Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/24/2013 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 24, 2013 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith and Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Soma and members of the staff. 1. NEDCO Main Street Program Management Partnership Funding Senior Management Analyst Courtney Griesel presented this item. She introduced Claire Seguin - Carpenter, Executive Director from NEDCO who provided much of the presentation. In 2010, downtown Springfield was approved as a Transforming downtown community under the National Main Street Program. NEDCO was the lead organization in acquiring this status and remained in the lead role of managing organization since. Beginning in FY 13, the City of Springfield provided funding to NEDCO to assist in Main Street Program management. As part of the approved FY14 budget, the City would again be looking to provide funding to NEDCO in the amount $30,000. During the upcoming year, NEDCO and City staff had identified several broad program goals and work tasks. GOALS: • Begin moving downtown Springfield from the Main Street Program category of Transforming to Performing. This work was likely to occur over the next two years. • Work to diversify program funding sources. • Increase community involvement on committees. TASKS: • Create a website for downtown activities, events, building vacancies, and promotional opportunities. • Develop downtown welcome & information packages for new and existing businesses. • Develop a merchant alert system for timely notification of road work, new businesses, special events, etc. • Regularly generate property vacancy /availability reports; including special features and build outs. • Fully operational, well utilized and effectively managed Fagade Improvement Program for merchants in need of storefront improvements and enhancements. • Support community involvement for city's design standards project. • Work to ensure compatible aesthetics and principles across the Fapade Improvement Program and the city's design standards. • Volunteer management strategy and recruitment plan was created. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 2 Ms. Seguin discussed some of the handouts included in the agenda packet. One of their goals was to become a Performing Nationally Accredited Main Street Program. Generally speaking that type of designation also meant the Program was set up for the best possible success rate across the board with good infrastructure in terms of staff, committees and funding. The Main Street Programs evolved over time and Springfield's was still a very young program. Springfield did start out quickly because we already had a committed community, interested participants across all sectors, and planning in the downtown area. She referred to the list of volunteers who had served on the various committees. Recruiting for committees was an ongoing task that would continue for the life of the program. She described the need for passion and diversification in the volunteers. The most important thing they would be working on this year was finding consistent leaders to implement the work plan the committees had been working on over the last couple of years. As an organization the volunteers were getting more sophisticated and they were able to focus on downtown needs that weren't identified a few years ago. Some of the things that needed to be addressed could be physical space, business types that were missing, new development to recruit, etc. Tools for tracking those types of things included software the Program had purchased, and committee members that had enough knowledge to lead those programs at that sophisticated level. Ms. Seguin referred to the retrospective of the Main Street Program, which was included in the agenda packet as Attachment 1. This showed the progression and trends of the Program. There were new projects being launched such as the fagade improvement program in which they had awarded the first two grants. More information would be distributed at the Mixer scheduled for Saturday. June 26. She noted that the Mixer would include business owners from downtown and invited the Council to attend. The Mixer also provided an opportunity to showcase different businesses that were in varying stages of involvement with the Main Street Program. The deadline for the fagade improvement applications was July 15 or until all of the funds were gone. The Design Committee had created new design guidelines which were used to evaluate the proposals. Professional landscape architects and designers served on the panel that awarded the grants. They were holding people to a nice pedestrian design scale and aesthetic sensibility. As more grants went out and more neighbors made improvements, the cumulative effect of having design criteria would make downtown more inviting for people coming to downtown. Next year, that program would be expanded with more funding and more projects. There was also a loan program that went along with that so they hoped to have a couple of applicants that could afford to borrow inexpensively funds to do bigger projects for their storefront. They were very excited about this program. An important step in any Main Street Program was transition because the difference could be seen. Ms. Seguin spoke regarding the Business Incubator Program and the number and range of classes provided. People downtown were fortunate there was that support and effort by other organizations being put into the downtown. The Main Street Program tried hard to leverage that so all the right connections were made to use all assets in the community to promote the downtown. They had been working with the Springfield Chamber on education and promoting Chamber membership. Ms. Seguin talked about the difference between a Transforming Main Street which was the current designation and a Performing Main Street, which was their goal. The table identifying the differences was included in the agenda packet as Attachment 2. The key to reaching that goal was to work on the three items under "Not Met ". Currently NEDCO was the umbrella organization, but the goal was to form a Main Street Community that became its own 501(3)(c) stand -alone entity. As a stand -alone entity, it would have its own funding, board, bylaws, etc. and could be sustainable for many years to come. Main Street Programs generally continued on and on, although the focus could change dependent on many factors. They would be laying the groundwork for that during the coming year and it was their hope that the current Steering Committee could be the structure of the new Board of City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 3 Directors. Currently, Beth Hayes from NEDCO and the committee chairs served on that Steering Committee. They were the group with the bigger vision, who were working hardest on coordinating finding strategies and making sure all of the plans interlocked so the entire Main Street work plan moved forward in a coordinated fashion. As the new structure became clearer, they would be looking for other people to round out that Board that represented a cross section of the community. An adequate operating budget would be essential over time. Most Main Street communities had a mixture of funding resources such as a signature event, membership dues and fee, economic improvement districts, donor campaigns or traditional fundraising. The Steering Committee would look at the current funding and determine what would make sense for downtown Springfield and what business owners would support. The City and NEDCO support had been great, but they didn't want those two entities to be the only two supporters so would be looking to diversify. The Steering Committee and community would do another check -in about what the Main Street Vision and Mission needed to be. Ms. Seguin said they would be setting up a stand -alone website. The Promotion Committee would be working on the site and would include things like vacancy postings and other resources. They were about half -way through pulling together Welcome Packages that could be handed out to anyone interested in locating downtown. They were also working on a merchant alert system, which would basically be emails on topical matters that might affect or matter to merchants. A new intern had started from Scholars On Board who would be doing some photography and working on the database. They were going to work to support the City's design standards project. Councilor Woodrow said she had been a fan of the Main Street Program from the beginning. She saw the Main Street Program as a hub for the whole City and wondered if there was something they could do once the organizational committee was formed to promote the program, such as decals or buttons that got people to ask about the program. If Main Street became a destination, it would benefit everyone else. She also suggested that once the volunteer program was up and running they could find some way of recognizing the volunteers through an annual event or something similar. She noted that she still got emails from the Main Street Program in her hometown. Councilor Moore asked if it was possible at some point to look at Main Street East and Main Street North. She wanted to celebrate the whole city and felt there was a need to promote east Springfield, Gateway and the Mohawk area. She asked if that was ever done with this type of program. Ms. Seguin said many communities had multiple Main Street Programs. It was dependent on whether or not there was a geography that could be easily defined and understood by everyone that shared a common set of characteristics. It also needed to be sustainable with enough interest from a volunteer and budget standpoint. It could be configured in a number of ways. Councilor Moore said she felt success bred success. She noticed the positive change in Springfield over the last 10 -15 years. Ms. Carpenter said the Main Street Program worked in large towns, small towns and business districts. It was very scalable. Councilor Moore wanted to keep that in mind and get word out there to other areas of town. Mayor Lundberg asked if the Steering Committee was the same as the City's Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 4 Ms. Griesel said it was a separate entity. They had, however, on occasion combined meetings in order to leverage the group. Many members of the Downtown CAC served on the Steering Committee. Mayor Lundberg said there were many segments of Main Street. She liked the word downtown as it had a tone of excitement about it. We didn't yet have the identity and characteristics established for downtown that we could identify and promote. That led into the design recommendations for the Fagade Program that the Design Committee was developing. They needed a brief explanation of our downtown that could be shared with others and could be understood. We had the opportunity with the five committees working on downtown to create that identity. She hoped that was part of what was occurring and the Council would get some type of recommendation related to that. She hoped all of the downtown committees, including the City Downtown CAC, could have more interaction. Ms. Griesel said the staff lead for the Downtown CAC was also on the Main Street Committee that was working on the design guidelines to make sure there was communication. Also, some of the Downtown CAC members served on the Main Street Committee. That work had gone back and forth between both full memberships. They had worked hard to partner with NEDCO and provide city staff for each committee to make sure we were communicating well and not doing double work. Mayor Lundberg said there were 5 committees for a small geographic area. She hoped we could capitalize on the fact that the Main Street Program was required to have 4 committees. The City had high expectations from NEDCO and she applauded the work being done. All good things were going to happen. She wanted the City to be as supportive as possible to make sure we had our design standards, lighting and other things. She noted that the Springfield Renaissance Development Corporation (SRDC) had always been based in downtown and perhaps they could take on the role of the Main Street organizational committee. Ms. Griesel said Tom Draggoo, a SRDC member, served as the Chair of the Economic Structuring Committee. Councilor Woodrow said the basic Main Street Program was required to have all of those committees. Mayor Lundberg said Springfield looked very good in comparison to other Main Street Programs. Ms. Seguin said branding was difficult and there were a lot of differing opinions. The Downtown Promotion Committee could possibly come up with a process. Everyone felt it was time to make those decisions. They had tried to go through this before and it didn't go well, but the process was important. Mayor Lundberg agreed. Councilor Woodrow said when they tried this two years ago, there wasn't nearly as much downtown as there was now. There could be more of a positive response now that we had more downtown. Mayor Lundberg asked if there was interest in the City helping with a process. City staff had some expertise that could be beneficial. Mr. Grimaldi said the City could perhaps assist. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 5 Ms. Seguin said the Main Street Program committees were well supported and staff at NEDCO felt the City was very supportive. There was a good partnership between the City and NEDCO and a lot was getting done. Councilor Moore said she recalled when she first heard about NEDCO at the Farmers' Market. It was amazing how far the City and NEDCO had come in the last five or six years. 2. Downtown Demonstration Lighting. Community Development Manager John Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item. During an April work session with the City Council, staff provided an update of the 2010 Downtown District Urban Design Plan. One activity identified in the Plan was improvements to the downtown pedestrian environment, including improved lighting. Lighting needs in downtown had been identified as a top priority by Council, citizens, and consultants responsible for the Downtown Circulation Study. Over the past months, staff had worked with downtown stakeholder groups to identify an ideal location to pilot a lighting improvement project. In May, City staff met with downtown stakeholders including the members of the Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee and Main Street Committees. During this meeting, staff and citizens walked downtown during evening hours to assess areas perceived to be deficient in pedestrian level lighting. This walk -about was used to assist the City Traffic Engineer in identifying the proposed demonstration project location. Considered project options included; • Installation of lighting on the north side of Main Street from Pioneer Pkwy East to the east side of 5`h Street (current proposed project) • Installation of lighting on both block faces along Main Street from 5'h Street to 6`h Street • Installation of bollards and raised crosswalks • Installation of sidewalk furniture including, benches, bike corrals, planters, and trash receptacles The proposed project location included eight new fixtures along the north side of Main Street between Pioneer Parkway East and the east side of 5'h Street. Funds had been identified in the Downtown Urban Renewal budget to support the installation of the lighting as well as possible installation of several sidewalk furniture -type improvements. This project was identified based on input-from downtown stakeholders directing staff to focus on lighting and installing fixtures quickly. While stakeholders expressed interest and value in other proposed options, they advised staff to focus first on the installation of light fixtures. Mr. Tamulonis said the total cost for the project was expected not to exceed $150,000. The budget could allow more than two blocks to be done due to some wires that had been found on the north side of Main Street which would keep the costs down. Staff would send out a bid for the whole thing and then scale back to stay within the budget. All lights would be on the north side of Main Street and would be LED lighting, which took smaller wires allowing more wires in each section of conduit. Mr. Tamulonis said staff would coordinate the downtown lighting with the holiday lighting Council had requested. Bids for the downtown lighting should go out early this Fall once the design was complete. Depending on what the bid alternates were, staff could go back to the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and look at other blocks to consider for additional lighting. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 6 Councilor Brew asked how far the conduit extended that was found on the north side of Main Street Mr. Barnett said almost all of the existing lighting system was serviced with conduit on the south side of Main Street. The empty conduit referred to tonight was almost all on the north side of Main Street and connected into existing poles. The empty conduit was not continuous the entire length and never crossed the street. That was part of the complexity of the circuiting that would have to be determined. Councilor Ralston asked why lighting was being added to the north side if there was already lighting and conduit on the south side. Mr. Barnett said the conduit on the south side served the existing street lights and the existing circuit for the holiday lighting. That conduit was full. Part of the design was to determine how to budget the electrical loops across the circuits in place versus the circuits to potentially be added. Councilor Ralston asked if the lights on the south side would be upgraded. Mr. Barnett said the proposal was for fixtures and poles on the north side only. Mr. Tamulonis said in the future they could look at the south side to change the lighting to LED which was a cost savings and used smaller wires, allowing for more fixtures. Councilor Ralston said he felt they should replace the lights on the south side to LEDs first. He asked if that was planned. Mr. Tamulonis said if the north side could be figured out first, it would be easier to look at the south side, which was a much more complicated project. Mr. Barnett said if they did replace the existing fixtures with LEDs on the south side, that same wire could possibly be used to carry a load of new poles. Mr. Tamulonis said they would know more once they had the design. Councilor Moore referred to Attachment 2 and asked if that was the design of the lights. Mr. Barnett said the light fixture in the inset was the general appearance of current City- approved light fixtures, such as those along Martin Luther King Parkway. The appearance was in the community, but those were actually metal halide which consumed twice as much energy as the LED lights. The other photo was of one of the lights next to the Justice Center and was taller than what would be proposed downtown. Those lights would be moved to intersections and shorter lights put in their place as part of the A Street project. Councilor Moore asked if the project to upgrade the Plaza included lighting. Ms. Griesel the Plaza improvements included landscaping and surface improvements and did not include lighting because of costs. Councilor Moore said the lights were approved and could be used in the future. Yes Mr. Barnett said Council could choose a different design. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 7 Councilor Moore asked about the cost and quality of the lights being considered. Mr. Barnett said any decorative fixture would be more expensive than a plain light. Staff looked for long -term quality with a history of success. Councilor Moore said the lights along Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway were nice looking and put out adequate light. Mr. Barnett noted that the shorter lights were installed along some of our multi -use paths. Councilor Brew asked if the City paid a fixed cost to pay for the power for the lights or if it was based on consumption. Mr. Barnett said some fixtures were connected with a meter and some were not. Those on a meter paid based on actual usage. SUB calculated an average flat fee based on several factors for those not on meters. Councilor Brew said if the City switched to LED fixtures, they could pay for themselves over time. Mr. Barnett said that was correct, and the City would also get rebates from SUB. Councilor Brew said ideally we would want more lights on the south side, but there wasn't enough conduit available so it would require changing the wiring in addition to adding poles. Mr. Tamulonis said the cost of LEDs had come down rapidly over the last few years. A change -out was more likely to occur over time. Mr. Barnett said one of the things that would be included with this project would be a lighting control system that would allow the lights to be dimmed, and would provide a report when a light was out. This would be a great opportunity to demonstrate how that worked. Mayor Lundberg said she was ecstatic to get lighting downtown. This was an excellent project to benefit everyone downtown. Mr. Tamulonis said it would be a great addition. There were some funds set aside to look into street furniture that businesses could buy and the City install. Mayor Lundberg asked if it would include hooks for hanging plants on light poles. Mr. Tamulonis said he would check into that. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 8 3. Review Interpretation of Municipal Code to Restrict Signs on Undeveloped Property within Springfield. Building Official David Bowlsby presented the staff report on this item. Staff had historically interpreted the City's existing Sign Code language (Springfield Municipal Code Sections 8.240 through 8.268) as prohibiting the placement of signs relating to off premises activity on undeveloped property. Freestanding and wall signs were permitted onsite for businesses in various zoning districts. The definitions in the Sign Code referred to areas where signs may be placed as a "Development Area" and define development area as "The area of a connnercial, industrial or residential development that is contained within a single tax lot." Certain signs which were defined as exempt signs may be placed on vacant property. The City interpretation had been that while a vacant parcel may be considered developable it was not a development area without a previously established regulated structure (building) appropriate for the zoning of the parcel. Additionally, where no development existed, there could be no business present. While the sign code allowed placement of signs for businesses, if there was no business, there was no allowance for signs. This interpretation had been the basis for denial of placing signs on vacant property relating to off premises activity. If the Council wished to permit placement of signs relating to off premises activity on undeveloped properties that otherwise met the restrictions set forth in the existing sign code, they could do so by directing staff to clarify the definition of development area to include property which, though developable, was not yet developed. If Council did not wish to allow placement of signs relating to off premises activity on undeveloped property, they could direct staff to add clarifying language to the existing Sign Code to specifically state that signs were not allowed on vacant property and avoid the ambiguous language of development area vs. developable area. Mr. Bowlsby explained a situation where a sign could be leased to other businesses in one development area. In doing so, the owner of the property sold their right of signage to a third party and that business could only advertise by paying the sign company. The current Sign Code only allowed one of these free- standing signs per development area, meaning that business would not be allowed another sign unless the Code was amended. Signs went through the regular development review process when a structure was being built on the property, but if a sign was put up before a structure, it did not receive the full review. Staff needed direction on whether or not to prohibit signs on vacant property and strengthen the language in the Code to make that clear, or to allow it in a modified way allowing for multiple signs. A similar situation occurred in residential areas regarding review and for that situation the developer had to go through the full process. He explained. Councilor Brew said he saw two issues. First it was up to people buying property to know the rules about the signs and if they purchased a piece of property with a sign that leased space, they should know they couldn't have another sign. On the other hand, we didn't want someone doing this (putting up a sign to be leased), preventing development in the future. He liked the suggestion of having a more thorough review before allowing a sign. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 9 Mr. Bowlsby responded to the comment about a person doing due diligence on purchasing a property. In checking with Lane County Assessment, he learned that they didn't recognize a sign on vacant or undeveloped property as an improvement value. Most of the disclosure laws spoke to improvements or structures so there was nothing that told a seller they had to disclose that information. Councilor Brew said the seller might say this was a way to get income from leasing the sign. Councilor Ralston said he felt this was ridiculous and that we couldn't allow development to be controlled because of a sign. They needed to protect the owner's rights. He asked what staff was proposing. Mr. Bowlsby said he was looking for direction on whether or not to clarify the language to specifically prohibit signs on vacant property, or allow this as an expansion of the property owner's rights in a way that preserved the intent of the use of the property and not prevent future development. One option was to perhaps require that when a sign leads a property, the applicant be required to show evidence of the ability for the signage to be removed or relocated to accommodate building activity or a structure that was appropriate for the zone. Currently, when someone had a long -term lease for a property it was with the understanding the sign was not going to move, similar to a cell tower. City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said this came to the City Attorney's office when an applicant was denied the ability to put a free standing sign because the property was undeveloped. One point was that the language in the Code was not clear enough. Council could direct staff to go back and draft the Code to be clearer. The second point was that this addressed signs, property rights and owners, and content of signs which was a constitutional issue. There was some case law that talked about signs that were on- premises or off - premises. She explained. If Council wanted to prohibit signs on vacant property or undeveloped property, other things needed to be cited as reasons for doing so such as safety, aesthetics, or number of signs. It may not be as easy as including language in the Code prohibiting signs on vacant property. Councilor Brew asked if the City Attorney could come back with some suggestions. Yes. Councilor Ralston said he didn't want to prohibit signs. He felt property rights went above signs. Councilor VanGordon asked how many times people had come to the City with this issue. Mr. Bowlsby said about 20 times in the last 10 years. Councilor VanGordon said he didn't necessarily want to ban having signs on vacant property, but wanted to see some options. Mr. Bowlsby said he felt there was a way to accommodate placement on vacant property, and still preserve the rights of the business operator that would occupy that property at a later time. It could include increasing the number of free standing signs allowed in a certain zone, or limiting the number of signs in the front. That would preserve one sign after development. Councilor VanGordon said he didn't want a lengthy planning process in order to put a sign on vacant property. He wanted something simple that could protect both development and property owner's rights. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 10 Councilor Moore said her concern would be design standards and consideration for surrounding properties. Councilor Woodrow agreed. She didn't want to prohibit these signs, but felt a review process including options from the City Attorney would be helpful, to allow some room but not have free reign. Councilor Brew said another option could be a requirement that limited the tern of the lease. 4. City Manager Compensation. Human Resources Director Greta Utecht presented the staff report on this item. Following the Council's positive review of City Manager Gino Grimaldi's performance in May 2013, the Finance & Judiciary Committee met to review whether a change in his compensation should be considered. The Committee's recommendation was being presented, along with other options for consideration by the Council. The Council Briefing Memorandum (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet) described how four different cost -of- living adjustment indices were to be averaged to come up with a percentage that may be used to determine what, if any, changes might be made to the City Manager's compensation package. An updated survey of how other cities compensated their city managers was also attached to the agenda packet. The Committee asked about what changes were being made to other non- represented employee compensation packages, and staff reported that an additional $250 would be deposited in the non- union employees' Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRA) effective July 1, 2013, for this year only. After considerable discussion, the Committee voted to recommend that Mr. Grimaldi be given a bonus of $500, to be paid in cash or in deferred compensation, in addition to the $250 dollars added to his HRA account. It should be noted that even with one -time pay out options, the increase impacted the employee's PERS and deferred compensation contributions. The advantage to the City of granting a one -time lump sum bonus was that it didn't increase the base compensation for future years. Mr. Utecht noted an error in computing the Eugene City Manager's total compensation on the Compensation Survey (Attachment 2 of the agenda packet). She noted that the Eugene City Manager also had the provision to cash out two weeks of vacation pay, so that was added into the total maximum allowable amount. She recalculated what a lump sum or COLA would amount to. The original memo to the Finance /Judiciary Committee didn't include the impact that the PERS calculation and deferred comp would have. She had been asked to return to a work session with other options in addition to what the Finance /Judiciary Committee came up with. She reviewed those options. Mayor Lundberg said she asked to have this come to the Council with options so they could have a full discussion. She noted that Mr. Grimaldi had not received a compensation increase for some time. Ms. Utecht said Mr. Grimaldi had received one increase in 2008 which was given to all non - represented employees. At that time, Mr. Grimaldi's contract said he would receive any compensation adjustments as other non - represented employees. Last year, changes to his salary were decoupled from those for classified non - represented employees. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page I 1 Mayor Lundberg said Mr. Grimaldi had done a great job as City Manager and felt his compensation was worth discussion. Councilor VanGordon asked about the comparables and if any were private Ms. Utecht said the Public Administrators National was all public, but the Western Oregon Officers and Executives included public, private and non - profit. They weren't broken out into categories so they also chose to look at public administrators. Councilor VanGordon asked about any other changes since 2008. Ms. Utecht said last year there was a change in the deferred comp to a percentage rather than a fixed dollar amount. If his base salary increased, his deferred comp would increase. Councilor VanGordon said he was comfortable with the 2.2% increase either on its own or split between a percentage increase and a lump sum. Many times if incremental increases were not made for a long period of time, they set themselves up for a big payout in the future. It was important to make Mr. Grimaldi's salary competitive with others for now and for the future. In the past, they had used a combination of lump sum payouts and a move on COLA, so that could be a consideration. This would be in line with what Council had directed. They would be doing the right thing, but would not be excessive. Councilor Ralston said the Finance /Judiciary Committee decided on a bonus of $500. This had nothing to do with Mr. Grimaldi's ability as he had done an extraordinary job. He was opposed to giving bonuses to public employees and times were tough. Councilor Woodrow said she wasn't happy with the $500 payout recommendation from the Finance /Judiciary Committee. She looked at the 2.2% increase as an investment in the City and our future. She was disappointed they hadn't given him anything in the last five years. She wouldn't have any problem with the 2.2% COLA, but was fine with the split. It was time to recognize and thank him for his work. These were hard times, but sometimes an investment needed to be made. Councilor Moore asked about the full amount discussed at the Finance /Judiciary Committee. Ms. Utecht said they discussed a $500 payout and $250 in the HRA. The Federal Government did not consider Mr. Grimaldi a separate classification of employee. Because $250 was being given to the other non- represented employees, it was required to include that for him. Councilor Moore said the $250 was not a bonus, but was a matter of equity. She was surprised that the technology stipend was ongoing as she thought it was only for one year. One of the reasons the City was in such good shape was because of Mr. Grimaldi's leadership. She was pleased with him as a representative of Springfield and thejob he had done. She agreed Mr. Grimaldi was a valuable employee that set the standard for all of the valuable employees of Springfield and she would like to compensate him for that. Councilor Brew said he was supportive of a 2.2% COLA, which was basically a .4% increase per year over the last five years. He was fine with the split, but felt the COLA was the right thing. Ms. Utecht said if they moved to a COLA, she would need to know the effective date. Mr. Grimaldi's annual review date was in November, but his evaluation was in May. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 12 Mayor Lundberg said she considered Mr. Grimaldi above everyone in terms of his ability to lead the community. He was patient, he listened carefully to everyone, and never made anyone feel disrespected. Other leaders in the community were very good, but she thought of Mr. Grimaldi as the star quarterback. The City's finances were stable, the City had a great working relationship with the community and was moving ahead, and the City had gone through some of the toughest discussions. Mr. Grimaldi's leadership helped get them through all of those things. Mr. Grimaldi had steered them through these times and was a huge benefit to our community. She was very comfortable with a 2.2% COLA or any combination. Ms. Utecht said her recommendation would be to align the COLA with the review date. In terns of the rest of the employee base, she would recommend that if they gave the 2.2% COLA making it retroactive from the date of his evaluation would be appropriate. If they chose to split it into a lump SUM plus a 1.1% COLA, she would recommend going back to the review date of November 2012. The rest of the non- represented employees, who did get a new Classification and Compensation Plan, would probably look at the 2.2% COLA as a thoughtful way to move forward. T Councilor Woodrow said she liked the 2.2% increase as of May 6, 2013 Discussion was held regarding impacts to PERS and Deferred Comp. Councilor Brew said his preference would be a 2.2% increase as of May 6, 2013. He felt the City Manager compensation should be discussed annually, rather than waiting for multiple years. Councilor VanGordon said he was good with the 2.2% increase effective May 6, 2013. Councilor Moore agreed. Mr. Grimaldi said the comments and increase were very much appreciated. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:09 p.m. Minutes Recorder —Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest:' 4 4rw Amy SoW0 City Recorder