HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/2013 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY. SEPTEMBER 23. 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 23, 2013 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also
present were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder
Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused).
1. Stormwater User Fees.
Environmental Services Manager Matt Stouder and Katherine Bishop presented this item. Based on
earlier discussions with Council regarding stormwater user fees, staff had provided preliminary details
for a conceptual residential stormwater user fee adjustment program to accommodate low impact
development such as rain gardens and /or onsite treatment.
In any discussion of possible adjustments to the City's stormwater user fee program, it was necessary
to consider changes in the context of the City's overall stormwater services program. Therefore,
Attachment 1 of the agenda packet provided an in depth overview of the City's overall stormwater
services and user fee program, including a review of the current stormwater user fee rate structures for
commercial and residential accounts. Additional topics of discussion included:
• The City's Stormwater Management Program
• Stormwater Program Funding Sources and Uses
• Generally Accepted Rate Structure Goals and Objectives
• Stormwater Billing and Collection Services and Trends
• Stormwater User Fee Adjustment Considerations
If, after discussion, Council desired to move forward with any adjustment to residential stormwater
user fees for low impact development, staff would develop the framework for the adjustment program,
including necessary requirements and regulations, and recommended Council consider formal action
on the program as part of the annual stormwater user fee rate review in spring 2014.
Mr. Stouder noted the Council Goals that were impacted by stormwater management. He provided a
history of stormwater fees starting in 1989 and the changes over the years due to State and Federal
requirements. Residential fees had a flat fee of $12.62 per month, and commercial fees had a base fee
of $1.4666 per 1000 square feet plus an impact fee based on the impact to the system. He described
these fees and the services those fees paid for to maintain the stormwater system.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 2
Councilor Woodrow referred to the $1.465 administrative fee and if that was for collection by SUB.
Yes. She asked how the coefficient figure was determined, such as regulation or impact,
Ms. Bishop said the calculations took into consideration the hard surfaces on commercial
development. The typical commercial development didn't have much lawn or landscape, and had
parking lots and sidewalks. This took into account the runoff from those hard surfaces and also, in the
case of industrial, took into consideration the strength of the runoff. The variables allowed it to be
applicable to many different scenarios and allowed them to apply the rate to individual situations.
Councilor Brew said he thought this had more to do with the percentage of impervious to pervious
areas, not necessarily what was coming off the roof. He wondered how a typical residence would fall
in this calculation if this same formula was applied that was used for commercial.
Mr. Stouder said the residential fee was set up as a base fee for the service provided with the
assumption that generally ran off into the system. There were very few green type developments
although they were beginning to see more. The commercial and industrial impacts were different.
Councilor Brew said this concept was the ratio of pervious to impervious. All of the water from his
roof did go into the system, but he also had a lot of lawn in which it didn't.
Councilor Ralston asked if this rate structure covered the cost of the system.
Ms. Bishop said the user fee from residential and commercial accounted for 98% of the total revenues
to support city stormwater services. A portion of that revenue went to debt service obligations, and
some to the capital fund to invest in the stormwater system and maintain the infrastructure.
Councilor Ralston asked if the roof counted as an impervious surface. The base rate seemed high
compared to the commercial rate. He would like the breakdown of that at some point.
Mr. Stouder said a slide later in the presentation may address that question,
Councilor Moore said the $12.62 just started in August and was previously $12.13. She asked about
the increases Council had agreed upon recently.
Ms. Bishop said the only increase Council adopted this last year was the 4% in stormwater fees that
was effective July 1, 2013. Staff was looking to contain costs and bring back information later this
year.
Councilor Wylie asked if someone would receive a reduction in their fee if their downspout ran under
the driveway into a rain garden.
Ms. Bishop said currently they didn't have a program, but staff would be presenting something during
this meeting for Council to consider.
Mr. Stouder referred to a slide regarding a case study of the Planned Parenthood site in Glenwood and
how site design could impact user fees. He noted the difference between a heavy use fee and light use
fee and how it related to impervious surfaces. The Planned Parenthood!facility did not have an impact
to the City system so were charged the light fee, for no or little impact.' He provided an overview of
the Stormwater Management Plan which was adopted by Council in 2004 and updated in 2010. The
City of Springfield - '
Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 3
Plan provided policy and management guidance for stormwater activities within the City. Seven key
outcomes that were adopted by Council were included in the Stormwater Program. He reviewed those
outcomes. The Program included planning, permitting, regulatory administration, illicit discharge
program, preventative maintenance, engineering, capital program and program management.
Ms. Bishop distributed a table that had been requested by Councilor Moore of the stormwater program
operating budget by program service. She referred to the chart included in the agenda packet showing
that 98% of the total revenue for the Stormwater Program was from user fees. Of the total customer
base, about 93% were residential and 7% were commercial, yet commercial accounts made up about
55% of the funding. Often the accounts receivable trend could provide a measurement of customer's
ability to pay their bill. About 82 -83% of the customers paid the bill when it was due and about 14-
15% paid up to thirty days after it was due. Less than 2% went into the 60 -90 day window, and less
than I% beyond that. This was a good measurement of the financial viability in determining our
revenue stability and cash flow.
Councilor Brew said since this was being collected on the same bill as electricity, people often weren't
looking at the stormwater bill separately.
Ms. Bishop said there were programs available for people that could assist with the electrical portion
of their bill.
Councilor Brew said most people looked at the entire bill and determined if they could pay the bill or
not based on the full amount.
Ms. Bishop said for customers on a limited income, there was a program through SUB that assisted in
paying for winter heat. Those in the program could get up to $150 of ore -time credit to use during the
winter for heating. If someone had a credit, their services could not be cut off by not paying the other
components. The data presented in this chart was also used by credit agencies when going out for
bonds and trying to secure financing. She referred to the rate structure goals and objectives which
included compliance with legal requirements, insuring revenue adequacy to meet operating capital
needs, providing equity and fairness between customers, being easy to understand and administer, and
facilitating ongoing review to maintain rate stability.
Mr. Stouder provided a brief summary of the commercial rate structure,
Mayor Lundberg asked if there were other commercial businesses besides Planned Parenthood that
had zero impact.
Mr. Stouder said there were a few with less than 20% pervious, but very few with no impact. There
would potentially be more as new development was built.
Mayor Lundberg said the current proposal by staff was that commercial would pay a base fee which
was current practice, to help pay for the entire system that everyone used.
Mr. Stouder said that was correct.
Ms. Bishop said the proposed residential fee adjustment program included a reduction in user fees for
qualifying residential accounts who managed their stormwater runoff on private property, which
reduced the stormwater impacts to the City's public system. The proposed program objectives were to
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 4
support safe and appropriate onsite collection and treatment of stormwater runoff on residential
properties, and to operate and maintain a system that reduced stormwater runoff from residential
properties to the City's public stormwater collection system. The proposed user fee adjustment
program could include a 20% reduction in monthly user fee charges (about $2.52 /month) with at least
75% of property hard surfaces that drained onto the private property, a 10% reduction in monthly user
fees with at least 50% of hard surfaces that drained onto the property, and no reduction in fees for
properties with less than 50% of hard surface drainage onto the private property. There would be
program administration costs and the reduction would have an impact on revenue of approximately
$26,000 - $52,000 for the 10% discount and $52,0004104,000 for the 20% discount. Currently 1% of
the annual user fee revenue was about $58,100.
Councilor Woodrow said she appreciated that people were doing things to keep as much from going
into the system, but was concerned on the overall financial impact of the discounts. She didn't want to
see people that might not be able to afford to do something be penalized. if there was a financial
impact, fees would need to be increased to cover that cost.
Mr. Slender said it was difficult to forecast the overall cost. They could determine financial costs
based on number of people eligible for the discounts, but there were also administrative costs in
monitoring how these systems were operating and being maintained. Staff would need to perform the
inspections, which was an added expense.
i
Councilor Moore said the City of Gresham gave a 27% discount. She felt 20% was not enough of an�
incentive for people to do anything about their runoff. She asked if they were doing this to collect
money or keep water out of the system, which would save us money in the long run. She also noted
that Gresham only collected every other month. She asked if that could be a savings in the amount
paid to SUB to administer the billing. She asked what that included.
Ms. Bishop said the City paid SUB for utility billing services for wastewater and stormwater, per
transaction which was a separate fee. The administrative fee of $1.456 also took into consideration
some commercial rate structure and also the customer service provided by city staff. When a customer
called in about their wastewater or stormwater bill, they were referred to a city staff member. The
residential was a level fee and was built in.
Councilor Moore asked if we could save money if we charged bi- monthly. She asked if there was a
service fee paid to SUB for each water, sewer and electrical.
Ms. Bishop said it was for wastewater and stormwater only and it was per transaction. If there was bi-
monthly billing, that amount could be less; however, it was beneficial to have the cash flow coming in
on a monthly basis because expenses were going out on a monthly basis. Money coming into the city
did earn some interest, although minimal. Some agencies did bill bi- monthly or quarterly, but the
industry standard was monthly.
Councilor Moore said a 20% discount was hardly an incentive so she felt it should be more if there
was another way we could save money by billing differently.
Councilor Ralston said he applauded those that reduced the stormwater runoff, but the savings were
minimal and may not be worth it. If we did offer discounts, the funds would need to be made up in
another way perhaps by penalizing those that weren't reducing runoff. It was good to discuss this, but
it seemed like a lot of work to make a few people happy. He wouldn't want to change anything and
City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 5
just keep things the way they were. It seemed like a lot of expense for a small benefit to the
homeowner.
Councilor Brew said Planned Parenthood of Southern Oregon (PPSO) had almost a 50% discount. He
agreed it would be difficult to implement something like this on an existing house. This should be
brought up during the systems development charge (SDCs) discussion. If they wanted builders to build
houses with less impact, they could offer an incentive at that time. He asked how they measured lawn
runoff. It seemed like it would be a 100% capture.
Ms. Bishop said other agencies took into consideration the number and size of trees.
Councilor Brew said the savings weren't applied fairly. It seemed like commercial got a better deal
than residential would, but he felt they could make an impact if they looked at this during the SDC
discussion.
Mr. Stouder said the SDC methodology did account for no impact and no fee
Councilor Wylie said she agreed the amount was too minimal to make someone put in a rain garden,
yet she did want to look at incentives and wanted people to do it. She thought it was a good idea to
look at something from the SDC standpoint. It was not just about the money, but about the standard of
living. She asked about the figures provided.
Ms. Bishop explained the calculations that were figured on an annual basis.
Councilor Woodrow agreed that looking at the incentives in the SDC methodology would be a way to
be proactive with new buildings and better than a program for existing residential. She liked the idea
of rewarding the new way of building.
Councilor Brew asked what the City was paying per bill to SUB.
Ms. Bishop said the City paid $1.11 to SUB per transaction for stormwater and wastewater services.
The stormwater and wastewater funds each paid a portion of that fee. For comparison purposes,
EWEB billing for the City of Eugene was about $1.46 per transaction.
Councilor Brew said if they went to every other month billing, more funds could be saved compared to
any interest they could cam. He felt they should look at that option.
Mr. Goodwin said there was nothing in the current contract about monthly billing.
Councilor Moore asked if someone could get a discount if they wanted to pay quarterly or annually.
Councilor Ralston said he felt they should go to billing every other month. SUB did averaging
anyway, so there wasn't any reason why we should bill monthly.
Ms. Bishop said for some customers with a limited income, it could be difficult to try to pay two
months' worth of the bill. Many cities had switched from every other month billing to one month
billing for that reason. With bi- monthly billing, once a customer fell behind they wouldn't get their
next bill for another two months, making them four months behind.
City of Springfield -
Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 6
Councilor Ralston said with monthly averaging by SUB, it would be the same amount each month.
Ms. Bishop said average pay was available to customers that had a 12 month history, but many
customers chose not to do average pay.
Councilor Brew asked if they could ask staff to explore the bi- monthly billing. Yes.
Councilor Wylie said she got different figures. Staff would review the figures.
Mayor Lundberg said there were many homes that didn't put any runoff into the system. Long before
there were stormwater systems, people had basic systems that didn't dump into the main system.
There may be people that didn't need to put anything new in to keep the runoff from going into the
system since their home was already set up that way. They should look at all of the varieties of ways
of impacting or not impacting the system. She agreed they should look at how they could provide
incentives, perhaps through SDCs, for new housing with green systems. They could also look at a
larger incentive and bi- monthly billing. Many people looked at their total bill, not the separate
components. There were a lot of fees between the City and MWMC, and all of those needed to be
considered.
Ms. Bishop asked if Council wanted staff to look at bi- monthly billing for both wastewater and
stormwater. Yes.
Councilor Moore said she would like to know what other cities were providing in terms of a discount
Ms. Stouder referred to a slide that showed other cities and what they were doing.
Ms. Bishop said they looked at communities that the City historically compared user fees to, regarding
what those cities were doing in terms of a basic user fee and a residential stormwater green
infrastructure fee adjustment program. Of those communities, four had an adjustment program. It was
very new and cutting edge.
Mr. Stouder said the four that had programs were Phase I communities, meaning they had 100,000 or
more in population and were held to a higher standard than Phase 11 communities. Springfield was a
Phase 11 community. It was good that Springfield was having this discussion now as regulations would
tighten for Phase If communities.
Ms. Bishop said in the future they would be having this discussion from a regulatory standpoint. She
referred to the slide showing the four communities and the benefits provided in their programs. She
said she could email that out to the Council.
Mayor Lundberg said the follow -up and discussion tonight had been on the residential side. At this
time, there was no need to make any changes on the commercial side. She asked if staff could prepare
a response to PPSO to address their recent letter regarding their request for a reduction in stormwater
fees for their facility in Glenwood.
Mr. Stouder said staff would work on doing a better job on the front end of working with people to
help them understand how the bill worked.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 7
Mr. Bishop said she was clear on looking at the SDCs for new residential and looking at bi- monthly
billing options, but was not clear if they should look at a 27% discount as some councilors expressed
concern about the financial impact on the other customers.
Councilor Brew felt they could go much higher for incentives such as 50 %. The people that would
take advantage would be a very small percentage. A proposal needed to be big enough to make a
difference.
Mayor Lundberg asked if Council was also willing to look at existing residential that didn't have an
impact on the system.
Councilor Brew felt that could need to be part of a staff recommendation.
Councilor Moore said part of the stormwater fee also paid for street maintenance.
Mayor Lundberg said they could do a base fee and impact fee, similar to commercial.
Councilor Moore said for those willing to do it, it was not so much about saving money as it was
taking care of the water runoff and keeping it out of the system.
Councilor Ralston said he felt they needed a base fee. Any incentive needed to be worthwhile for
those taking the steps, but they needed to determine where any difference in revenue and additional
costs would come from.
Councilor Brew said the current system was not equitable.
Mr. Stouder said the proposed adjustments were minimal and most of the costs were recovered in the
base fee.
Ms. Bishop said when she met with SUB staff regarding the stormwater and wastewater, their
perspective was that the City customers had few questions about their stormwater service and were
usually focused on the larger components on their bill. Having the level fee, people could anticipate
the cost each month.
Councilor Wylie said they needed clear criteria defining when reductions could be applied. That
criterion could include future planning for housing, existing housing anId changes in current housing.
Mr. Stouder said staff could bring information back to Council for discussion on reduction scenarios,
impacts, criteria, and could propose a set of standards.
2. Boards, Commissions and Committees Review.
City Recorder Amy Sown presented the staff report on this item. In the past, the topic of possible
changes to the City's BCCs in terms of the appointment process had been raised. One area of
consideration was in the area of qualifications of candidates. The Council had expressed a desire to
encourage citizens who may not already be involved in public service to apply and be appointed to
open positions. Concern had been expressed regarding appointment to City BCCs of people currently
serving as an elected official on another agency's Board or Commission.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 8
Another area of consideration was the process of interviewing candidates for certain BCCs and not
others. The City Council was responsible for appointment of members to most of the City's boards,
commissions and committees, and had the option of interviewing candidates prior to their
appointment. Currently, the City Council interviewed for positions on the City Council (when
vacancies occurred between elections), Budget Committee, Historic Commission, Planning
Commission and Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) (Section 10
Subsection 3.8 from the 2013 Council Operating Policies and Procedures). Attachment 1 of the agenda
packet noted which BCC positions Council interviewed for and which they did not.
Mayor Lundberg said they were trying to get new people on boards, committee and commissions and
there have been times when members served on our boards that were elected to other boards and
agencies. There had also been a couple of issues that had to be worked through recently with members
of some City committees. One of the criteria for Council appointing to certain committees was the fact
that those committees made policy decisions and financial recommendations to the Council.
Councilor Ralston said ultimately the Council did approve of the committee members, whether from a
recommendation by the board or through an interview. The interview process took a lot of time for
Council and he was not interested in sitting through five or six interviews every time a position came
open. He was not too concerned about the current process.
Mayor Lundberg said Councilor Ralston missed the recent Council meeting where a committee
brought forward their recommendation and Council wasn't able to make up their mind.
Councilor Wylie said there was inequity with the current system. The citizens on the various
commissions wanted to be involved in choosing their next members and that needed to be respected.
One thought was that the commission would do the screening and initial interviews, and then send the
top two to the Council to interview and appoint. They wanted standardization in the process.
Councilor Moore noted the concern about the same people serving on different committees. She
wasn't aware of who was on the various committees until looking through the list. That position could
be offered to someone who wanted to get involved. We have had great applicants in the past that were
not appointed. She wasn't sure how to put that in their policy. She agreed there needed to be
consistency and she liked the idea of the Council interviewing the top two as recommended by the
committee.
Mayor Lundberg said in the case of the Planning Commission, the Council would interview all
applicants instead of just the top two.
Mr. Towery said it sounded like they wanted more consistency and a way to both engage the existing
committee members and still feel comfortable about the appointment. The committees and
commissions such as the Arts Commission, Historic Commission, Library Board and Police Planning
Task Force seem to be a little different from the committees the Council already interviewed. They
were larger groups that met on a regular basis. It may be easier for both the Council and the
engagement of the committees to have that two -step interview process. That could be tried for a period
of time to see how it went. The Council could step up the involvement for those committees they
currently didn't interview for and keep the same process for those they currently interviewed. The
membership and eligibility was a separate issue that wasn't driven by the process, but more by the
Council's desire for representation and more engagement.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 9
Councilor Ralston said he was not concerned about one person serving on more than one commission.
He wanted the most qualified people on the boards, committees and commissions. Some committees
were more important than others such as Council, the Planning Commission and the Budget
Committee. He felt those were the only three the Council needed to interview.
Councilor Woodrow said in light of recent concerns, having a system in which the Council
interviewed the top two applicants created an engagement by the Council with the person they
selected. That engagement helped the person appointed understand the importance of their
commitment, the position and their committee. She didn't have a problem appointing the best people,
but she felt they lost out on a lot of good people that could be the best if given the opportunity to get
involved. There seemed to be a lot of people that wanted to be involved and she would like to see
something in place to give them consideration. There are other commissions that had policies to not
have elected officials as part of their commission or give opportunity for others. She felt the
engagement of the Council with the person appointed created a connection and recognition of the
importance of their commitment.
Councilor Brew said he agreed with Councilor Woodrow. They may not need to interview the top two
candidates, but it would always be a good idea to bring the top candidate in to meet the Council, hear
their charge and engage with the Council. He noted that during his nine months on the Council,
whenever they interviewed for a position, they had always selected the applicant with the experience.
There were other candidates that were eager to go, but were not selected because of lack of experience.
If they wanted to develop new members, they needed to look at that balance. If there were two
openings, they could consider one person with experience and one new person.
Councilor Ralston said interviewing the top two for all of them would be consistent and a great idea.
He felt they always needed to interview for Council, Planning Commission and Budget Committee.
Regarding new people compared to experienced, he felt they needed to get the best person because
important decisions needed to be made.
Councilor Wylie agreed with Councilor Ralston about the interview process, although she wasn't sure
if they should add the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC). They could look at a
policy that stated that when possible, not appoint someone who was currently serving as an elected
official of a governing body. And also, when possible, appoint people to one committee only. It
shouldn't be black and white, but rather when possible. If they put the interview policy into place and
found it was too much interviewing done by Council, they could revisit it and make changes.
Mayor Lundberg liked Councilor Wylie's recommendation.
Councilor Woodrow said she agreed. She did note that the Council could determine between two
candidates who would be the best candidate. Before she was on Council, she applied for but wasn't
selected to the Library Board because of lack of experience. She would like to see a way to present
more opportunities for citizens.
Councilor Moore said the Bicycle /Pedestrian Committee met quarterly or more, yet the summary sheet
said they met `as needed'. She felt they should be on the list with the other committees. She asked
what the criteria were for being included on the list and being interviewed.
Mr. Towery said the Budget Committee, Planning Commission and City Council all had statutory
authority and the ability to make policy on their own. The other committees and commissions make
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 10
recommendations to Council, but had limited ability to make policy. The Bicycle/Pedestrian
Committee was established for a set amount of time. That time had most likely passed and should
come back to Council to make sure it needed to be continued. At that time, they could change how that
was listed.
Councilor Moore referred to the other committees the Council members served on as a liaison or
member. She asked how much information she should be sharing with the rest of the Council
regarding those committees she served, or how she would find out what was happening on the other
committees. She asked if there was a policy about shared information from people serving on those
outside committees.
Mayor Lundberg said those were all appointments made by the Mayor. The person that was designated
to each of those committees was responsible to attend those meetings, keep track of everything and
report what was important to the rest of the Council verbally during the regular meeting. If a Councilor
wanted to know what was going on with another committee, they could call the Councilor who served
on that committee. The alternate generally did not attend those meetings unless the representative was
unable to attend.
Councilor Woodrow asked if all the committees had a limited number of members and were their
opening made public and interviewed.
Ms. Sowa said they all had a set number as reflected in their Charge. Whenever there was an opening,
an advertisement was sent out to all of the media.
Councilor Woodrow said the criteria for the Council interviewing the top two candidates could be that
it was a committee: with an established number of members; that was publicly noticed when there was
a vacancy; and that interviewed the candidates.
Mayor Lundberg said there were a set number of committees with charges so it would be fairly simple
to determine.
Ms. Sowa said she may have inadvertently left off the Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee. There were also
committees that were appointed by the Planning Commission as the Committee for Citizen
Involvement (CCI). Some of those would not be on this list.
Councilor Brew asked about the Development Advisory Committee and if the Council interviewed
those members.
Mr. Towery said some of the advisory committees didn't have a set number, but rather a maximum
number they strived to appoint. For some of those advisory committees, the Council had made
appointments based on an application process rather than an interview process. When they first
established the Downtown Advisory Committee, they had about 45 applications and were originally
only going to have nine people on the committee. With the interest, they decided on seventeen
members. They started with the application review process and did some interviewing to fill the final
group. For more of the advisory committee appointments, it had just been an application process to
start the committee, with some interviews when filling vacancies.
Mayor Lundberg said they had committees so they could have a broad number of people to study an
issue and give recommendations to Council. Until recently, it had worked well, but there had been a
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 11
couple of times an issue had come up with a committee person that had taken some time to resolve.
The discussion about appointing people that were elected officials on another board came up during an
appointment to the Library Board. The issue with appointing someone that served on another agency
board was that people could perceive that person as serving the other agency rather than the City. She
liked the idea about the changes recommended by Councilor Wylie regarding elected officials, and
interviewing the top two candidates. That would be a good check -in point for those members so they
could meet the Council before beginning to serve.
Councilor Ralston asked if Lee Beyer serving on the Planning Commission when he was elected to
another position was an example of that situation and if that was a problem.
Mayor Lundberg said it was not necessarily a problem, but it could be perceived as a problem. All of
our committees were a good place for people to get involved. She had seen a lot of great people out
there wanting to step into leadership roles and we needed to provide that opportunity.
Mr. Towery recapped the information from Council. The Council would continue to interview for the
Budget Committee, Council vacancies, and Planning Commission. For the other committees, the
Council would be looking for a recommendation from that board on the top two candidates and the
Council would then interview those top two. He asked about Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission (MWMC) since the Council had just added them within the last year to the list of
committees Council would interview. He asked if they wanted to continue to leave that on the
interview list.
Ms. Sowa said that in the past, and under the Council Operating Policies and Procedures, the Council
had interviewed for the Historic Commission vacancies. She asked if they wanted to just interview the
top two as recommended by the Historic Commission.
Council consensus was to move the Historic Commission and MWMC from the list of the Council
always interviewing to the list of interviewing the top two candidates.
Mr. Towery said the other rule staff would bring back to Council would be a new standard regarding
candidates currently serving on another board.
Ms. Sowa noted the language from Councilor Wylie stating that "when possible, appoint people to
only one committee ". She asked if the Council wanted that language, as well as "when possible, do not
appoint someone currently serving and elected to another agency ".
Councilor Moore said she liked the addition of "when possible" as it gave the Council some leeway.
Council agreed.
Councilor Woodrow said the MWMC did not have a protocol for interviewing people since each
entity had interviewed and appointed their own representatives. She asked if they would leave that
commission on the interview list, or ask MWMC to come up with a protocol for interviewing.
Councilor Brew said he didn't feel there would be many times when they had three or more qualified
candidates for that position, so he felt they could identify the top two from their applications, then
bring the top two in for an interview.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 12
Mayor Lundberg said people interviewed much differently than what was on their application.
Councilor Brew said he didn't want the other MWMC members interviewing and selecting the
Springfield representative.
Mayor Lundberg said she agreed. She felt the Council needed to interview for MWMC and asked that
they be added back to that list.
Mr. Towery said the Council could decide how many candidates they interviewed. Staff could take the
applications, review them for the Council and present the top one or two to the Council for interviews.
Councilor Moore asked about the Human Services Commission and the citizen member that served.
She asked if she was selected because she served on the Budget Committee.
Councilor Ralston said the Council appointed people to the Budget Committee, and then it was up to a
member of the Budget Committee to volunteer to serve on the Human Services Commission.
Councilor Moore said she would like to see a list of all of the citizens that currently served on all of
the committees.
Ms. Sowa said they could provide that list.
Councilor Woodrow referred to Attachment 3 of the agenda packet, Section 6.3 on page 5. She asked
for clarification on the board member liaison and if that was a member of the board. Having a member
of each board, committee or commission take care of some of that communication could be helpful to
staff.
Councilor Ralston said that was done during Business from the Council during the regular meetings.
Councilor Moore read from the last part of Section 6.3 which stated "Such transmittals of information
shall be coordinated between the City Councilor liaison and the board member liaison ". It seemed like
there should be a connection between the board member and the Council liaison.
Councilor Brew referred to Section 2.3 (page 1 of Attachment 3 of the agenda packet) which stated,
"The City Councilor liaison member is responsible for coordinating with the respective City Council
liaison designed by the board, commission, committee or task force to establish a regular
communication channel between the City Council and the respective board, commission, committee or
task force ". That would indicate that the City Councilor was responsible for attending meetings of the
other boards they were appointed to, and the appointed member of those boards should be attending
Council meetings and communication should be occurring between the two liaisons.
Councilor Woodrow said she hadn't seen that in practice, but it could help take some work off staff if
there was more direct communication between the Councilor and committee representatives.
Mr. Towery said currently the City boards, committees and commissions were not appointing liaisons
to the Council. The Planning Commission had a rotating responsibility for a member to attend the
Council meetings. The language may be out of step with current practice. If the Council felt there
wasn't a good flow of communication between the Council and one of their boards or commissions,
this language would allow them to have the formal mechanism to make that happen.
City of Springfield —
Council Work Session Minutes
September 23, 2013
Page 13
Councilor Woodrow said it might have been helpful in the recent situation with the Arts Commission.
Mayor Lundberg said part of that issue was that the Arts Commission met on Monday evenings so the
Council liaison was not able to attend so was not aware of the issue until it became something that had
to be handled separately. It had been resolved.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
Amy Sow
City Recorder