a district 18 with unique qualities and characteristics, which should be reinforced by design standards that are 19 specific and appropriate to the district. Adoption of the proposed amendments would apply new 20 Downtown Design standards to the installation of new signage within the Downtown Mixed-Use Plan 21 District. 22 23 Commentary: The proposed amendments add a definition for “Blade Sign” because this type of sign has 24 become popular in Springfield and other walkable downtowns. Blade signs have a pedestrian-oriented 25 look, feel and function due to their scale, lettering font size, materials and mounting brackets —often 26 contributing distinctive artistic elements to the district streetscape. Blade signs are encouraged, but not 27 required. Blade signs are currently addressed in the code within the definition of “Wall Sign.” 28 Addressing them in the Definitions section is intended to more clearly communicate that Springfield 29 permits this sign type. 30 31 8.202 Definitions. The meaning of specific terms pertaining to the regulation of signs are: 32 33 Blade Sign. A double-faced wall sign or projecting sign less than one (1) inch in thickness with 34 a sign face area less than nine (9) square feet that is attached to the building face at a 90 degree 35 angle, and may or may not be mounted from an ornamental metal bracket sign structure. Blade 36 signs are designed to be viewed by pedestrians approaching the store front from both directions 37 along the street and sidewalk. 38 39 8.250 Downtown Sign District. 40 41 Commentary: To implement the Downtown Sign Code consistently on both sides of South A Street, the 42 Committee recommends amending Map No. 1 to include the Downtown Mixed-Use sites fronting on the 43 south side of South A in the Downtown Sign District.

Attachment 2, Page 1 of 4

44 45 The Downtown Sign District is shown on Map No.1. Each business in this district shall be limited to 46 three (3) signs not counting required pedestrian-oriented signs. 47 48 Commentary: The proposed amendments require Downtown businesses requesting permits for new 49 signs to provide at least one sign that is designed to be pedestrian-oriented. The proposed Code 50 provision provides several options to address the requirement. As an incentive, pedestrian-oriented 51 blade signs are not counted toward the overall number of allowed signs per business. 52 53 (1) Required Pedestrian-oriented Signs. The building official shall not issue a permit for any new 54 signs unless a business provides at least one pedestrian-oriented sign that meets one of the following 55 criteria: 56 (a) A blade sign with lettering size no more than twelve (12) inches tall. 57 (b) A sign no larger than nine (9) square feet placed on an entry door, storefront window, 58 wall, or building column visible from the sidewalk having lettering size no more than 59 eighteen (18) inches tall and installed so that it is located between four and six feet above the 60 grade of the abutting sidewalk. A sign placed on entry door glass or on a storefront window 61 must not obstruct the view into the business from the abutting sidewalk. 62 63 (2) Wall Signs. Each business shall be allowed the following: 64 (a) First Story Businesses. First story businesses facing a public street shall be permitted 65 signage of three (3) square feet per lineal foot of building wall. 66 (b) Second Story Businesses and Above. Second story businesses facing a public street shall 67 be permitted signage of 1 ½ square feet per lineal foot of building wall. 68 69 Commentary: The proposed amendments restrict placement and size of large highway-type freestanding 70 pole or monument signs to support a transition to a pedestrian-oriented Downtown and to reduce sign 71 clutter as called for in the Downtown Refinement Plan. Existing code allows pole signs to be twenty (20) 72 feet tall. The Development Code requires buildings to be built up to the sidewalk, so restricting 73 placement of signs within the front setback is consistent with the desired development pattern. On 74 “transitioning” arterial streets in Downtown (South A and Pioneer Parkway) where walkable storefronts 75 are not currently the norm, the proposed amendments would continue to allow larger signs. 76 77 (3) Freestanding, Projecting, or Roof Signs. Each building shall be permitted one (1) free standing 78 sign, projecting sign or roof sign subject to the following standards: 79 (a) Roof signs and projecting signs shall be limited to a maximum area of eighty (80) square 80 feet for one face and one hundred and sixty (160) square feet for two or more faces. The 81 maximum height for free standing signs shall be 20 feet above grade. 82 (b) Subject to the exceptions set forth below, freestanding signs must not exceed twenty-four 83 (24) square feet for one sign face and forty-eight (48) square feet for two or more sign 84 faces; freestanding signs mounted on a post or pole must be not more than twelve (12) feet in 85 height above grade with at least eight (8) feet clearance from grade to the bottom of the sign; 86 and freestanding monument signs must not be taller than five (5) feet in height above grade.

Attachment 2, Page 2 of 4

87 (i) Freestanding signs along South A and Pioneer Parkway West and Pioneer 88 Parkway East must not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet for one sign face and sixty- 89 four (64) square feet for two or more sign faces. th 90 (ii) Freestanding signs along Main Street between Mill and 8 Street are not 91 permitted. 92 93 Commentary: Recent updates the citywide Sign Code, adopted by Ordinance 6389, added a new 94 definition for “window signs” and codified the City’s longstanding practice of exempting these signs from 95 permits. The proposed language below limits this exemption for Downtown, by exempting window signs 96 that cover up to 10% of the gross glass area. Any signs covering more than 10% of the gross glass area 97 may be permitted as wall signs. 98 99 (4) Window Signs. Notwithstanding the exception in Section 8.234(6) of this code, window signs 100 that do not exceed 10% of the gross glass area along each street frontage are permitted without 101 obtaining a sign permit. Window signs that exceed 10% of the gross glass area per street frontage are 102 wall signs subject to the limits set forth in Section 8.250(2). 103 104 Commentary: The existing code 8.202 definition of Projecting Sign (applicable City-wide) allows a 105 projecting sign to extend within two (2) feet of the curb line, and defines “Curb Line” as “The line at the 106 face of the curb nearest to the street or roadway.” Where constructed as such, projecting signs can 107 create an imposing feel and visual obstruction over the sidewalk, block illumination from adjacent street 108 lights, and interfere with maintenance of street trees within the Downtown sidewalk zone. After 109 examining this issue, the Committee recommends limiting the allowed encroachment to 4 feet from 110 building wall. 111 112 (5) Encroachment and Clearance. The minimum clearance for all signs encroaching in the public 113 right of way shall be eight (8) feet measured from grade to the bottom of the sign. The maximum 114 encroachment into the public right of way shall be four (4) feet from the building wall, as measured 115 in a perpendicular line between the building wall and the outermost edge of the sign or sign structure, 116 provided that no sign shall encroach within two (2) feet of any curb or driveway line. 117 118 (6) Illumination From Signs on Non Residential Property. External illumination shall be shielded so 119 that the light source elements are not directly visible from property in a residential zone which is 120 adjacent to or across a street from the property in the non-residential zone. 121 122 Commentary: Preponderance of abandoned signs and sign structures and non-conforming signs 123 contributes to the appearance and perception of blight condition in downtowns, impeding the 124 commercial vitality of Springfield’s Downtown District as a whole. The Committee recommends 125 incremental removal of non-conforming signs and structures to reduce visual clutter, improve safety and 126 aesthetics in support of Downtown’s revitalization. Establishing a new effective date for the new design 127 standards for signs within the Downtown Sign District will provide clarity to property owners and 128 businesses regarding the extent to which previously permitted signs are allowed to remain. The date of 129 the Ordinance will be inserted as the effective date. 130

Attachment 2, Page 3 of 4

131 (7) Non-Conforming Signs. A non-conforming sign within the Downtown Mixed-Use Plan District 132 shall be defined as a legal sign existing on the effective date of month, day, 2019, but which does not 133 fully comply with the current sign regulations. Notwithstanding Section 8.323 of this Code, when a 134 business submits an application for a new sign and the business has existing non-conforming signs, 135 no permit will be issued for the new sign(s) unless the existing non-conforming signs are removed or 136 altered subject to the standards of this Code, except that the Development and Public Works Director 137 may allow continuance of a non-conforming signs that contribute to the character of the Downtown 138 Sign District and that meet the safety requirements of this Code.

Attachment 2, Page 4 of 4

Downtown District Design

Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes November 9, 2017 – 5:30 to 7:00 pm Springfield City Hall Jesse Maine Room, 225 5th Street, Springfield

Attendance Staff: Linda Pauly, Jolynn Barker, David Bowlsby Assistant City Attorney: Kristina Schmunk Kraaz CAC members: Shannon Mudge, Steve Moe, Karen Hageman, John Tuttle, Kip Amend, Tiffany Washington

This document provides a very brief summary of the meeting. Comprehensive recorded minutes are posted as an audio file on the project website: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/DowntownPlanning.htm

CALL TO ORDER.

Meeting was called to order at 5:30p.m. by Chairman Steve Moe.

AGENDA REVIEW.

No changes to the agenda were proposed.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

Shannon Mudge moved to approve the minutes.

Kip Amended seconded the motion.

Minutes were approved for the 5/25/17 and 6/22/17 meeting

PUBLIC COMMENT.

No public comments.

1 | D T C A C M i n u t e s

Attachment 3, Page 1 of 6 Downtown Design Standards: Downtown Sign Code Amendments Linda Pauly provided materials on the screen and gave a recap of the information provided at the last meeting to summarize Committee’s input on sign design standards from the previous meetings. Handouts with comments made by committee members and comments received via email from Philip Farrington (6- 22-17) and Eric Adams (6-6-17) were distributed. She reviewed the issues that the Committee discussed.

Linda introduced David Bowlsby, the City of Springfield’s Building Official, who is in charge of the city’s sign code.

Linda also introduced Kristina Schmunk Kraaz, the Assistant City Attorney; she is working on the code language and will answer any legal questions.

Linda mentioned that Committee members indicated they would like to see the code require permanent materials for signs.

David Bowlsby responded that the sign code already requires that the material used be approved by the building code, and that has to do with the proximity to the structure. The goal is to protect signs from the elements and to address public safety.

Linda asked Kristina Schmunk Kraaz if they are allowed to require signs be professionally designed and manufactured.

Kristina answered that prohibiting handwritten signs could be a legal grey area.

Shannon Mudge added that he designed his own sign but had it professionally made. Karen Hageman said the A –frame signs are useful and important but thought that when the city allowed each business two A-frame signs that is when they got out of hand. It created more clutter.

David added that he recommended one sign but City Council decided on allowing two A-frame signs.

Shannon suggested allowing one per door.

David said one A-frame per business is more common. He mentioned that because they cannot regulate sign content, Main Street businesses were allowing others to advertise with an A-frame sign. The viewscape on Main now includes signs for businesses not on Main. There is no tool to prevent that from happening.

Kristina said that the Committee could recommend only one A-frame per business in just the Downtown area.

John Tuttle also raised the concern that signs on the sidewalk limit mobility. There is limited space.

Kip Amend said that because traffic is moving slower downtown they might not need two signs.

Shannon said having more than one sign dilutes the effectiveness of a sign.

Linda asked Karen, a former Downtown business owner, if she would have been okay with only one A-frame sign, and she replied that she said one is plenty as long as you have your other fixed signs.

Shannon said one per side if business is on a corner (e.g. Planktown). 2 | D T C A C M i n u t e s

Attachment 3, Page 2 of 6

David asked if the committee’s review of sign code is addressing the “Open” flag sidewalk signs. They are not in the sign code.

Kristina said that they are technically government signs because the City provides them, so they are exempt. A-frame signs are exempt from the total business sign limit, as well as signs that are located in a window. She stated that the City is also reviewing the City-wide sign regulations. Linda concluded her summary of the issues discussed, put the draft code language on the screen, and asked Kristina to present the proposed draft code amendments.

Kristina went over the proposed changes in the draft sign code with the committee. She stated the intent is to provide clear and objective standards that do not involve discretion and thus do not require a land use decision process. One of the first things proposed is adding the definition and dimensions of a “blade sign.” Language has been added to encourage businesses to use “ornamental” hanging hardware. It is not a requirement.

David said the language “plants a seed” to provide a mental picture of the City’s intent for the design standard. He described other code provisions addressing permanence of sign materials.

Kip asked where the 90 degree sign hanging requirement came from. Also, is a blade sign just one piece?

Kristina said if they kept the sign under the pedestrian sign limit and projection requirements they could use other shapes.

Kristina pointed out language that has been added to require one pedestrian-oriented sign at the time a sign permit is requested. These signs will not be included in the business sign limit. Several choices are provided to meet the pedestrian-oriented sign requirement.

Linda said most businesses already include such signs.

Shannon Mudge thinks they are giving businesses a lot of leniency so it will work.

John Tuttle asked if a blade sign and A-frame sign would be interchangeable for a pedestrian required sign.

Kristina replied that an A-frame sign will not meet the pedestrian-oriented sign as drafted.

Kristina said the proposal does not change the existing wall sign regulation.

Linda said this issue did not come up in the Committee’s review, so it was left “as is.”

John mentioned that the size limit for wall signs is quite large.

Kristina clarified that the limit includes all signs, except those that are exempt.

David clarified that signs on the vertical wall plane are considered “wall signs.”

Kristina went over the draft of the standards for free-standing, roof, or projection signs.

Karen Hageman asked if business on a corner are only allowed one free-standing, roof or projection sign. 3 | D T C A C M i n u t e s

Attachment 3, Page 3 of 6

Kristina replied that they are still only allowed one.

Kip asked for clarification about freestanding signs occupying the sidewalk on Main Street.

Kristina answered that they are allowed but there is a draft proposal to prohibit them from Mill to 8th Streets.

Kip asked about non-conforming signs and new businesses.

Kristina answered that they drafted that businesses applying for a new sign permit will have to remove or change all non-conforming signs first but does not know if that provision extends to new business licenses. The committee can either accept the new draft’s standards or continue with the current code that only requires signs getting a permit to be conforming.

Karen asked why free-standing signs will be prohibited from Mill to 8th Streets.

Linda replied that Main Street from Mill to 8th Streets is the Downtown Mixed-use Plan District where the Design Standards will apply. Buildings are built up to the sidewalk. The proposed design standards in the sign code are intended to provide pedestrian-oriented signs in the district. Other streets, such as South A or Pioneer Parkway are transitioning from highway orientation to pedestrian orientation, thus larger signs would be allowed. John said the few existing non-conforming free standing signs would be removed over time.

Shannon Mudge commented that he sees a property rights issue with the proposed draft and non- conforming free-standing signs.

Kristina replied that it is a good fairness argument but she has done the research and thinks both options are legally sound.

Kip Amend asked if sign issues are usually simple “over the counter.”

David Bowlsby answered that they are not.

Without this code change, the non-conforming signs could remain indefinitely. They go away when damaged or when owner chooses to remove them or when they are abandoned.

David asked if the abandonment period of signs could be reduced from 90 days to 30 days.

Shannon added that he thinks 90 days is better because of things like contract negations or safety and electrical issues.

Kip commented that he would like to see simple language that will clean up the area.

Shannon said that he thinks the effective date is too soon.

Kristina asked Committee for specific feedback.

Kip said he wants to clean up the non-conforming signs. 4 | D T C A C M i n u t e s

Attachment 3, Page 4 of 6

Kristina replied that the effective date will be the day it is adopted by the City Council.

Kristina pointed out that window signs are not currently regulated. She recommends addressing them and recommends that signs not exceed 10% of the total windows without a permit. Excess signage over the 10% minimum will then be considered a wall sign. the 10% is based on a model sign code.

Linda said this allows a business to get something up right away when they open, without a sign permit, in response to the input from business owners on the Committee.

John Tuttle asked if it restricts it to a specific portion of the window.

Kristina replied that it does not. They can use any of the area.

David added that most sign permits are smaller than the maximum allowed.

Karen Hageman asked if that includes banners on the window a business might hang.

David answered that any copy is considered a sign and it would apply.

Linda said Mezzaluna is a good example of this that meets the standard.

Karen asked what could be done about businesses that have a lot of posters taped in their windows. She thinks it’s an eyesore.

Kristina replied that anything that is copy, graphics and images is considered a sign. It could be a flyer or a menu, etc. Enforcement of the code is complaint driven.

Karen thinks that it should be 10% of frontage rather than total window area. Safety is an issue when windows are blocked.

Shannon added that lights used to be turned on in a business at night to provide safety for pedestrians and too many posters can interrupt that.

Kristina suggested adding positional standards.

Kip asked if a window is transparent material versus a glass block.

Kristina replied that it is and she will make the clarification in the code standards.

David Bowlsby asked if there is a limit to the amount of window that can be covered.

Kristina Schmunk Kraaz replied that any sign that takes up more than 10% of area will be held to the wall sign standards.

Karen Hagman asked about windows that are covered with things like a sheet of paper.

Kristina answered that it doesn’t fall under the sign code but may apply to the development code. Under 5 | D T C A C M i n u t e s

Attachment 3, Page 5 of 6 current code, it is acceptable.

The final change that Kristina told the committee about was adding a 4’ wall projection limit for signs in the right-of-way.

Kristina said that illuminated signs have not changed, but if the committee would like to, they should give Linda Pauly specific changes that they would like to see in the code.

John Tuttle asked the committee if they liked the changes to the free-standing signs.

Shannon Mudge replied that he did like that it gave businesses a choice. He is absolutely satisfied.

Steve Moe asked the committee if they had a consensus.

The committee members raised no other objections to the proposed codes.

Linda Pauly showed the committee a map of the potential boundary revision of the Downtown Sign District and asked if they approved.

John asked if there will be another for the overlay boundary for the Washburn District.

Kristina replied that the Washburn District is a historic sign district already but if there is any overlapping of the two boundaries the more strict control will be followed.

Kip Amend said that current industrial area south of A St has so much potential but there is no sign control over it. That is where the most intrusions could affect the City entrance.

David added that if the boundary were to expand to include that area then it would have more restrictive sign controls while the other side of the street will not have the same restrictions. Expanding the Sign District boundary to include the South A piece makes sense.

The committee members agreed with Kip and David’s point.

The map will be updated for the ordinance to expanding the Sign District boundary to include the property south of South A.

Meeting was adjourned at 7:10 pm.

Next meeting: TBD

6 | D T C A C M i n u t e s

Attachment 3, Page 6 of 6 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/4/2019 Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Sandy Belson Staff Phone No: 541-736-7135 Estimated Time: 20 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D Council Goals: Promote and Enhance C I T Y C O U N C I L our Hometown Feel while Focusing on Livability and Environmental Quality

ITEM TITLE: HOUSING DIVERSITY TAX EXEMPTION

ACTION Provide direction on establishing a property tax exemption for multi-family housing REQUESTED: that would increase the diversity of housing constructed in Springfield

ISSUE Despite the city’s stable economy, the City recognizes there is a lack of affordable STATEMENT: housing issue within the community and is working to address the problem. The findings point to a severe shortage of housing and the expense of housing relative to household incomes. Rental vacancy rates are very low and it is a seller’s market with a few homes for sale. More than half the city’s renters and a third of its homeowners are cost-burdened (paying more than 30% of income on housing and basic utilities). While three multi-family housing projects are currently under construction, only one market-rate project has been completed in the past ten years.

The Council’s Housing Strategy encourages the creation of housing across the housing continuum to both increase the supply of housing and the accessibility of housing to meet the needs for all people in every phase of life. A property tax exemption on multi-family housing is one way to spur market-rate construction and promote housing of diverse types.

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Council Briefing Memo

DISCUSSION/ This agenda item is a follow-up to the January 12 and April 2 work sessions held in FINANCIAL 2018 in which Council reviewed geographic areas that could be included in a IMPACT: housing diversity tax exemption program and discussed various aspects of implementation. Council considered the length of a tax exemption and establishing a potential cap on total property tax exempted in the city through this program. Both of these policy decisions would affect the financial impact on the city in the short term. The purpose of the tax exemption program is to incentivize construction of housing that would likely not otherwise be built resulting in a long- term gain by adding improvement value to the property tax rolls.

M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield Date: 1/28/2019 To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL From: Tom Boyatt, Interim DWP Director BRIEFING Sandy Belson, Interim CMD Manager Subject: Housing Diversity Tax Exemption MEMORANDUM

ISSUE: Despite the city’s stable economy, the City recognizes there is a lack of affordable housing issue within the community and is working to address the problem. The findings point to a severe shortage of housing and the expense of housing relative to household incomes. Rental vacancy rates are very low and it is a seller’s market with a few homes for sale. More than half the city’s renters and a third of its homeowners are cost-burdened (paying more than 30% of income on housing and basic utilities). While three multi-family housing projects are currently under construction, only one market-rate project has been completed in the past ten years.

COUNCIL GOALS/ MANDATE: Promote and Enhance our Hometown Feel While Focusing on Livability and Environmental Quality

BACKGROUND: When considering if and how to create a property tax exemption to increase housing diversity (allowed under Oregon Revised Statutes 307.600-637), the Council has been considering both the need for the exemption to stimulate construction of multi-family housing and the potential impact of exempting property taxes on the City’s operating budget. To help address both of these questions, AARP’s national leadership entered into a technical assistance contract with LOCUS: Responsible Real Estate Developers and Investors. LOCUS is a Washington, D.C.-based coalition of private real estate developers and investors from across the country working to meet America’s pent-up demand for sustainable, equitable, and walkable places by advocating for local, state, and federal policy change. The contract paired LOCUS with AARP’s Oregon office, which subsequently identified Springfield as a technical assistance partner for LOCUS in the state. LOCUS, AARP Oregon, and Springfield worked together to create a technical assistance program that would help the City assess its multifamily housing market and proposed multifamily housing tax exemption. This memo summarizes the information and recommendations presented by LOCUS.

DEVELOPER CONSIDERATIONS: Developers and investors look to three important metrics to determine whether or not to move forward with a real estate deal. First, they estimate their developer profit —the expected enhancement in value created by the execution of a real estate deal. The industry standard for developer profit generally ranges from 15%-20% of total project cost and is calculated by taking the difference between project value upon completion and total project cost. Next, developers and investors investigate a project’s yield on costs, found by dividing its net operating income Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM 1/29/2019 Page 2

(NOI) by total project cost. A desirable yield on costs ranges from 7%-7.5%. The time frame for earning this yield on cost is project-, developer, and location-specific. In catalytic real estate markets, yield on costs is observed beyond the typical 5-7 years.

Additionally, developers and investors consider a local market’s capitalization (cap) rate when determining where to build. The cap rate is the rate of return on a real estate property investment based on the income that the property is expected to generate. It is also interpreted as a measure of risk. When indicating market stability, cap rates should be lower than a local project’s yield on costs.

LOCUS’ LOCAL ANALYSIS: Dennis Allen, a founding member of LOCUS and Portland developer, prepared a sample pro forma for four types of multi-family projects: 3-story stacked flats with surface parking, 4-story elevator-served flats with interior corridors and surface parking, 5-story wrap (apartments wrapped around structured parking, and 6-story podium (apartments on top of structured parking). Based on staff input, he then added a fifth development type: 2-story townhomes with surface parking.

Mr. Allen shared the sample pro formas at a meeting with staff, local developers/consultants1, members of AARP2, and a representative of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce3. Adjusting the assumptions based on local experience, Dennis showed that all projects would result in a net loss to the developer. Only the 3-story stacked flats would provide any profit with a full property tax exemption (3.8% while industry standard is 15-20% profit), but the yield on costs was only at 6.2%, well short of the 7-7.5% goal. Eliminating the system development charges (in addition to exempting the property taxes) still did not bring the yield on costs up to meet the goal. It resulted in a 6.7% yield on costs and a 12.2% developer profit. General conclusions that came out of this meeting (as summarized in the previous section) include: • The rents one can charge in Springfield are not high enough to offset the cost of new project expenses, leading to a lesser net operating income and a decrease in yield on costs. • Land costs in Springfield are not high enough to justify the expense of higher densities. • Springfield is a non-main real estate market that supports a higher cap rate than other major real estate markets in Oregon. There is more perceived risk for real estate buyers in these smaller markets, given their lower rents, smaller numbers of renters and buyers, and low liquidity. In order to overcome these high cap rates, a developer would require a high yield on cost to overcome the risk. • The most likely developer to take on a project in Springfield is one who is investing in an income-producing property over the long-term.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: For developers and investors to be interested in building multifamily housing in Springfield, they must determine that real estate projects here would net a higher yield on costs than the local cap rate. While the City cannot affect the local cap rate, it can work do reduce projects’ total costs for developers by: exempting property taxes, waiving development fees, and/or offering free public land to developers. However, despite these incentives, Springfield’s real estate market will not be able to support multifamily housing projects that pencil. LOCUS’ pro forma analysis of the city’s multifamily housing market revealed that a full, permanent tax exemption would not bring multifamily projects’ yield on costs up to industry standards (7%-7.5%).

1 Roy Gray, Mike O’Connell, Phil Farrington of CDC Management Corp, Rick Satre and Haley Campbell of Schirmer Satre Group, and David Wade. 2 Carmel Snyder, Sandy Coffin, Betty Coe 3 Max Molzahn Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4 MEMORANDUM 1/29/2019 Page 3

Overall, fully abating property taxes and zeroing out all development fees only brought Springfield’s yield on costs 0.5% short of the industry standard.

ESTABLSING A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR MARKET-RATE MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING: Nevertheless, the implementation of a tax exemption is an important first step towards spurring multifamily housing development in Springfield. Currently, with a few exceptions, the City is not collecting property taxes from new multifamily developments. These properties are not being developed and therefore, no taxes are being collected on their improvements. If it were to enact a multifamily housing tax exemption that no developers were to utilize, the City would be no worse off than having not enacted an exemption in the first place; the City would continue to not collect property taxes that were not being generated in the first place.

Instead, Springfield would be better prepared to capture any future changes in its real estate market that would encourage multifamily housing development to occur, such as rising rents or decreasing construction costs. Additionally, the City would open itself up to different types of developers attracted to the benefits of multifamily housing tax exemptions, such as small-scale developers and patient equity partners such as local stakeholder and anchor institutions. These types of developers are not interested in selling their multifamily asset, only in its cash flow which is directly affected by property taxes. In the long term, the City has the potential to collect more property taxes that arise out of future multifamily housing development than if it had done nothing to establish a tax exemption.

LOCUS RECOMMENDATION: While there are significant barriers to meeting the multi-family housing needs in Springfield, establishing a property tax exemption to promote housing diversity is an important step to stimulate the multi-family housing market. Not only does its enactment indicate to outside developers and investors that the City is development-friendly, it ensures that the City will be prepared for future market changes supporting multi-family housing development. The City Council and staff should work together to outline the terms and duration of the property tax exemption. Decision makers should not shy away from an ambitious plan that allows for full, long-term abatements that are in the interest of the Springfield community. This approach increases the chances of attracting different types of multi-family development to Springfield and of capturing subsequent property taxes that are generated by these diverse projects. Once a tax exemption has been enacted, it is always available for modification and review by the City Council.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Given the LOCUS analysis, staff recommends that Council proceed with establishment of a property tax exemption program as allowed under Oregon Revised Statutes 307.600-637 in qualifying geographic areas where Council wants to encourage market-rate multi-family housing. To be attractive to developers, the program should have minimal requirements and include the maximum 10-year exemption. To enable the Council to review the initial outcomes of the program, there should be a threshold of taxes abated that would trigger a program evaluation.

NEXT STEPS: If Council wants to proceed, staff would bring back a program proposal at a future work session.

Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4 MEMORANDUM 1/29/2019 Page 4

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff as to whether or not to continue proceeding with establishing a housing diversity tax exemption.

Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/4/2019 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Clayton McEachern Development and Public Works Staff Phone No: 541-736-1036 Estimated Time: Consent Calendar S P R I N G F I E L D Council Goals: Maintain and Improve C I T Y C O U N C I L Infrastructure and Facilities

ITEM TITLE: ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT P31035; A STREET BUSINESS PARK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

ACTION Adopt or reject the following resolution: REQUESTED: A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CITY PROJECT P31035; A STREET BUSINESS PARK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PIP). ISSUE The work on this project has been completed by the Developers, Dan Montgomery STATEMENT: - Dan M, LLC and Jim Walsh - JKW Park Blocks, LLC. Final inspection, paperwork, and approval has been completed by City Staff and the Developer’s consulting engineers, Geomax, Inc. The project is now ready for formal City Council acceptance.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. P31035; A Street Business Park PIP Acceptance - Resolution

DISCUSSION/ A Street Business Park consisted of improvements to South A Street and South 20th FINANCIAL Street, including paving, roadside swale, storm drain and sidewalks along the IMPACT: frontage of a new industrial multi-tenant building. The Public Improvement Project (PIP) construction consists of the following items:

• Construction of approximately107 feet of storm drain, primarily consisting of a roadside swale. This development used an open channel swale instead of constructing the typical curb, gutter and underground storm drain pipe to save on construction costs, improve storm water quality, promote infiltration and for the City to evaluate this alternative street section. • Construction of 415 feet of 20 foot wide paving over an existing gravel road of South 20th and South A Street with 384 feet of sidewalk and ADA facilities and 6 street trees.

All construction work was paid for by the Developers and constructed by McKenzie Excavating, Inc.

All work done under this permit project has been completed and inspected by the City Engineer or his designee and found to be satisfactory. There is no final construction cost for this project, as it was privately engineered, built and financed. There is no financial impact to the City other than the typical future maintenance responsibilities for public infrastructure.

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. ______

ACCEPTANCE

WHEREAS, work on the improvement described below has been fully completed and has been duly inspected by the City Engineer of the City of Springfield: P31035, A Street Business Park, Public Improvement Project;

WHEREAS, said work was found to be in conformance with the terms of the Public Improvement Permit and plans submitted by the Engineer of Record and approved by the City Engineer; and

WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the City Engineer that this Public Improvement Project be accepted and permanently included in the improvement maintenance program of the City of Springfield.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD:

Section 1: The Common Council of the City of Springfield does hereby accept for future maintenance the above-described project and accepts said improvement from the Developer involved.

Section 2: This Resolution will take effect upon adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor.

ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 22nd day of January 2019, by a vote of _____ for and ____ against.

______Mayor ATTEST:

______City Recorder REVIEWED & APPROVED AS TO FORM Mary Bridget Smith DATE: August 28, 2018 OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF SPRINGFIELD

Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/4/2019 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Mary Bridget Smith/ CAO Staff Phone No: 541-744-4061 Estimated Time: Consent Calendar S P R I N G F I E L D Council Goals: Mandate C I T Y C O U N C I L

ITEM TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CRIMINAL MISDEMEANORS AND VIOLATIONS

ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a second reading and adopt/not adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 5.100, 5.104 AND 5.128, REPEALING SECTIONS 5.058, 5.059, 5.117, 5.140 THROUGH 5.158, 5.250 AND 5.260, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE

ISSUE STATEMENT: This Ordinance is intended to include any changes in the state criminal statutes listed in SMC Sections 5.100 and 5.104 that occurred in the last legislative session and to repeal outdated or expired code sections.

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Ordinance

DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL Springfield Municipal Code Sections 5.100 through 5.104 adopt by IMPACT: reference and make state misdemeanor and violation crimes an offense against the City of Springfield so they may be prosecuted in Springfield Municipal Court. This section is updated on an annual basis to capture any changes that have occurred in the incorporated statutes during the most recent legislative session.

In addition, the code sections to be repealed are outdated, expired or similar to code provisions in other jurisdictions that have been found to be unconstitutional. For example, SMC 5.117, Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, Less than One Once, no longer applies due to state legalization. SMC 5.058 and 5.059, Disorderly Conduct and Harassment, respectively are duplicates of state statutes that are incorporated elsewhere in the Municipal Code. Section 5.128, Slugging and Stabbing Weapons, is amended to retain the violation of unlawful possession of slugging or stabbing weapons, but removes the violation for their manufacture. Sections 5.140 through 5.158 apply to the expired downtown civil exclusion zones. Section 5.250, Innkeepers-Registers, is similar to an ordinance that was found unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finally, section 5.260, Begging, is not utilized by the Police Department and most likely inconsistent with recent court rulings as it relates to panhandling and free speech.

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. ______(General)

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 5.100, 5.104 AND 5.128, REPEALING SECTIONS 5.058, 5.059, 5.117, 5.140 THROUGH 5.158, 5.250 AND 5.260, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE

WHEREAS, the Springfield Municipal Court has jurisdiction to prosecute criminal misdemeanors and violations that occur within the Springfield city limits;

WHEREAS, the City of Springfield has an interest in ensuring the public safety by preventing the commission of criminal offenses;

WHEREAS, the City of Springfield has an interest in preventing conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflects or threatens substantial harm to the individual or public interest;

WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City of Springfield to include the penalties and statutory language for criminal misdemeanors as currently described in the Oregon Revised Statutes; and

WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City of Springfield to repeal municipal code sections that are repeated in other areas of the code, expired, or similar to code provisions in other jurisdictions have been found to be unconstitutional.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Section 5.100 “Definitions” of the Springfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“The definitions contained in ORS Chapters 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 471, 472, 475, 475B and 480.160, as currently in effect, are adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter.”

Section 2. Section 5.104 “Misdemeanors and Violations – State Statutes Adopted” of the Springfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Each misdemeanor and violation made an offense against the state under the provisions of the ORS Chapters 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 181, 471, 475, 475B, and 480.110 to 480.160, current in effect and constituted, are adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter and designated an offense against the City. A person who violates any one of the provisions within the jurisdiction of the City is in violation of this chapter and shall be charged with the offense of violating Section 5.104 of this Code, and reference shall be made in the charging instrument to that particular section of the ORS, as incorporated by reference, which has been violated. If any other section of this chapter or any other SMC ordinance creates a specific misdemeanor or violation offense in conflict with an ORS misdemeanor or violation offense incorporated by reference in this chapter, the provisions of the ORS regarding misdemeanor or violation offense incorporated by reference, shall govern.”

Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2 Section 3. Section 5.128 “Slugging and Stabbing Weapons” of the Springfield Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

“(1) As used in this section, the terms “slugging and stabbing weapons” include metal knuckles, or an instrument or weapon having a blade which projects or swings into position by force of a spring, gravity, or other device, and commonly known as a switchblade knife, or any instrument or weapon commonly known as a nanchuka, shuriken, blackjack, sap or sap glove. (2) No person shall sell, give, loan, carry or possess a slugging or stabbing weapon. The foregoing shall not apply to any sworn police officer. (3) When it appears to the court that subsection (2) of this section has been violated, in addition to other penalties and remedies, the court shall, upon motion by the city attorney, cause the slugging or stabling weapon to be destroyed. (4) The offenses specified in subsections (1), (2) and (3) are punishable as violations and may include a fine not exceeding $720.00 pursuant to SMC section 1.205.”

Section 4. Sections 5.058, 5.059, 5.117, 5.140 through 5.158, 5.250, and 5.260 of the Springfield Municipal Code are repealed.

Section 5. Severability Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereof.

ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ______day of January, 2019, by a vote of _____ for and ____ against.

APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ______day of January, 2019.

______Mayor ATTEST:

______City Recorder

Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/4/2019 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Mary Bridget Smith/ CAO Staff Phone No: 541-744-4061 Estimated Time: Consent Calendar S P R I N G F I E L D Council Goals: Mandate C I T Y C O U N C I L

ITEM TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRESUMPTIVE FINES FOR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS

ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a second reading and adopt/not adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 1.205, ADDING A NEW SECTION 1.205(4), RENUMBERING THE SECTIONS 1.205(4), (5), (6) AND (7), AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE

ISSUE STATEMENT: The Springfield Municipal Court has jurisdiction to prosecute violations that occur within the Springfield city limits. The purpose of this item is to codify the presumptive fine amount for unclassified violations.

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Ordinance

DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL The Springfield Municipal Court has jurisdiction to prosecute violations that IMPACT: occur within the Springfield city limits. Presumptive fines are the amount of funds a defendant can pay to resolve a violation offense without any further action unless the law or the court requires the defendant to appear. Some presumptive fine amounts for specific violations are set out in statute while other fines are deemed “unclassified.”

The Springfield Police Department uses presumptive fines when it charges individuals with violations, but presumptive fines for unclassified violations have not been previously codified in the Springfield Municipal Code. This code amendment proposes to mirror the state statute of setting the presumptive fine amount for an unclassified violation to the equivalent of a Class B violation (currently $265). This code amendment also includes a housekeeping measure to change the maximum penalty for a Class A misdemeanor to 364 days in jail instead of one year. This is also meant to be consistent with state statutes.

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. ______(General)

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 1.205, ADDING A NEW SECTION 1.205(4), RENUMBERING SECTIONS 1.205(4), (5), (6) AND (7), AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE

WHEREAS, the Springfield Municipal Court has jurisdiction to prosecute criminal misdemeanors and violations that occur within the Springfield city limits;

WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City of Springfield to include the penalties and statutory language for the penalties and fines for misdemeanors and violations that are in violation of Springfield Municipal Code and Oregon Revised Statutes;

WHEREAS, the presumptive fine of a violation is the amount of funds a defendant can pay to resolve a violation offense without any further action unless the law or the court requires the defendant to appear;

WHEREAS, some presumptive fine amounts for specific violations are expressly set out in the applicable statute or municipal code section, otherwise they are deemed to be unclassified violations; and

WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City of Springfield to include the penalties and statutory language for presumptive fine amounts for unclassified violations to make the community aware of the amount that can be paid to resolve a violation.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Section 1.205 “Penalties,” Subsection (1)(a) of the Springfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“(a) For a Class A misdemeanor, three hundred and sixty four days;”

Section 2. Section 1.205 “Penalties,” Subsection (4) is added to read as follows:

“An offense described in the Springfield Municipal Code that is designated as a violation but does not specify the classification of the violation is an unclassified violation. The presumptive fine for an unclassified violation is the same amount as the presumptive fine for a Class B violation under the Oregon Revised Statutes.”

Section 3. Sections 1.205 (4), (5), (6) and (7) are renumbered to sections 1.205 (5), (6), (7) and (8) respectively as follows:

“(5) Every day a violation of this code or any other ordinance of the city continues shall constitute a separate offense.

(6) In all cases involving a bail forfeiture or conviction of sections 5.404, 5.418, 5.420, 5.422, 5.428, 5.448, 5.450 or 5.456 of this code may additionally:

(i) Order the animal be impounded and destroyed; and

Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2 (ii) Order the owner of the animal to pay all fees and costs for impoundment, daily care, medical care and destruction.

(7) In all cases involving a bail forfeiture or conviction of sections 5.406, 5.408, 5.410, 5.412, 5.414 or 5.416 of this code, the court may additionally:

(i) Order the farm animal or livestock be impounded and either sold in a manner acceptable to the court, or be destroyed; and (ii) Order the owner of the farm animal or livestock to pay all fees and costs for impoundment, daily care, medical care, licenses, vaccinations and either destruction or sale; and (iii) All proceeds of sale shall be applied first to the fees and costs identified in subsection (6)(b) of this section, and then to any fines or other assessments imposed pursuant to this section. The excess proceeds of sale, if any, shall be refunded to the defendant.

(8) In all cases involving a bail forfeiture or conviction of section 5.476 of this code, the court may additionally:

(i) Order the exotic animal or wildlife be impounded and either destroyed or forfeited and delivered to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife or any zoo acceptable to the court if said zoo is willing to accept and keep the exotic animal or wildlife without charge to the city; and (ii) Order the owner of the exotic animal or wildlife to pay all fees and costs for impoundment, daily care, medical care, permits, licenses and vaccinations prior to destruction or delivery to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife or to the zoo, and in the case of delivery to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife or a zoo, the court may also order the defendant to pay the costs of transporting the wildlife or exotic animal to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife facility, or to the zoo.”

Section 4. Severability Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereof.

ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this _____ day of January, 2019, by a vote of _____ for and ____ against.

APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ______day of January, 2019.

______Mayor ATTEST:

______City Recorder

Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/4/2019 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Nancy Jenkins - DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3670 Estimated Time: Consent Calendar S P R I N G F I E L D Council Goals: Mandate C I T Y C O U N C I L

ITEM TITLE: LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR A NEW OUTLET FOR BO’S WINE DEPOT, INC., DBA: BO’S WINE DEPOT.

ACTION Endorsement of OLCC Liquor License Application for Bo’s Wine Depot, located at REQUESTED: 1879 Pioneer Parkway, Springfield, OR 97477.

ISSUE The owner of Bo’s Wine Depot, Inc. has requested the City Council to endorse its STATEMENT: OLCC Liquor License Application.

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: OLCC Liquor License Application.

DISCUSSION/ The license endorsement for Bo’s Wine Depot, Inc. DBA: Bo’s Wine Depot is for a FINANCIAL New Outlet with Off-Premises Sales. The license application has been reviewed IMPACT: and approved by the appropriate City Departments.

Attachment 1, Page 1 of 3 Attachment 1, Page 2 of 3 Attachment 1, Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/4/2019 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Brenda Jones, DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3610 Estimated Time: 05 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D Council Goals: Mandate C I T Y C O U N C I L

ITEM TITLE: PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

ACTION Appoint Michael Koivula to serve on the Planning Commission by official REQUESTED: appointment on February 4, 2019 with said appointment expiring on February 4, 2023.

ISSUE The seven-member Planning Commission has one position available as Michael STATEMENT: Koivula’s first term comes to an end. Commissioner Michael Koivula is seeking reappointment

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application of Michael Koivula 2. Planning Commission Roster

DISCUSSION/ The City received two applications for one vacancy during a four-week recruitment FINANCIAL period. At the January 22, 2019 Work Session the Council interviewed two IMPACT: candidates. At the conclusion of this interview process the Council supported reappointing Michael Koivula. Formal appointment is requested.

Attachment 1, Page 1 of 5 Attachment 1, Page 2 of 5 Attachment 1, Page 3 of 5 Attachment 1, Page 4 of 5 Attachment 1, Page 5 of 5 City of Springfield PUBLIC Planning Commission MAILING ADDRESS PHONE APPOINTMENT RE-APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE DATE DATE Michael Koivula R: 541-746-1805 3/16/2015 2/4/2019 2/4/2023 723 Crest Lane Springfield, Oregon 97477 [email protected]

Sophie E. McGinley C: 804-335-4134 10/1/2018 10/1/2022 336 Main Street, Apt. 3 Springfield, Oregon 97477 [email protected] (Assistant Planner)

Kuri K. Gill C: 541-556-9095 10/1/2018 2/5/2023 th 545 10 Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 [email protected] (Grant and Outreach Coordinator)

Andrew W. Landen R: 541-337-0117 4/20/2015 10/1/2018 10/1/2022 6721 Glacier Drive Springfield, Oregon 97478 [email protected] (Works in IT Field)

Grace Bergen C: 541-520-9566 04/02/2018 7/31/2021 2308 15th Street To fulfill Springfield, Oregon 97477 position with [email protected] original (Realtor) appointment date 7/31/2017 Troy R. Sherwood C: 503-863-7749 5/5/2016 5/5/2020 280 S. 35th Street Springfield, Oregon 97478 [email protected] (U of O Telefund Supervisor)

Tim Vohs R: 541-747-4325 1/17/2012 5/5/2016 5/5/2020 3708 Cherokee Drive Springfield, Oregon 97478 [email protected]

Note: Springfield Planning Commissioners serve four-year terms. Two members may reside outside the Springfield City limits and two members may be employed in real estate.

CONTACTS: SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT

Tom Boyatt: Interim Development and Public Works Department Director 541-726-3697 Sandy Belson: Interim Community Development and Public Works Manager 541-726-3774 Brenda Jones: Development and Public Works Department, Management Specialist 541-726-3610 Council Liaison: Councilor Leonard Stoehr; [email protected] ; 541-285-3792.

Edited 02/04/2019 BJones Attachment 2, Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/4/2019 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Emily David Staff Phone No: 541-726-2235 Estimated Time: 5 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D Council Goals: Mandate C I T Y C O U N C I L

ITEM TITLE: LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD APPLICANT APPOINTMENTS

ACTION Appoint Clyde Miller with a full term expiring beginning February 4, 2019 and REQUESTED: December 31, 2022. Appoint Heather Millehrer-Huerta to complete the one year left on departing Board member term beginning February 4, 2019 and expiring December 31, 2019. Appoint Carolyn Miller to complete the one year left on departing Board member term beginning February 4, 2019 and expiring December 31, 2019. ISSUE The Library Advisory Board currently has three vacant positions due to the STATEMENT: resignation of Board member Barbara Stramler in July 2018, the expiration of Board member, Peter Fehr’s term on December 31, 2018, and the resignation of Kim Thompson on January 16, 2019. There is one year remaining on the terms vacated by Ms. Stramler and Ms. Thompson, and then a full four year term. Three applications were received for the three openings. Interviews were conducted by the Council on January 22, 2019. Applications are attached. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Library Advisory Board Charge Attachment 2: Current Library Board Roster Attachment 3: Application of Clyde Miller Attachment 4: Application of Heather Millehrer-Huerta Attachment 5: Application of Carolyn Miller

DISCUSSION/ The Library Advisory Board currently has three vacant seats. At the June 5, 2018 FINANCIAL meeting of the Library Advisory Board, Board member Barbara Stramler IMPACT: announced that she was resigning. The application process to complete the one year left of the Board term vacated by Ms. Stramler was opened in September, 2018 and closed on October 26, 2018. One application was received from Clyde Miller during this time. The application was reopened on November 6, 2018 until January 11, 2019. Two additional applications were received during this open application process, one from Heather Millehrer-Huerta and another from Carolyn Miller. At the November meeting Board Chair, Peter Fehrs announced he would not reapply after his term ended on December 31, 2018, leaving one full four-year term vacant. Kim Thompson announced that she could not fulfill the last year of her term via email on January 16, 2019. The Library Advisory Board thus ended up with three open seats.

All applicants attended the January 15, 2019 Library Advisory Board meeting. The Council interviewed all three applicants on January 22, 2019 and decided to appoint Clyde Miller to complete the full four year term expiring December 31, 2022 and to appoint Heather Millehrer-Huerta and Carolyn Miller to complete the one year terms left in the departing members’ tenure expiring December 31, 2019. The Library Advisory Board requests that the City Council formally ratify the appointments of the three applicants at the Regular Meeting session.

Library Board

CHARGE

The Library Board acts in an advisory capacity for the City Manager and City Council with respect to opinions and recommendations for future Library development, expansion of Library service, and Library policy.

Source of Existence Council/State of Oregon/Charter Bylaws: Yes Code: Springfield City Code, Chapter I, Article 9

Sunset Date: Council/Mandatory

Membership Number: 7 In City: 6 Out of City: 1 – one board member may be a non-resident of the City if an owner of real property or tangible personal property subject to assessment and taxation situated within the city.

Term (2 max): 4 Years

Ward: No Qualifier: Yes, 4 in City of Springfield

Appointed By: Council application

Meeting Time Monthly – First Tuesday – 5:30-7:00 p.m. – City Hall Meeting Room 3 (Except July, August and December).

Funding Source: General Fund

Staff Liaison: Emily David, Library Director, 726-2235

Council Liaison: Sean VanGordon, Ward 1

Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Springfield Library Board 2018

Vacant ex. 12/31/18

Linneman, Ralene ex. 12/31/19 805 Raintree Way Springfield, Or 97477 440-670-5440 [email protected]

Mears, Linda ex. 12/31/19 1252 I St. Springfield, OR 97477 Ph. 541-521-3520 [email protected] or [email protected]

Vacant ex. 12/31/19

Thompson, Kim ex. 12/31/19 1550 Walnut Rd. Springfield, OR 97477 Ph. 541-515-3543 [email protected]

Fuller, Kristine ex.12/31/20 563 Granite Pl. Springfield, OR 97477 Ph. 541-342-3490 [email protected]

Phelps, Mary Beth 2260 E Street ex. 12/31/21 Springfield, OR 97477 620-687-2551 [email protected]

Van Gordon, Sean (Council Liaison) 2327 Clear Vue Lane Springfield, OR 97477 Ph. 541-221-8006 [email protected]

updated 11/18

Attachment 2, Page 1 of 1 Attachment 3, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 3, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 4, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 4, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 5, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 5, Page 2 of 2