HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 04 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/7/2013
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa Staff Phone No: 541-726-3700
Estimated Time: Consent Calendar
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL MINUTES
ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, approval of the attached minutes.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes: a) September 9, 2013 – Work Session
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, September 9, 2013 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Lundberg welcomed the Council back from their recess. Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Woodrow and Brew. Also
present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith and Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Ralston was absent (excused).
1. Police Planning Task Force Application Review.
Mike Harman, Senior Management Analyst for the Police Department presented this item. The Police
Planning Task Force had one at-large position available from the resignation of Pat Mahoney. One
other at-large position was open with an eligible re-appointment candidate.
Jack Martin applied for re-appointment to the Task Force and was eligible for a second term. Pat Mahoney resigned from her at-large position due to moving away from the area.
The Task Force received six applications for the remaining at-large position. One of the applicants did not live within the City Limits and was therefore not eligible. The remaining applicants were
interviewed on August 29th by a subcommittee consisting of Diana Alldredge (Chair), Chris Stole (Vice Chair) and Dave Jacobson. The subcommittee reports that this was a very strong pool of applicants, and recommended that Isa Aviad be appointed to the open position, with strong support
also for Carol Ford should the Council be so inclined. The subcommittee further recommended the appointment of Jack Martin for a second term.
Appointments were scheduled for the September 16, 2013 Council meeting.
Councilor Woodrow said she was thrilled with the number of applicants and with the positive role the
Police Planning Task Force had in the community. She looked at all of the applications and was interested in seeing new people from the community getting involved. She had been impressed with
Carol Ford who had recently attended the Citizen Police Academy with Councilor Woodrow. She knew that Isa was a great candidate, but also served the City in other areas. She liked getting new people involved.
Councilor Brew said he didn’t realize committees prescreened applicants and provided recommendations to the Council. He asked if there were others that did things that way.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 2
Mr. Grimaldi said there were some committees that made recommendations to Council and there were
some committees in which Council interviewed the candidates. Discussion about the process would be coming to the Council during a work session in the future.
Mayor Lundberg said she had asked to have a work session to discuss the process for boards and commissions. There had been more than one issue in the recent past with appointments and they may
want to look at the process giving the Council more oversight in how appointments were made. This work session was scheduled for November 12.
Councilor Moore asked if they did criminal background checks on applicants.
Mr. Harman said they did run their names to see if they had a previous record.
Councilor VanGordon said he was looking forward to the conversation in November about boards and
commissions. He was comfortable reappointing Jack Martin. For the other position, he was leaning
towards Councilor Woodrow’s suggestion of bringing in someone new. He would be open to interviewing the two candidates (Isa and Carol) in order to help make a decision.
Councilor Moore noted that Isa was bilingual and she asked if they had another member on the PPTF that had that skill. Council was also looking at doing more outreach to people of other cultures to get
them involved on boards and commissions. Councilor Woodrow said Isa was serving in other capacities in the city and was accessible.
Mayor Lundberg said her preference was to move forward with a recommendation at this time. She
asked when the next opening would be on the PPTF.
Mr. Harman said the next term would expire December 2013. Another member of the committee may
be selling their business and moving out of the area, so they may lose a business representative. That
would be a different application process for a business representative.
Mayor Lundberg said she would prefer to appoint someone now and take a look at the position that expires in December as well as the current composition of the PPTF. It was legitimate for the Council to have more oversight of the different committees. She also liked bringing on new people and
expanding our volunteer base. She did note that Ms. Ford just went through the Citizen’s Police Academy showing she had an interest in Police matters. This could be a reward for going through the Academy.
Councilor Wylie said she felt they needed to respect the current system of receiving the recommendation of the PPTF. If changing things, they needed to let people know ahead of time. She
was looking forward to the discussion in November to get some standardization in the process. She felt now they should follow the PPTF’s recommendation.
Councilor Woodrow said this was the first time she had seen that the PPTF had left it to Council discretion.
Mayor Lundberg made sure everyone was comfortable coming to a consensus of who to appoint tonight and looking at changes in the process in November. She asked the Council to voice their
preference of the two candidates.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 3
Councilor Wylie said she felt they should go with the PPTF recommendation and would support Isa
Aviad.
Councilor Moore said she felt comfortable going with Councilor Woodrow’s recommendation since she had met Ms. Ford. She appreciated the PPTF recommendation.
Councilor Brew asked if Ms. Aviad had also gone through the Police Citizen Academy.
Mr. Harman said she had gone through the Academy in 2012.
Councilor Brew said he would support PPTF’s recommendation of Ms. Aviad.
Councilor VanGordon said he would support Ms. Ford
Councilor Woodrow supported Ms. Ford.
Councilor Wylie said Ms. Aviad’s qualifications were very good and she would like to honor the
PPTF recommendation. It did bother her, however, to vote against Councilor Woodrow’s recommendation
Councilor Moore said she was willing to change her support to Ms. Aviad. Councilor Woodrow said she was advocating for Ms. Ford because she knew her. It was presented that
they were both good candidates and the Council was in charge and made the final decision.
Councilor Wylie said the interview group recommended Ms. Aviad be appointed with strong support
for Ms. Ford. If Ms. Ford was as good a candidate as Councilor Woodrow said, she would be available and could be appointed at the next opening.
Councilor VanGordon said Councilor Woodrow’s recommendation meant a lot to him. When reading the PPTF recommendation, it was presented like they could go with either applicant.
Mayor Lundberg said they could wait and vote during the regular meeting since Councilor Ralston was absent this evening.
Mr. Grimaldi noted a time in the recent past when they had done that for another committee appointment.
Councilor Brew asked if there was interest in the Council interviewing the two candidates. He was willing to go with the majority decision, but thought they could make a more informed decision if they
interviewed them.
Mayor Lundberg asked if that would work for the PPTF leaving them with one vacancy longer.
Mr. Harman said the information he gave to the PPTF, the subcommittee that interviewed, and the
applicants was that their role was to interview and make the best recommendation they could, but
ultimately it was up to the Council. Whatever process worked for the Council would work for the PPTF.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 4
Councilor Moore said without additional information, either in writing or by meeting them face to
face, she was still torn between the two candidates.
Mayor Lundberg suggested that Council have their work session on the process first, then possibly do interviews of the two applicants.
Mr. Grimaldi confirmed Council wanted to bring the re-appointment of Mr. Martin to next week’s council meeting. Yes.
Mayor Lundberg said the Council will likely want to interview just those two candidates. This was an important and effective committee.
2. Signs in the Public Right-of-Way; Code and Fees Update.
Rhonda Rice, Senior Management Analyst with the Development and Public Works Department
presented this item. The City had three banner sign types and one portable (“sandwich board”) sign type that could be placed in the public right-of-way. Staff recommended that Council add language to
the Municipal Code that would clarify placement of signs in the right-of-way. The goal of this new code was to create common Code language that clarified use of all signs in the right-of-way so citizens were not confused.
Ms. Rice referred to Exhibit A of the agenda packet which showed all four types of signs.
Over-the-Street Banner Program The Department’s policy on banners started with the Over-the-Street Banner program. There were
only two locations for this banner: Main and 9th Streets, and Mohawk and G Streets. This program was
only available to governmental, nonprofit, special district organizations, or Team Springfield. The intent was to publicize public, not for profit events in an effort to focus the banners on community
events to the benefit of all citizens. The City had relied on Municipal Code section 3.224 for the Over-
the-Street Banners for many years. Though this code had been adequate for this one type of banner it had become apparent that, with the addition of the Light Pole banners and the existing OPEN banner,
the language was stretched in interpretation. Staff was recommending a new code that would cover all
sign types.
This type of banner no longer had a fee because of the benefit to the community, but did have a permit. Attachment 8 of the agenda packet identified the entities that had taken advantage of the Over-the-Street Banners. Dropping the fee occurred with the adoption of the new Fee Schedule in June of
this year. The Operations Division raised the banners and took them down and it was pretty seamless
and took minimal staff time.
OPEN Banner Program Ms. Rice referred to Attachment 5, the application for the OPEN Banners. In 2008, at the direction of City Council, staff designed and implemented the Downtown OPEN Banner Program to address
downtown business owner’s frustration with signage. The OPEN Banner program was facilitated by the City Manager’s Office and was narrowly used in certain zones of the City. The eligible locations
were in Downtown Urban Renewal Area and the Mohawk Program Area.
At the start of the OPEN Banner program five years ago, staff used Municipal Code section 8.234(3)
which was an appropriate placement at the time the program was started because the City owned the
poles and the business owned the banner. In the Downtown District, the pole was placed in the public
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 5
right-of-way. Staff was now recommending the new code that would reference all banner types placed
in the right-of-way.
The fee for this banner program was dependent on the cost of installation and availability of a pole. Light Pole Banner Program
The Light Pole Banner program was the newest banner program. Just like the Over-the-Street program, the Light Pole program allowed only governmental, nonprofit, special district organizations
or Team Springfield members to apply for a permit and had the same requirements for the type of
promotion or advertisement on the banner as the Over-the-Street Banner. There were currently only three users of this program.
Staff was recommending the new Municipal Code section 3.223 to regulate banners located on utility poles in certain zones throughout the city. At the present there were five (5) zones identified in the
City that could accommodate the placement of banners; Zone 1- Gateway Street and Harlow, Zone 2-
Gateway and Beltline, Zone 3-Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway, Zone 4-Main Street Downtown, and Zone 5-60th and Main Street. There presently was no process to add additional zones.
This program was slightly more regulated than the other two programs. The banner design was reviewed and approved by the City Manager’s Office prior to the application being processed. The
cost for processing the application was $100 and would capture cost of recovery on staff time spent on each application. The applicant was also required to complete a Traffic Control Plan and to install the banners in a designated period of time during the day in an effort to create as little impact on traffic as
possible. The applicant would need to submit verification of insurance coverage for the City and ODOT, if applicable. An ODOT application was required for the Main Street Zone.
Sandwich Board Program In 2010 staff was approached by the public and Council in an effort to accommodate signage in the
Downtown core area. A solution was to allow sandwich board signage in the public right-of- way, the
sidewalk in the Downtown area. Springfield Municipal Code Section 8.234 (17) was adjusted to include this signage. Chapter 8 of the code normally regulated signage on private property in the City
limits, but was adjusted to allow for this reference to sandwich boards that would be in the public
right-of-way. The new Section 3.223 would create replacement language for the sandwich boards in the public right-of-way while Section 8.234 (17) code as a reference to sandwich boards on private
property. At the present there was neither a permit application nor fee for the use of sandwich boards. Councilor Moore asked if there was any management of realtor signs.
Ms. Rice said that would be a Code Enforcement function.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi said they hadn’t aggressively enforced. Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said they generally removed them when they
were placed in the public right-of-way.
Councilor Moore asked if there was any interest in having OPEN Banner signs in areas besides
Downtown and the Mohawk area.
Mr. Grimaldi said the reason they were put in the downtown area was to create an image of downtown
and change the look and feel. The business owners in the Mohawk area, the “Hawks” asked the City if
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 6
they could have the program. If other areas expressed an interest, they could be added. It worked best
when the businesses were closer to the street. Other areas of town tended to have larger signs making it easy to find the business. In downtown, it was more difficult to identify the businesses without the
banner signs. Councilor Woodrow asked about the application for Over-the-Street Banner. In the City Policy
section, it noted that “city policy, Banners shall be permitted to advertise only the following activities: Public service . . . Artistic or literary activities, provided that artistic shall include music and the
performing arts . . .” It almost sounded like it had to include music or performing arts. She asked if it
could be clarified.
Ms. Rice said staff could adjust that. Currently, they were working off of the old policy for this
banner.
Mayor Lundberg asked why the fee was dropped for the Over-the-Street Banners.
Mr. Grimaldi said it started with the Veterans Day Parade. The fee for their banner for this event was
normally waived. The fee was then waived for other groups to be equitable so it was decided to remove it for everyone.
Mayor Lundberg said this wasn’t an overburdensome fee and involved staff time to put up and take down. She felt it was something that should maybe be reinstated at some point after a discussion with the Veterans.
Mr. Grimaldi said it could be revisited when they reviewed the Master Schedule in the Spring.
Councilor Brew said he would like to see the City recover their costs for that banner. He referred to the Light Pole Banners and asked if they were a standard size. Yes. He asked what Eugene charged for
their Light Pole Banners.
Ms. Rice said she could find out and send it in a Communication Packet.
Mayor Lundberg discussed Main Street and how it seemed to lose its identity as it moved away from downtown. She suggested that as staff moved forward on the study of Main Street, maybe they could
identify areas along Main Street to give neighborhoods an identity. Light Pole Banners could be used to welcome people to the different neighborhood areas. She liked the ones on Ferry Street Bridge. This was something to consider in the future.
Ms. Rice said staff could look at which light or utility poles were available along Main Street and if there were other districts or areas that could be identified. If there was a need to create an identity at
some point, there would be the infrastructure.
Councilor Moore said she appreciated the inclusiveness of the rest of Main Street. Other towns did
have districts with names. There could be a district naming contest.
Mayor Lundberg said as they were going through a visioning study along the Main Street corridor,
people would bring up that certain areas needed an identity.
Councilor Wylie said as the discussion about fees came back to the Council, there could be times
when the City would want to co-sponsor with the Springfield Chamber a theme for a banner to put on
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 7
every light pole. She would like to find a way where the City could share the cost with another
sponsoring organization.
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery responded to Councilor Brew’s earlier question regarding Eugene’s fee. The Eugene banner program was a little different than Springfield’s. The basic charge for hanging banners was $35 plus a 7% administrative fee. The City of Eugene didn’t hang the
banners, but rather the owner of the banners was required to contract with an installer to hang and remove the banners. If Eugene had to remove the banners, there was a charge to recover the City’s
costs. There was also a commercial and auto liability policy required, most likely for the installer.
Ms. Rice said Springfield had designed their light pole program around that same type of plan. The
City of Springfield would not be installing the light pole banner. It would be up to the applicant to
hang and remove the banners and to carry insurance and do the traffic control. Springfield did have a slightly higher fee.
Councilor Brew asked if the $100 fee was per zone or throughout the City.
Ms. Rice said it was per permit, which could be multiple zones. The processing fee was to cover the cost to the City.
Councilor Brew asked if it was the same in Eugene. Mr. Towery said Eugene had different areas where banner brackets were available and the applicant
selected their priority location. Where they were able to hang them was dependent on priority and availability.
Ms. Rice said the ordinance with the changes to the Code would come to Council for approval on October 7. The resolution for the fee would go with the Master Fee Schedule resolution.
Mayor Lundberg confirmed that other fees would be reviewed in the Spring. Yes.
Councilor Brew asked if there was a limit on how long the light pole banners could remain. Ms. Rice said the limit was twenty-eight days, with a set time to remove them after that time. If the
owner of the banner did not take them down, the City would need to take them down and keep the banners.
3. Transportation System Systems Development Charge (SDC) Methodology Update – Creation of Citizen’s Advisory Committee.
Len Goodwin, Development and Public Works Director, and Anette Spickard, Deputy Development and Public Works Director, presented this item. City staff were updating the System Development
Charge methodology for the Transportation System. Transportation System SDC’s were last reviewed
and updated by Council in 2000, although the project list was updated in 2008. The Council would be reviewing the City’s new Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) in 2013. The TSP would form the new
project list used in the SDC methodology as part of the process to set SDC fee levels.
The CAC was an important part of the public process to review and evaluate the proposed
methodology for the SDC update. Recruitment for CAC members would be conducted in September
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 8
and applications brought back to Council in October for appointment. Once appointed the CAC would
meet between October, 2013 and March, 2014.
Staff developed a list of issues where the Council might choose to seek recommendations from the CAC. Issues that were statutory or technical in nature would not be referred to the CAC for review.
Formal action by the Council was not required, although direction to staff would form the basis for the recruitment process and future presentations to the Council and to the CAC.
Ms. Spickard referred to the packet of information which included the charge, guidelines and membership categories. Staff wanted to make sure the membership categories were acceptable to the
Council. Staff was seeking direction from the Council regarding topics of discussion for the CAC.
Councilor Brew referred to the proposed membership categories. He was fine with them in general,
but said it would be nice to see what categories were represented in 2000. He felt the membership of
the CAC should be broad. The way it was designed was broad, but there could be overlap on some categories. For example, he would recommend a large business owner not involved in development, or
two residential builders that fit two different categories. Ms. Spickard clarified that they wanted unique representation. She said she did not recall all of the
categories from the 2000 process, but thought Councilor Ralston was the council representative. Mr. Goodwin said in 2000, there was more of an issue of not having a broad representation.
Councilor Wylie asked why an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) or transportation person was not on this CAC.
Mr. Goodwin said representatives from ODOT and the County Public Works staff would serve on the
technical advisory committee. This was designed to get at the broadest possible non-transportation
perspective by people who were subjected to the charge.
Councilor Wylie said with fuel and freight and bikes, she felt it was important.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi said they could ask ODOT if they were interested in serving.
Councilor Moore said most of the representatives seemed to be related to business, yet there were also non-profits that had to pay SDCs. She asked if the positions at-large could include someone from a
non-profit that had a lot of development projects in the area. Mr. Grimaldi said it could be defined as a non-profit developer.
Councilor Moore said she knew there were developments being considered that were non-profit.
Councilor Woodrow asked if there would be relevance of having someone from the education community involved.
Mr. Goodwin said the School District did pay SDCs.
Councilor Woodrow said they could add a representative from the School District or a non-profit.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 9
Councilor VanGordon referred to Attachment 1, Page 1 – evaluation criteria. He felt they needed to
discuss the economic outcomes when evaluating the policies. He liked the administrative availability, but wondered if that should be taken a step further by making it available to the public.
Ms. Spickard said SDC methodology was complicated and the CAC would need the data to support each piece. If adjustments to the formula to create incentives or other changes were recommended,
they needed data to back up the methodology.
Councilor VanGordon said whatever the data included needed to be made available to the public.
Also, whatever process we had for the SDCs needed to be able to be duplicated in order to get it out to the public in a clear manner. He was not comfortable with setting SDCs specific to a region, but
would prefer they look at them citywide. There was a lot of interest in the Development Advisory
Committee (DAC) about transportation SDCs so that might be a good place to find members for this CAC.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if they could get consensus from the Council on the topic of regional versus citywide SDCs.
Councilor VanGordon said the list looked good except for the regional incentives.
Councilor Brew said in his mind an incentive was to entice someone to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. A discount was just a gimmick. He was interested in incentives, but wanted to see results. When looking at members to appoint, he would give more consideration for those that had a
fiscal presence in Springfield and were invested in Springfield.
Councilor Moore said the regional difference in rates was somewhat tied to an incentive policy. She
assumed an incentive policy would be temporary. She felt they could look at regional incentives that were temporary to encourage development in a certain area.
Mr. Goodwin said the short-term incentives that had been done in the past were done outside of the SDC methodology and were policy decisions by Council. Tonight’s discussion was about incentives
within the methodology such as reduced SDCs for a developer if they did something that made it easier to use alternative forms of transportation to patronize their facility, or agreed to put in a transit system with their own money. In those cases when it was within the methodology, they would need
some documentation showing why less SDCs were being collected in those circumstances. Councilor Moore said regional incentives would not come into play if the Council did not want to look
into regional SDCs. She asked if regional SDCs were a way to encourage development in certain areas.
Mr. Goodwin said that was possible. For the most part, the City didn’t need additional capacity in the wastewater system in downtown. They could possibly develop within the methodology a way of
reducing wastewater SDCs in downtown because they didn’t need more capacity, although that could
be complicated. To put something like that into place here, they would need to find some relationship to transportation that was similar. Another option was to work with SEDA to assume liability for
transportation SDCs. That would be outside the methodology.
Councilor Brew said the only incentives he could get behind was looking to incentivize brownfields
redevelopment. There were parts of Main Street ready for that.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 10
Mayor Lundberg said her concern with the SDC Methodology CAC, was that it was very complicated
and difficult to understand. She didn’t want to do something that closed downtown after 4pm because of higher trip counts. She wanted the CAC to figure out a methodology that didn’t create some
economic affect we would regret. She wanted the CAC to have the discussion and look at it all. A deferred payment was another option that perhaps the committee could look at during this process. She wanted a robust committee that understood how transportation SDCs got assessed, why and that they
didn’t want to shut down the community. She was in favor of looking at all of the issues and subjects. She asked if they needed a Council liaison appointed.
Mr. Grimaldi said they could do that at the time the committee was formed.
Councilor Moore said equity needed to be explained clearly and why the City was charging the fees.
She wanted to make it as clearly understood as possible.
Mayor Lundberg said it was important for the CAC to see all of the SDCs including sewer,
stormwater, transportation, MWMC and Willamalane. We had a unique setting with Willamalane being able to assess SDCs.
Ms. Spickard confirmed Council wanted to take off the regional SDC discussion. Yes.
4. Master Fees and Charges Schedule – Fall 2013 Update. Bob Duey, Finance Director, presented this item.
Mr. Duey said before the Council got into their boards, commissions and committees discussion, he
wanted to let them know that they would be appointing Budget Committee members. Applications
were being received now with interviews scheduled for October. This year the terms for Wards 1 and 2 were ending. Both members were willing to re-apply, but standard practice had been for them to go
through the application and interview process. Something unique this year was that Wards 3 and 4
were also vacant due to one member moving and the other member leaving the Committee. The Ward 5 member had only been on the Committee for one year. If there was anything Council wanted him to
do differently regarding the interviews and process, he asked them to let him know. Mayor Lundberg said Council would need to decide if they wanted to interview all four positions, or
just reappoint the two returning members. Mr. Duey continued his introduction to the Fees and Charges discussion. Each year, Council and staff
reviewed existing fees and charges for appropriateness of rates for meeting cost recovery targets as well as reviewing for areas where new or additional fees should be considered. The last significant review along with the re-formatting of the master fee schedule was completed in the Spring of 2013.
This Fall of 2013 review would focus on updates and omissions while the future Spring of 2014 update, as directed by Council last Spring, would concentrate more on the annual impacts of inflation.
The City’s schedule of fees and charges was established by Council action. The work in the Spring of 2013 by the Council and staff consolidated past documents describing the City’s various fees and the
method for making changes into a single document titled Master Fees and Charges schedule. This
document provided an easy reference for citizens, Councilors and staff to identify the current fees authorized to be levied and collected by the City.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 11
The changes to the document did not change how each of the fees and charges could be modified
through action by the Council or staff. The most common of actions by the Council was by simple resolution. The authorization to levy the fee may be contained in the municipal, building,
development or fire code, but the actual amount of the fee itself was established by resolution. These most commonly were brought to the full Council with a public hearing and were adopted at that time.
Other fees may be authorized by the municipal, building, development or fire code and the specific amount of the fee was also contained within that same code. In those cases, the respective code itself
must be amended and most commonly required a public hearing, a first reading and a second reading
prior to adoption.
Mr. Duey reviewed the changes in fees:
Page 1, Alarm System (Business) License (SMC 7.012, 7.024)
per year, $20.00
Explanation: A previous authorization for an alarm fee existed but staff did not have the software or data
necessary to track and implement a monitoring program so last year the fee was deleted. A new business
license program capable for monitoring now exists and staff is recommending the re-authorizing of the basic
annual fee. After checking with other agencies, an increase from the previous $10 fee to a recommended $20
fee appeared appropriate. Current valid alarms permit holders may be exempt from the new fee.
Mr. Duey said this fee had been dropped a year ago due to not having an accurate software program in
place. Staff was asking to reinstate the fee at $20, rather than the original $10. Councilor Brew asked if the renewal fee for someone that had an older alarm system would remain
$10.
Mr. Duey said they would not be subject to a renewal fee since there was no fee in place at the time of
their original installation. The only exception would if a business changed hands or changed their alarm program.
Mayor Lundberg said alarm systems were a necessary annoyance for both the business and the City. She asked how the number of false responses was calculated and if it included only when Police
arrived at the scene. New systems often took several months to figure out the correct settings. She
liked the idea of a renewal fee because it prompted businesses to be more proactive in getting their systems working properly.
Mr. Duey said there were two pieces on the alarm with the first being the renewal fee of $20. On page 19 of the fee schedule there was a charge for false alarms after the 3rd one. Last year, about one third
of the alarms were false alarms, with many repeated at the same locations. Setting it at three false alarms was pretty standard across the country.
Page 7, Photocopy Charge Citywide Removing Municipal Court
(noted exceptions are Development and Public Works, Fire and Life Safety, Library, Municipal Court, Police reports.) Explanation: Municipal Court has reviewed its charges for photocopies and is making a recommendation to recognize two types of charges and bring both types in line with other departments. This change brings non-certified copies in line with other departments.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 12
Court
Page 15, Certified Copies
Change in fee to match Police
Per file $500 plus $5.00 notary fee
first 4 pages , $15.00
each page thereafter, $0.50 Explanation: Municipal Court has reviewed its charges for photocopies and is making a recommendation to recognize two types of charges and bring both types in line with other departments. This change brings certified copies in line with the police department.
Page 16, Inmate Housing Fee
Moving from Police to Courts
(Determined by sentencing judge, Resolution 09-15, ORS 169.151, ORS 137 540(1))
Up to Per Day, $60.00
Explanation: There is no change in the fee. This is only changing the location of the fee in the master schedule
from police department fee to a municipal court fee as defined city resolution.
Councilor Woodrow asked if changing who the fee was associated with took it out of the Police
budget.
Mr. Duey said revenues were not tied to a department budget.
Page 16, Non-Sufficient Funds Fee
Addition of fee
$25.00
Explanation: Addition of a non-sufficient funds fee to bring Court into consistency with other departments.
Police
Page 19, False Alarm Fee
Addition of False Alarm Fee
False Alarm Fee
(SMC 7.026 “Three or more false alarms, within a 365 day period, whether the result of equipment malfunction or user error, shall constitute an infraction in the municipal court. If convicted by a preponderance of the
evidence, the court may impose a fine not to exceed $500.”) Per third false alarm, $500.00
Per alarm after within 365 days, $500.00
Explanation: As staff is in the process of implementing the alarm registration program it is found to be
common to assess an additional charge for those that require additional police services through not
maintaining their alarm systems properly.
Engineering
Page 33, Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
Language Change and addition of fee for Pole Banner
Sign Permit Fee- Signs in the Public Right-of-Way (Banners)
(SMC 3.223(1) For the purpose of this chapter, these terms shall be defined as follows: Banner. Any non-rigid
material such as canvas, vinyl or cloth, with no enclosing framework that contains advertising copy.)
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 13
Over the Street Banner
(City Policy, SOPP T-8.7SMC 3.223(1) (1) Over the Street Banner. A banner that hangs between two poles that
straddle the city street at locations designated by the city.) The City’s policy on banners is that only
governmental or special district organizations (specifically including McKenzie-Willamette Hospital) be allowed
to have banners placed over the public right-of-way, and further, that such banners advertise public, not for
profit events only.
Per permit, $0.00
Open Banner
(SMC 3.223(1) Open Banner. A double sided, embroidered banner displayed in the Downtown or Mohawk area
that is attached to a pole, purchased and installed by the City, and advertises a business or organization.)
Downtown Business District, $110-150
Mohawk Business District, $110-150
(Light) Pole Banner
(SMC 3.223 (1.) Pole Banner. A banner attached to city utility poles or traffic signal poles at designated areas
throughout the City.)
Per permit $100.00
5% Technology Fee (surcharge) will be applied when imposed or collected.
Explanation: The City has three banner sign types and one portable (“sandwich board”) sign type that can be
placed in the public right-of-way. These four types currently need to be described fully in Springfield Municipal
Code. The goal is to create common code language for all sign types permitted in the public right-of-way. A
separate work session topic is being held to discuss these changes while this item’s fee changes would reflect
the necessary changes in the code.
Page 34, Placement Permit for Standard Mailbox; No Sidewalk Construction
Removing fee but retaining permit requirement
(SMC 3.226) $54.00
5% Technology Fee (surcharge) will be applied when imposed or collected.
Explanation: The permitting of the placement of items in the right of way is still a necessity but in review of the
process DPW staff is recommending that an additional fee is not necessary if there is no accompanying
construction of a sidewalk.
Planning
Page 41/42, Floodplain Development Base Fee
Reorganization of fee text
Explanation: Text change only.
Utilities
Page 53, Wastewater and Regional Wastewater (Sewer) Rates
Updating Wastewater and Stormwater rates
Resolutions 12-08 2013-06
Beginning with bills rendered on or after July 1, 20123 wastewater (sewer) charges shall be as follows:
Explanation: These fees were adopted by council on May 06. Inclusion here is done strictly to update Master
Schedule of Fees and Charges to reflect current amounts.
Page 54, Stormwater (Drainage) Rates
Resolutions 12-082013-06
Beginning with bills rendered on or after July 1, 20123 stormwater (drainage) charges shall be as follows:
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 14
Explanation: These fees were adopted by council on May 06. Inclusion here is done strictly to update Master
Schedule of Fees and Charges to reflect current amounts.
Page 55, Industrial PreTreatment
Removing dash from name
Explanation: Text change only.
Mr. Duey said the goal of staff was to bring the fees and charges to Council twice a year (Spring and Fall). Some of those such as SDCs, would be under separate discussions during work sessions. If
needed, a second work session could be scheduled on this topic.
Mayor Lundberg referred to the inmate fee of $60 and asked if the City had collected much of this fee,
and if they went through collections.
Mr. Duey said the fee schedule identified a $60 fee and based on research that was an appropriate level
of fee. He recommended keeping that fee amount in the schedule, although Court didn’t collect much
of that fee. Each judge had the discretion of how much they believed the person could afford. Part of the criteria was whether or not the person had the means to pay the fee. The Police Department would
like to see the $60 levied on everyone each day, or if not a minimum fee for everyone for each day. He would recommend discussing this during the next judge’s evaluation and asking each of them what their philosophy was regarding collection and what Council’s philosophy and expectation was on the
fee. There was a wide range of interpretation from each judge.
Mayor Lundberg said it was an appropriate discussion for Council to have with the judges. That fee
was set up as one of the ways we would pay for jail operations. Council needed to set the direction because it remained in the budget.
Councilor Brew said no other fees were waived in the City.
Councilor Wylie said when she was involved in running the Buckley House, they also had a $60 fee for room and board. If the person said they didn’t have the funds, they would pay what they could. It could be something based on a sliding scale based on the ability to pay. She did not want to give up on
collecting this fee.
Mr. Duey said another issue was that when a person had a fine they had to pay, part of it went to the
County, part to the City, part to mental health, etc. A person may be making payments, but the money for the jail bed fee would be last.
Mayor Lundberg said we had expectations of people and we needed to have expectations of those in jail as well.
Councilor Moore said she sat in on several court cases and saw the judge lowering that fee. She knew in one case that the defendant could have paid the full fee. She felt it was appropriate the Council had
more say in this because it didn’t seem the judges took the fee seriously.
Mr. Duey said each judge looked at it differently. He said he would not come back for an additional
work session on the fees.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 9, 2013 Page 15
Councilor Wylie said she was pleased that there weren’t a lot of increases in the fees and that some
went away.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________ Amy Sowa
City Recorder