HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/17/2014
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) January 14, 2014 – Joint Elected Officials Meeting b) February 10, 2014 – Work Session
c) February 18, 2014 – Work Session d) February 18, 2014 – Regular Meeting
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
None.
MINUTES OF THE
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL,
AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2014
A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield and Lane County was held in Harris Hall, Lane County Public Service Building, 125 East 8th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon, on Tuesday, January 14,
2014 at 5:30pm with Board Chair Pat Farr presiding. ATTENDANCE
Vice-Chair Farr reconvened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council.
Present from Lane County were Board Chair Farr and Commissioners Leiken, Stewart, Bozievich and
Sorenson. Lane County Planning Manager Matt Laird and other Lane County staff were also present.
Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore,
Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Springfield Utility Board Drinking Water Amendments to the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP). [Mark Metzger] (60 Minutes)
LANE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. PA-1307 – IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE
LANE COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) TO REVISE THE GOAL 5
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES POLICIES AND ADD THE SPRINGFIELD WELLHEAD PROTECTOIN AREA TO THE GOAL 5 INVENTORY OF SIGNIFICANT GROUNDWATER
RESOURCES AND ADOPITNG A SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE (Dept. File No.
PA13-05273).
SPRINGFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 1 – A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDMENT
OF THE LANE COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) TO REVISE THE GOAL 5 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES POLICIES AND ADD THE SPRINGFIELD WELLHEAD
PROTECTION AREA TO THE GOAL 5 INVENTORY OF SIGNIFICANT GROUNDWATER
RESOURCES
MOTION: ADOPT/NOT ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1.
Board Chair Farr said this was a second reading and public hearing of ORDINANCE PA 1307/ In the
Matter Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) to Revise the Goal 5 Groundwater Resources Policies and Add the Springfield Wellhead Protection Area to the Goal 5 Inventory of Significant Groundwater Resources and adopting a Savings and Severability Cause
(Dept. File No.: PA13-05273).
January 14, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 2 of 7
Springfield Planner Mark Metzger said Springfield was considering a resolution amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Revise Goal 5 Groundwater Resources Policies, and add the Springfield
Wellhead Protection Area to the Goals 5 Inventory of Significant Groundwater Resources. Commissioner Farr noted that the public hearing for Lane County was already open from earlier today.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing for Springfield.
Lane County Senior Planner Keir Miller reviewed the topics to be covered this evening: Background; Process – IGA; Amendment Request (applicant); Criteria; Public Comments; and Planning
Commission Recommendations.
Prior to the County’s enactment of Ordinance PA-1281, the Metro Plan encompassed a larger area
than it currently covered. The area east of Interstate 5 used to be part of the Metro Plan, but through
the County’s enactment of that ordinance, which was co-adopted by the City of Springfield, that boundary shrunk. He referred to maps showing the Metro Plan boundary before and after the change.
It had been a County initiated request to remove that area from the Metro Plan. During the proceedings to move that boundary, the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) expressed concern
about that area being removed from the Metro Plan Boundary. If it were removed, the City of Springfield would no longer be a decision maker on plan amendments in that area and would lose some level of control for their sensitive groundwater time of travel zones. A significant portion (about
40%) of the SUB time of travel zones lay within the area outside of the city limits but within the old Metro Plan boundary. The solution to this issue was an IGA the City and County entered into which would allow the City of Springfield to be at the table with the Board of Commissioners, reviewing an
application. The IGA stated that whenever a plan amendment came in for that area, the city would be a decision maker.
Tonight, SUB was requesting two policy amendments to the Rural Comprehensive Plan. The first was that those areas would be adopted by Lane County into the Rural Comprehensive Plan as significant
Goal 5 groundwater resources. He referred to a map identifying those sites. That afforded SUB
recognition under the Plan and set the stage for future protection of those resources. Statewide Planning Goal 5 was a two-part goal that pertained to groundwater, riparian resources, mining
resources, etc. The two goals were to identify the significant resources and adopt a protection measure to protect those resources. Tonight they were addressing the first phase of recognizing and adopting those time of travel zones. SUB had a hydro-geologist on staff who would define that terminology and
walk through how the areas were established and certified by the State. The second component of the proposal was more of a housekeeping item. It memorialized the IGA
between the City and the County and put the language into the Rural Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Miller noted the policy language that would be added: Goal 5 – Water Resources, Policy 6:
The significant groundwater resource inventory for Lane County shall consist of those wellhead protection areas meeting the requirements of OAR 660-023-01400(5)(a) that have
been delineated and certified by the Oregon Public Health Division. The certified wellhead
protection areas shall be adopted into the Goal 5 Inventory by Board Ordinance. The adopted
January 14, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 3 of 7
areas boundaries shall form the basis for development of wellhead protection plans in accordance with OAR 340-040-0180.
Mr. Miller referred to the applicable criteria and noted that staff was recommending approval of this application request. Notice was sent to all affected land owners within those time of travel zones as
well as properties abutting those time of travel zones. Over 850 notices were mailed out, a legal ad was put in the paper, a website was developed that received over 173 hits up through December 31, 2013, and work sessions and public hearings were held with the Planning Commissions. Very little
public comment was received. The majority of the questions and comments were related to what would happen on the ground with the protection measures and if future regulations might regulate
septic systems. SUB addressed this by explaining that their main concerns were in hazardous
materials, large industrial sites and mining operations. Other questions included whether or not adoption of these protection areas would influence the City’s decision making when expanding the
urban growth boundary (UGB), and how measures would affect farm and forest practices. It was
explained that this was not part of the criteria the city used during the UGB expansion process. One person expressed concern over equity of landowners within the county being subjected to a plan or
different measures to protect a resource that benefitted resident within the city. Staff explained that if protection plans were put into place, it would not only protect the city’s wellhead area, but also private well owners.
Both the city and county Planning Commissions unanimously recommended that the elected officials adopt the proposal.
Tom Lamphere spoke on behalf of the City of Springfield and SUB. He noted that Phil Brown from GI Water Resources, Amy Chinitz, Drinking Water Source Protection Coordinator from SUB, and
Greg Miller, Water Superintendent from SUB were in attendance and available to answer questions. Statewide Planning Goal 5 required jurisdictions to inventory and protect natural resources, including
groundwater resources. This was the inventory step. No measures were being presented at this time.
The Administrative Rules establish criteria for determining a significant groundwater resource. There were basically two criteria that applied: 1) the wellhead protection area is deemed significant if it was
delineated and certified by the Oregon Public Health Division; and 2) it is a primary source of
drinking water serving over 10,000 persons as their primary source of water. In this case, SUB and the Rainbow Water District were serving 64,000 people. The area shown on the map had been
certified by the State as recently as July 2008. It met the two criteria for designation as a significant groundwater resource. The maps being presented were in County Ordinance PA1290 and PA1206 which were used in the adoption of Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan which was currently
applicable within city limits and the Springfield UGB. Tonight’s proposal was only addressing the wellhead protection area east of Interstate 5. The portion on the west side needed to be reviewed with the City of Eugene.
The second part of this was adoption of the two new policies to be added to the Rural Comprehensive Plan. These policies were designed to identify the existence of the inventory, identify how
groundwater resources were adopted into the inventory, and their relationship to future plans for groundwater protection. The second policy identified the process for review of post-acknowledgement
plan amendments for the areas that were formerly in the Metro Plan that required the joint process
with the city and county. With the addition of those policies into the plan, people looking to address groundwater resources in Lane County would be directed to the correct processes and jurisdictional
January 14, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 4 of 7
governance. The review of this application went beyond the normal notice for a legislative action and was treated as a quasi-judicial notice. Every land owner in the affected area was notified, and notice
also went 750 feet around the boundaries of the delineated area. They had contact with representatives of the gravel industry, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Land Watch Lane County, the Nature Conservatory, and several farmers in the area. Additional information was provided to the farmers to address their
concerns. The farmers’ main concerns were how future protection measures would affect their property. At this time there were no protections proposed. They were assured their concerns would be addressed when protection measures were developed. There was a limitation on what could be done to
protect the water in terms of farming practices. The Department of Agriculture had jurisdiction over those regulations; therefore, any development of a future protection plan would need to be coordinated
with the Department of Agriculture.
Phil Brown, professional hydro geologist, spoke on behalf of SUB. It was a requirement of any
drinking water protection plan to develop a wellhead protection area. A wellhead protection area was
an area where groundwater flowed through an aquifer and was captured by the well. There was a formal process to develop these areas that was described in State regulations including being prepared
by a licensed hydro geologist, then reviewed and certified by the State. The size of a well head protection area depended on the pumping rate of the wells or wellfield and the aquifer characteristics. Most of the areas were elongated because of the direction the water was flowing and where it would
be collected. The delineations could run hundreds or thousands of feet or miles from a well. Springfield’s wellhead protection areas were typically defined by a 99 year time of travel. That referred to the amount of time it would take for a molecule of water to travel from the most distant
upgradiant to where it was captured by the well. It was common to delineate other time of travel areas within the wellfield areas ranging from six months, one year, five years, etc. The purpose was to identify zones of differing risk in the event of a groundwater contamination event. The shorter the
time frame, the higher the risk.
Mr. Brown said the Oregon requirements for this delineation work were variable depending on the size
of the population served by the water utility. For systems serving more than 50,000 people, it was necessary to use a numerical model so the aquifer could be represented realistically enough so the
wellhead protection areas were meaningful and realistic. Springfield used a three-dimensional
numerical groundwater flow model. These models were chosen and specified because they were able to simulate much more complex aquifer characteristics and situations. He described some of those
situations that could be simulated. Those situations, as well as characteristics could be built and calibrated into this model. The tool SUB used was Mod-flow and its associated software which was developed by United State Geological Survey (USGS) and has been used for decades. It was one of
the most widely used and defensible tools for this kind of work. SUB simulated the wellfields pumping at about 125% of the average daily demand to make them viable into the future.
Councilor Moore asked if the depth of the well had any influence on the time of travel. She asked what the average depth of a well was.
Mr. Brown said in this area they tended to be fairly shallow and about 100-200 feet in range. Deeper wells tended to have a higher degree of containment, didn’t interact as much with surface water, had
lower permeability of layers, and their wellhead protection areas tended to be larger and more
extensive.
January 14, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 5 of 7
Amy Chinitz, Drinking Water Source Protection Coordinator , spoke on behalf of SUB. The proposed amendment was the first in a two-step process. The first step was the inventory and the second was to
adopt protection provisions. They anticipated the second step would involve a process of technical analysis and review, and public involvement had yet to begin. It was premature to speculate what those future provisions would be. She provided an example of when Springfield went through this in
the late 1990’s when Springfield began developing its Drinking Water Protection Plan. Delineating the wellhead protection area and obtaining certification from the State was the first step in that process. The delineation identified the land area that directly lay over the part of the aquifer that supplied
groundwater to the wells. These areas were identified as sensitive areas because the consequences of a chemical spill or other such event were great. The next step after the delineation was to identify an
inventory of potential sources of groundwater contaminants. This analysis included identifying all
activities, facilities or land uses whether current or historic, that had the potential to be a source of groundwater contamination. Springfield made use of guidance provided by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) on potential sources of groundwater contamination. She explained
some of the possible sources of contamination. Springfield’s analysis based on information gathered by using public databases and on the ground surveys, resulted in a map of potential contaminant
sources shown and their respective time of travel zones. Together the delineation of the wellhead protection area and the identification of potential contaminant sources formed the basis for developing risk reduction strategies. A citizen task force made up of community members and representatives
from agriculture, industry and commercial worked together over a four month period with assistance from a technical advisory group to develop ten strategies for managing potential sources of contamination. These strategies, which directly addressed risks identified in the potential contaminant
risk inventory, were the cornerstone of Springfield’s Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Plan. Springfield adopted the DWP Plan in May of 1999, and one year later adopted the implementing ordinance which was the Drinking Water Protection Plan Overlay setting standards for the
management of hazardous materials within the 20 year time of travel zone. In addition to the Overlay, the DWP Plan also includes a variety of voluntary and education based projects designed to reduce the
risk of contamination. She provided some examples of those programs.
Board Chair Farr asked if livestock was included in potential contamination sources.
Ms. Chinitz said something on the list could include a confined feeding operation where there is high density of livestock in an area
Commissioner Leiken said when Springfield’s Drinking Water Protection Plan was adopted, he and Mayor Lundberg were both city councilors. He spoke regarding the citizen outreach and that he and
late councilor Hatfield, along with John Tamulonis (Community Development Manager of Springfield), went out to speak to businesses who were originally fearful of the plan because they thought it would be detrimental to the business community. The number of permits issued in
Springfield over the last decade would indicate that fear was unfounded. When this was first adopted, it was groundbreaking. The discussion about the Metro Plan boundary started in 2009 and he felt the current discussion about the groundwater was positive because it would protect those citizens who
were between Springfield’s UGB and the Metro Plan Boundary. This added tremendous value to all of those property owners and was a good step. He thanked the staffs from Lane County, the City of
Springfield and the Springfield Utility Board for working together and taking the time needed to do
this well. This was good work from all the staff and sent a very good message.
January 14, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 6 of 7
Commissioner Bozievich said when Springfield adopted the DWP Plan, he was working in Springfield at Branch Engineering. He was then employed by Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) in their
water division where they were looking at the possibility of developing a confluence wellfield on the other side of I-5. During that process, they looked to the Springfield DWP Plan as a model for a wellhead protection plan. From that experience, he had read a finite element model of a groundwater
resource and understood the impacts of the aquifer underlaying Eugene and Springfield which was a very open aquifer and open to the ground. That was why it was really important it be protected. What fell on the ground in Eugene and Springfield went into our drinking water. This was an important first
step. He had seen the analysis of these areas and felt they were an accurate depiction of the areas that needed protection and deserved Goal 5 designation. This was the second action the Board had taken in
the last six months to protect wellheads. On Sept 17, 2013 the Board adopted an ordinance to protect
the City of Florence’s dunal aquifer and some of their riparian and wetland areas. This Board had been actively working to protect drinking water. Lane County and the city had worked together with SUB
to resolve several issues in order to get the protections in place that were important to the City of
Springfield through an IGA. This type of cooperation was a great model. He noted other times when this type of cooperation had been used recently in the City of Florence.
Commissioner Sorenson said the protection of drinking water was something most people didn’t spend a lot of time on so it was nice to see the professionals here talking about this program. He noted that
the governor of West Virginia announced that there would be a state of emergency in 9 counties after a chemical spill contaminated the Elk River. That contamination affected and caused a ban on water use for 200,000 customers. A chemical spill could really affect drinking water very quickly in both surface
and ground waters. He was glad they were moving forward with this and was trusting they were taking enough action to be pro-active.
Board Chair Farr said this did have a direct parallel to what was going on in Virginia so he appreciated Commissioner Sorenson bringing that up. The action being discussed this evening was the type that
precluded that type of emergency. It would seem that our aquifer may be more susceptible to
contamination than that in the Appalachians.
Commissioner Bozievich noted that the incident in Virginia was surface water contamination rather
than ground water contamination. When surface water was involved, intakes could be turned off to keep contaminants from getting through. That was not the case with ground water. It was even more
serious in our area to establish these protections. Board Chair Farr referred to the map and noted that several of the wells were on both the Springfield
and Eugene side of I-5. He asked how that was addressed. Mr. Miller said in those situations, SUB would work directly with the City of Eugene. It would likely
be worked into their Envision Eugene process to adopt water protection plans in that process. That would be addressed at that time.
Board Chair Farr said this had been a lengthy process on the Springfield side. He asked if it would be an equally long process on the Eugene side.
Mr. Miller said it was likely to take a long time in Eugene as well. With the model in place that has been used on the Springfield side, it should be smoother.
January 14, 2014
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Public Hearing City of Springfield
Lane County
Page 7 of 7
Mayor Lundberg said that when they were approached by the county with this idea, there was some
disagreement as to why they needed to do this. The city and county were not in agreement about many issues when they first started, but the Drinking Water Protection Plan was essential to the citizens in Springfield. She was very pleased that things had been worked out and SUB was satisfied. They had
been able to work out a satisfactory resolution by working together. She thanked staff for their hard work and said she was happy to be at this point.
Board Chair Farr asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on this topic.
No one appeared to speak.
Board Chair Farr closed the public hearing and the record for the Lane County Board of
Commissioners.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing and the record for the Springfield City Council.
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEIKEN WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEWART TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. PA-1307. THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-02. THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 6:17 p.m.
Commissioner Farr adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 6:17 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
City Recorder
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________ City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2014
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 10, 2014 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused)
1. Charter Amendment to Allow for Councilor Compensation.
Community Relations Manager Niel Laudati presented the staff report on this item. City Attorney
Mary Bridget Smith joined him for the presentation. The Springfield Mayor and Council were volunteers. The Springfield Charter stated: “No Councilor or Mayor may receive compensation for
serving in that capacity. The Council may prescribe a plan for reimbursing Mayor and City Council
for expenses they incur in serving the City.” As such, no elected official had received compensation in Springfield – however, reimbursement for mileage, technology fees, etc. was available.
The Springfield Mayor and City Councilors were expected to spend 25 – 35 hours per week attending Council meetings, answering constituent emails and reviewing the weekly agendas. They were also
asked to attend multiple city-related inter-governmental meetings during the week and events on nights and weekends on behalf of the community. It had become common practice for the Mayor and Councilors to use personal vacation time from their jobs to attend events and meetings on behalf of the
city. They often paid for a guest to attend night and weekend events when they were asked to attend events as well. Items such as child care were not covered.
Over the past year, a small subcommittee made up of members of the City Council, the City Attorney’s Office and the City Manager’s Office had met four times to review the need for an update
of the City Charter to allow for a reasonable monthly compensation. After discussion and reviewing
Council compensation from across the state, the sub-committee recommended a $300 per month stipend for each councilor and a $500 per month stipend for the Mayor.
Amending the Charter required a vote of the public. The procedure included the Council passing a resolution regarding the amendment and then referring the proposed amendment to the voters in an
upcoming election. The rest of the process followed state election law. The ballot title was prepared by the City and filed with the city elections officer. In order to meet the required deadlines and place a Charter amendment on the May 20, 2014 ballot, Council would need to pass a resolution with ballot
title no later than March 3, 2014. Charter amendments passed when a majority of the voters supported the amendment.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 2
The fiscal impact to the City was approximately $27,000 per year. Additionally, it was recommended
to continue reimbursements for items such as mileage and technology.
Mr. Laudati said during the subcommittee meeting, two major points became the focal point. The first was that it shouldn’t cost our councilors money to serve. The second was making the opportunity to serve on the council in the future affordable to anyone willing to serve.
Councilor Moore thanked staff for the time and effort on this project. She was on the subcommittee
and recalled discussion about opening this up to a committee of citizens in Springfield since it was a
citizen decision.
Councilor Woodrow said it had been decided that the vote would be the citizen input.
Councilor Moore said the City of Eugene councilors now made more since they were tied to the
consumer price index (CPI). She felt some sort of compensation was important not only for the current
councilors, but for others that may want to serve on the Council. The councilor she replaced had to resign because of the time commitment involved while trying to also run her own business. When
Councilor Moore took the Council position, she was working part time as a teacher, but quit that job due to the time involved in serving on the Council.
Councilor Ralston said he had been a councilor for a long time and the position had changed a lot. During his tenure, he had held down a full time job and raised a family and it was very difficult. There were sacrifices and he turned down extra work hours in order to meet his council obligations. It made
sense to discuss this. The $300 amount was not something that would enable someone to make a living, but could affect getting more people involved. Many people were surprised that the Council
was not paid.
Councilor VanGordon asked if they had discussed the actual language if this was proposed and how
raises would be controlled.
Ms. Smith said during their research of other cities, they found that some had the set amount included
in their Charter. Others included language that a plan would be provided for some type of compensation tied to the budget process or outlined in the Council procedures. The City of Eugene was the only one of those researched that was tied to the CPI. The problem with including the dollar
amount in the Charter was that it was difficult to change. Councilor VanGordon asked if any polling of citizens had been done. No. He recognized that the goal
was to get more people in the pool of candidates that wouldn’t normally be able financially to run for office. He was concerned about the language and if this was the right time. The language would need to say that PERS and healthcare were off the table. He was also concerned that the current Council
benefited from this and was referring it directly to the voters. He would like to see this reviewed by a committee with citizens on it, or have it go through an initiative process to put it on the ballot. With no
citizen involvement he felt it sent the wrong message. They had a good relationship with the citizens,
and he didn’t want to lose that. Taking more time would make a lot of sense.
Councilor Brew said in general he was supportive. He wanted to make sure staff talked to Human
Resources to make sure this would be exempt from PERS. It may not be exempt for employees such as himself who were employed by PERS employers. Another option would be to put it on the ballot,
but not have it go into effect until the next Council was elected.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 3
Councilor Ralston said either way, it would be referred to the voters. He wanted to make sure the citizens understood why they were considering this. He didn’t feel that waiting for the next elected
officials to be on board was right. If the electors voted for it, it should be for them and for anyone following them.
Councilor Woodrow said the committee had not talked in detail about going to the public, but she felt it was a good idea. She didn’t want this to be a salary conversation, but rather a stipend that would be
set in place. It shouldn’t cost someone to be a councilor and to meet the community’s needs. She
noted some of the additional costs councilors had in performing their duties. She didn’t have a problem with it going into effect immediately if the citizens voted in favor.
Councilor Brew said he was also fine applying it immediately. Currently, the Charter said the Mayor and Council couldn’t receive compensation. The language could either be changed to say the Mayor
and Council could receive something, or could be removed.
Ms. Smith said if they removed it, they would want to make sure there were checks and balances in
setting the amount in the Code or Council Operating Policies. They still needed some type of authority and process to get at how they would be compensated.
Councilor Brew said the language in the Charter could state that the stipend would be set by another document or Code.
Mr. Grimaldi said they would want to evaluate which group or document would authorize the amount of pay. Some entities used their Budget Committee.
Councilor Moore said she was in favor of some type of stipend. It was a shock to her when she joined the Council how much time was involved. It was important to be out in the community in a positive
light. She felt the Mayor did need to be compensated above the Council because of the extra time
involved. She did a great job representing the City of Springfield and they wanted her to be out in the community. She asked if the Council President should also receive more.
Council members didn’t feel that was necessary.
Mayor Lundberg said she liked the idea of having citizen involvement before sending this to the voters. It looked self-serving if it was all done internally. The committee could discuss whether or not they should consider compensation, the amount, and suggestions about how to structure it. She liked
the idea of tying it to the Budget Committee so it was not just the Council voting on the amount. Many citizens were surprised they were not paid. There was interest from people in the public on this subject so they needed to have some input. The Council did more all the time, but they could pick and
choose and not do as much. It could easily become a full-time job.
Mr. Grimaldi asked how Council would like the committee appointed and the charge of the
committee. If the committee agreed that something should happen, he asked if Council wanted them to delve into the Charter language. If they group felt it should move forward, he asked Council if they
wanted them to try to get something on the November ballot or another date.
Councilor Brew recommended using either the Budget Committee or the Planning Commission as the
Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) since they were already in place. He would like the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 4
committee to recommend whether or not to move forward along with an amount, and then bring it to a
public hearing to allow time for public testimony.
Councilor Woodrow said in addition, they could also get input from the citizen representatives of all the city boards, commissions and committees.
Mr. Grimaldi said he would recommend they consider the first group as a working group. Once they had a committee who had taken on the details, they could then run the recommendations by all of the
other boards, commissions and committees for input.
Councilor Moore agreed that they needed a group to work on the specifics. She would like to open it
to community input as well, perhaps on the website. She was fine with the November date.
Mayor Lundberg said all of the questions posed were good for the committee to consider. She asked if
the Planning Commission would need to meet separately as the CCI or during their regular meeting.
Mr. Laudati said it would be best to structure it separately and bring background information to them.
Mary Bridget said sometimes the Planning Commission met prior to their regular meeting as the CCI. Staff could draft a separate agenda for them.
Council was fine using the Planning Commission as the CCI for this discussion and with the questions raised during this work session to be discussed with a recommendation in the future.
2. Telecommunications Business License Tax.
Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. Currently, under Springfield City Code, a telecommunications company with facilities in the City’s
right-of-way pays a fee for use of the right-of-way. Other cities charged utilities a franchise fee or a
business license fee.
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILEC), companies leftover from the break-up of the Bell monopoly in the 1980s, were taxed differently from other utilities creating a disparity in the market. Under State statute, cities were limited to charging ILECs 7% on the revenue from local exchange
service for use of a city’s right of way. “Local Exchange Service” revenue was only that revenue that resulted from the dial tone access charge, approximately $12.60 per month. Revenue generated from the other telecommunication services—such as cellular backhaul, voicemail, call-forwarding, caller
identification, call waiting, and other modern amenities—were not calculated as a part of the 7% fee. In contrast to ILEC, other utilities (such as Comcast) were charged a fee of 5% of gross revenue—essentially all of the revenue the company earned.
CenturyLink, the local ILEC, paid the City seven percent of the local exchange charge (that charge
was about $12.60 a month per customer). On the other hand, Comcast, CenturyLink’s principal
competitor in Springfield, paid based on five percent of the total bill (about $65 per month per customer).
The 2013 Oregon Legislative Assembly attempted but failed to resolve the discrepancy. Another attempt to change the law was anticipated for the 2014 session; however, the proposal currently
discussed had clear disadvantages for cities. As an alternative, staff suggested that the City change the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 5
right-of-way user fee from a fee for using the right-of-way to a tax on doing business. The tax would
not be subject to the preemption. No change was proposed for the rate—currently five percent of gross revenue.
The distinct fees resulted when the 1989 Legislative Assembly passed ORS 221.515 and preempted local governments’ abilities to set fees for the use of the right-of-way for ILECs. Charges on other
providers, however, were not limited. Ultimately, this created an anomaly and had significant impact on both the customers and the cities. The inconsistent fees resulted in consumers’ decisions based on
based on government charges, rather than on the basis of the services or charges generated by the
carrier. As much as possible, those fees and charges should be consistent, regardless of carrier. While there were obvious cases where there should be differences, for example between carriers who used
public rights of way and those who did not, these differences should be based on the nature of the
business, not on legislative policy decisions.
In addition to the sound business reasons for making local fees transparent, there was a risk of
litigation should the change not be made. Section 253(c) of the 1996 Act provided that “Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to …require fair and reasonable
compensation form telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and non-discriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a non-discriminatory basis…” Although no court had held that the preemption by State law created an inconsistency with the federal requirement, the allegation
had been made in a number of cases and may, in some future case, be found meritorious. In 2013, the Oregon Legislative Assembly considered a House Bill developed by Comcast—the largest non-ILEC phone company— that proposed changes to resolve the distinction between utilities. Under House
Bill 2455-7 preemption would be eliminated, resulting in every phone company charged on the same revenue formula basis. The Bill, however, did not succeed despite the support from cities and the
League of Oregon Cities.
During that same period, the City of Portland developed a local solution to address the problem.
Portland converted its existing right-of-way use fee to an approach that was not subject to preemption.
Portland revised its code to convert the existing right-of-way use fee to a business license tax imposed on companies that used the public right-of-way to provide telephone service. Like Springfield, the
right-of-way use fee was five percent—that rate was not changed when the charge was converted from a fee to a tax. However, the ability to capture more of the ILECs’ revenue, no longer limited to only local access service revenue, resulted in a large increase in revenue for the City of Portland. Similar
changes to Springfield’s Code could produce significant revenue for the General Fund. Staff hesitated to project an estimate at this time as CenturyLink had declined to give the City information on its gross revenues.
The proposed changes would benefit the consumer by removing the element of distinct public fees and taxes from the decision on which telephone service to select. Even though the changes would result in
a small impact on individual customers the change would make it possible for consumers to make a choice based on the quality and nature of a company’s service. The tax would be at the same rate as
presently in the Municipal Code – 5 percent of gross revenue.
While CenturyLink challenged the Portland ordinance in Circuit Court last year, the Court granted
summary judgment to Portland. The case was now pending before the Oregon Court of Appeals.
There was no timetable for a decision but staff believed that the Circuit Court opinion was sound and would likely be sustained on appeal. Additionally, Comcast intended to introduce a new bill during
the 2014 Legislative Assembly. Unfortunately, however, Comcast was now working with the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 6
incumbent providers and was likely to propose a measure that would severely undercut local
governments—potentially reducing the rates that all telecommunications companies paid. Therefore, at this time, staff recommended that the City move ahead with a local ordinance to follow the Portland
model. If the ordinance was adopted before the Legislature acts, we believe that Springfield’s action would not be preempted.
Staff recommended changing Springfield Municipal Code sections 4.600 Definitions and 4.706 Fee for Use of Public Ways to establish a Telecommunication Business License Tax which would replace
the Utility License Fee currently used at the City. If Council concurred, they may direct staff to
present an ordinance in the form of the attached draft for a first reading and public hearing at the next available opportunity.
Councilor Brew said he supported this idea, but asked why it was tied to the right-of-way. He felt that preempted the City from collecting from Verizon, Dish Network and others.
Mr. Goodwin said they couldn’t charge Dish Network because Federal statute only allowed the State to impose fees and taxes on direct satellite providers, which limited the City to companies that used
the right-of-way. In 2004, the City considered a utility tax. That tax was not limited to those companies with facilities in the right-of-way and was defeated at the polls 76/24 mainly because the cell industry spent a lot of funds to defeat that measure. This step was on a much smaller scale.
Councilor Moore asked how much revenue this could generate.
Mr. Goodwin said it was difficult to determine because Century Link would not share their gross income. With best guess estimates, staff felt it could be about $250,000 a year.
Councilor Moore asked if it would be referred to the public.
Mr. Goodwin said Council had that option, but it wasn’t required. Century Link had sued Portland and
Portland won summary judgment in Circuit Court. Century Link had appealed to the Court of Appeals, the case had been argued and the decision was pending. The decision in Circuit Court was clear that
statute preempted only one specific thing and did not pre-empt a business license tax. Staff was comfortable the decision could be upheld.
Councilor Woodrow said a summary judgment was very sound, so she felt it would stand. Councilor VanGordon said he was comfortable going forward.
All agreed.
Councilor Moore asked if this was different from Eugene.
Mr. Goodwin said Eugene had two fees: one for use of right-of-way which was limited to 7%; and a
business license registration of 2% of the gross. Those were applied to cell companies, Comcast and Quest for their services other than basic phone. Their fees had been litigated extensively, but there was
good authority that they were valid.
Councilor VanGordon asked if the current 7% fee would be retired if this new fee was implemented.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 7
Mr. Goodwin said it would and the wording would be changed from fee to tax.
Mayor Lundberg asked if they would be doing a renewal of the contract with Century Link as they did
with Comcast. Mr. Goodwin said under the Code, the City had the right to examine the accounts of each provider
within the City at any time. They hadn’t exercised that right since 1997 and that was limited to matching account numbers and addresses to make sure it included everyone in the City.
3. Stormwater Fees and Billing Services Follow-up.
Environmental Services Manager Matt Stouder and Senior Finance Analyst Katherine Bishop
presented the staff report on this item. At the September 23, 2013 work session, Council asked for additional information on the City’s stormwater program with respect to: (1) how stormwater SDC’s
were applied to new residential development; (2) information for consideration on bi-monthly billing
for stormwater and wastewater fees, and; (3) how a 27% discount for residential users who installed rain gardens or other low impact development systems would impact user rates and staffing.
Attachment 1 of the agenda packet provided additional information on the three items above, including fee incentives, program resources and associated program costs, and the fiscal impact to the
stormwater fund and residential stormwater user fees based on the level of participation in a residential stormwater fee incentive program. In addition, information on the City’s wastewater and stormwater monthly billing cycle was provided to assist with further discussion on the benefits and constraints of a
monthly or bi-monthly billing cycle. Included was information on the contractual relationship with the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) for further consideration and
discussion.
Mr. Stouder said SDCs were applied when building permits were issued. If a low-impact development
system was proposed when applying for a building permit, the SDC Methodology provided a 50%
reduction in the stormwater. The methodology also provided additional discounts if the homeowner provided supporting documentation of the design showing all of the runoff was infiltrating rather than
going into the City system. Currently, SDCs were about .61/per square foot or about $1200 for a 2000 square foot home.
Councilor Moore asked if Planned Parenthood was charged SDCs. Mr. Stouder said they did not pay stormwater SDCs.
Councilor Brew asked about follow-up inspections on homes that installed rain gardens to make sure they were still functioning.
Mr. Stouder said the current methodology didn’t include inspections. Dry wells and rain gardens were
required to have an overflow connection so they would still function properly if not maintained. Staff
did inspect commercial buildings every couple of years.
Ms. Bishop said Council had raised concerns about the SUB billing service costs to the City. The idea
was to look at potential cost savings in moving from monthly to bi-monthly utility billing to reduce costs. The current transaction fee was $1.11 per monthly transaction. A transaction included local
stormwater, local wastewater and regional wastewater so the costs were shared among those funds
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 8
including the regional portion. Of $1.11, about 57% of the expense had to do with the customer billing
and cashier services provided by SUB and postage. The other 43% was for meter reading services which were done monthly in order to determine winter usage during the months of December through
April. From May to December, the customer was charged the actual usage or the average of their winter usage, whichever was less. A bi-monthly billing cycle would not reduce the component of the charges that were tied to meter read services. She spoke with staff from SUB who indicated that
discussions would need to be held to renegotiate the current agreement if they chose to move to a bi-monthly billing SUB would need to look into their system to determine what reprogramming may
need to occur for that change. Both the Springfield Municipal Code and the intergovernmental
agreement between the City and Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) required that user fees be collected monthly. The Council could change from monthly to bi-monthly
billing for local wastewater and stormwater services. Changing the billing cycle for regional services
would require discussions with the other agencies.
Councilor Moore said they wanted to look at this to see about saving citizen’s money, but it didn’t
appear that would happen. She thanked staff for the information.
Councilor VanGordon said it seemed SUB was pushing electronic billing. He asked if that would lower our costs if no longer paying postage.
Ms. Bishop said they could have that conversation and determine how many customers were on the Bill Pay.
Mr. Grimaldi said they should ask that question carefully since rates had remained the same since 2005, and it could lead to a more complicated discussion.
Councilor Woodrow said she didn’t want to open a can of worms by questioning the $1.11. She noted that when paying online, people were charged an extra rate of about $3 or $4. Electronic was not
always easiest.
Mayor Lundberg asked Council for direction to staff about the SDC piece.
Councilor Ralston asked for clarification on the rain garden discount.
Mr. Stouder said there was a one-time hook-up fee that could be discounted if the applicant agreed to put in a rain garden. If the builder could provide additional documentation with calculations showing that none of their runoff would go into the system, they would receive a 100% discount.
Mayor Lundberg said the property owner still paid monthly rates. Council agreed not to change the language regarding SDCs methodology.
Councilor Ralston said he had been supportive of bi-monthly billing, but was disappointed by the
breakdown. Making that change created a lot of work.
Councilor Woodrow said she wasn’t a fan of bi-monthly billing. It could be difficult for people that
were not used to paying something bi-monthly. Budgeting once a month was easier for some. With the
information presented, she agreed it should remain monthly.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 9
Mr. Grimaldi said they could also discuss moving independent from SUB and doing our own billing.
There were complexities and it would involve a long-term project. It could achieve the objective of lowering the costs and potentially going to bi-monthly billing in the future.
Councilor Ralston said he wouldn’t support moving away from SUB doing the billings as it could open a lot of issues.
Mayor Lundberg said if the City started billing, it would highlight that it was a charge from the City,
which may not be desirable.
Council determined they would not consider bi-monthly billing at this time, but could perhaps discuss
it at a later time through Priority Based Budgeting.
Mr. Stouder spoke regarding user rates and a possible incentive program. It was discussed that any
incentive needed to be enough to make a difference to the recipient, but not so much that it negatively
impacted staff and other rate payers. He referred to the tables included on Attachment 1 of the agenda packet and reviewed the figures. Table 1 showed the fiscal impact to the Stormwater Fund and
residential user rates, including how the overall residential monthly bill would be impacted depending upon how many customers qualified and maintained rain gardens or other green systems. Table 2 displayed the fee incentive along with the necessary resources to ensure the systems were maintained
and working properly depending on how many customers chose to install rain gardens or other green systems. The City was expecting to get the new Stormwater permit in 2015 and would likely be facing stricter standards. The programs in the updated permit would likely impact staffing and user
rates. Staff would be providing a program update to Council in March. One of the questions for Council was the timing of moving forward with such an incentive program.
Councilor Ralston said he appreciated staff time spent on looking at the options. It took a lot of work to put in a rain garden and didn’t save much per month, plus it affected other users. The staff impact
looked substantial. He asked how much the City would be saving if 500 people didn’t put water in
storm system.
Ms. Bishop said incentives from low impact would be part of the future regulations so it was good to have this conversation now. Once they learned more about the permit renewal, they would know if this type of program would be mandated. They also recognized that as the permit renewal was pushed out
in time, it could be wise to align a City program with the renewal of the permit in order to receive full credit for the reduced impact.
Mr. Stouder said to implement the program would cost money and there would be a slight reduction of runoff in the system.
Councilor Ralston said it sounded like a great idea, but would cost the City money in staff time which had to be made up somewhere else, either through other users or the City’s general budget.
Mr. Stouder said it could eventually become a requirement for new development and budgets would need to be adjusted. If the City implemented this program now, they may not get credit for it as a new
program when the permit was issued.
Councilor Brew said staff was currently not doing inspections and it was not required by our current
permit. It would not cost additional staff time implementing an incentive program if the City continued
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 10
not to do inspections. He noted that some older homes never had used the storm system, but were still
paying which meant they were subsidizing the program. They needed to find a way to make it equitable.
Mr. Stouder said a major portion of the monthly residential charge was for base level service such as pipe maintenance, leaf pickup and drain clearing.
Councilor Woodrow said it sounded like it would be better to wait from the standpoint of the permit.
Mr. Stouder said waiting for certainty in the permit would help them to know what the City would need to do in the future. At that time, they may need to come to Council with rate increases as well.
Councilor Woodrow said it may be best to wait to see what standards were set before setting an incentive program. If they gave someone credit, she felt staff should be making inspections to make
sure they were staying in compliance. She would prefer to wait for the DEQ requirements.
Councilor VanGordon agreed that it made more sense to wait and determine the compliance
requirements. He would like to know what the City would get and the cost difference between the incentive and the savings to the City.
Mr. Stouder said it would be very low impact on the City’s system. Councilor VanGordon asked if there was something else the City could spend $105,000 on that could
make a bigger impact.
Mr. Stouder said the quantity of runoff was not a big impact, but the stricter rules on runoff may make
more impact in the future.
Councilor Moore said her husband wanted to put in a rain garden for environmental reasons rather
than a cost savings. She agreed it might not be the right time and that they should wait to see where the standards were going. She noted that five years ago when they remodeled, they were required to make
sure the runoff was going to the street. Things were changing. Councilor Ralston said he was supportive of a program. He wasn’t sure the timing was a bad thing as
it would put us ahead of the curve. He would prefer to do something ahead of time. Ms. Bishop said when staff met with Council in April and September, they believed the permit
renewal would be ready sooner, but it had been pushed out. Mr. Stouder said the DEQ was looking to ramp up the restrictions on smaller communities. If the City
did something ahead it was nice, but it didn’t usually benefit the City in terms of future expectations.
Councilor Brew asked if the costs outlined in the table only impacted residential users. He asked if
they were normally segregated between residential and commercial.
Mr. Stouder said this was just showing the impact to the residential rates. The last time staff discussed
the commercial rate structure with Council, they were fine with the current structure.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 11
Ms. Bishop said currently commercial customers had a different rate structure so the costs were not
spread across residential and commercial in this example.
Councilor Brew compared this with a company that was releasing pollutants and waiting to do something to affect it until new regulations mandated the City to do something. He would like to be ahead of the curve.
Mayor Lundberg said her experience was that the DEQ could dramatically change what the City was
required to do at a significant cost to the City. She noted that there was no stormwater system along
her street with older houses because that was how things were done when they were built. The City then went to runoff into the stormwater system and was now looking at rain gardens as less impactful.
If they set up a system, they needed to be cognizant of those that never had impacted the system. She
agreed that when the DEQ came out with our permit, updates would be included.
Mr. Stouder said the only certainty was that what was in the permit would remain, plus additional
requirements.
Mayor Lundberg said the City would be creating more codes to keep up with those regulations. Councilor Ralston asked what would happen if someone could prove they weren’t affecting the
system. Mayor Lundberg said the question would be how to reward people equally. She was not supportive of
an incentive, and was happy to pay her portion for the operations and maintenance of the system.
Council was fine waiting until the permit and DEQ standards were received before moving forward.
4. Acquisition of Pedestrian Level Lighting Fixtures.
Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett presented the staff report on this item. Council had directed staff to move forward on a program to provide pedestrian level lighting in downtown. On November 25, 2013,
Council directed staff to begin implementing a seven phase project which would, as funds became available, provide new lighting and other new amenities to the downtown streets. A significant portion of the cost of those projects, which all taken together totaled almost $5 million over a number of years,
was the cost of the lighting fixtures. Staff estimated that new fixtures alone would cost over $700,000.
Staff learned that the City of San Diego was undertaking a complete renovation of its Gas Lamp district. As part of this renovation, they were removing and disposing of thousands of light fixtures
which were remarkably similar to those recently installed on North A Street. The approved disposal contractor for the City of San Diego, WestCoast Light Recycling LLC, agreed to sell those fixtures to the City for $85 each, well under half the price of new fixtures on the market today. Staff estimated
that for a total of about $315,000 the fixtures could be refit with LED lighting, recoated to black (they were currently blue) and prepared for installation on poles. This compared with a cost of $781,550 for
new fixtures, fully fitted. Neither of these costs included the purchase price of new poles.
Staff proposed to buy 500 of these fixtures, at a total cost of $42,500. The fixtures would be stored at a City site and held until the downtown light projects advanced to the point of requiring them. Staff
proposed to fund the purchase with $5,000 of Downtown SEDA funding and $37,500 in Street fund
resources. If agreeable to the Council, in the future SEDA would “buy” fixtures from the Street Fund
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 12
as the lighting projects advanced so that ultimately the costs of fixtures needed in Downtown would be
borne by urban renewal funds. This would also allow the City to use some of the fixtures for replacement and installation in other areas of the City.
Mr. Barnett displayed two fixtures: one similar to those currently in place on A Street; and one similar to those they would purchase from San Diego. He distributed photos of the lights that would be
available showing a more detailed look at the base. He described the fixtures from San Diego. Mr. Barnett said there was some risk in buying used lights and the extra fixtures would need to be stored.
Councilor Ralston said it was a great deal and would do a lot for the image of the City.
Councilor Brew asked if there was a secondary market for the high pressure units they would be
removing.
Mr. Barnett said it was not likely since most cities were switching to LED.
Councilor Brew asked if new development coming in would need to purchase lighting.
Mr. Barnett said during the November Council meeting, phasing of the lighting project downtown was presented. Some of the phasing was as development occurred. The Council’s approval of that lighting
project was the authority to use these lights anywhere in downtown. Councilor Brew asked if it would make sense to buy more than needed and sell the excess to
developers as they needed.
Mr. Barnett said he was not sure if they had the financial resources and storage available now to get
additional lights. The space they were anticipating using was at Booth Kelly, but if any of those spaces were leased out, they would lose that space.
Councilor Brew said they could be stored outside before being powder coated.
Councilor Woodrow said she liked the idea of recycling and felt this was a good opportunity. She would like to utilize local students or groups to help with powder coating or other work with these lights.
Mr. Barnett said powder coating required sandblasting and spraying and baking so there were limited facilities that could do that work. They could form a partnership with Lane Community College (LCC)
or other trade group for the electrical retrofit. Councilor Ralston suggested the Library do a fundraiser for people to buy a street light for $100 to
help pay for it. It would be similar to buying bricks for the theater.
Councilor Moore said this was such a good deal and she would like to get as many as possible. She
asked how old they were.
Mr. Barnett said some were three years old and others much older. The Washington fixture was the
most common fixture in the United States and had been made for years. They would be cleaned, painted and retrofitted so would be almost like new. The provider was going to try to get the best ones
for the City to buy, but there could be some that were broken.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 13
Councilor Woodrow asked how much area 500 fixtures would cover.
Mr. Barnett said all of downtown in the district. He referred to a map from the November meeting. Councilor Woodrow said she had been approached about putting lighting on the block by the
downtown post office.
Mr. Barnett said they would need more, but could order new since they were still made.
Discussion was held regarding the cost per light before they were powder coated and if they could get
a better price if they ordered 1000 instead of 500.
Mayor Lundberg suggested offering $50 per light for 1000 lights, and see if we could get a better
price.
5. Master Fees and Charges Schedule – Spring 2014 Update.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. Council and staff reviewed proposed fee increases at the February 3 work session. Council members asked that two fees be
brought back for subsequent discussion prior to a formal request for adoption. These two fees were Dog Licenses and Over the Street Banners. In addition, staff would take the opportunity to bring back to Council for review an alternate fee schedule for a Sewer Connection Fee – Unassessed (Sewer in
Lieu of Assessment Fee) for the Franklin/McVay Sanitary Sewer Extension project that was also discussed as a separate February 3 work session topic.
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.
Mr. Duey summarized changes in the dog license fees related to unaltered pets and over-the-street banners. Staff was still looking at incentives for unaltered pets.
Councilor Woodrow thanked staff for the definitions and felt $250 for commercial kennels was fine. The new proposal listed $20 for the senior rate for unaltered pets, but she was comfortable with $25 or
$30 for seniors to keep the incentive for them to get their pet altered. Council agreed to a $30 fee for unaltered pets belonging to seniors.
Mr. Duey spoke regarding the over-the-street banner and said the recommended fee last week was
$150. Staff felt that was reasonable.
Councilor Woodrow asked if it was possible to make the over-the-street fee discretionary.
Mr. Grimaldi said it was difficult to differentiate between events when people came to him or other staff for a reduction or waiver.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 10, 2014 Page 14
Mayor Lundberg said she would suggest leaving it at $150. Most non-profits could afford the fee if
they could afford the banner. It would be part of their costs. She was comfortable with $150.
Council agreed to the $150 fee. Mr. Duey asked if there were comments about the recommended in lieu of assessment fee of eighteen
cents. There were none.
Councilor Moore introduced Will Abel, an LCC student who was into Political Science who had
attended the meeting this evening.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest:
____________________ Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2014
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused)
1. Arts Commission Applicant Interviews.
Librarian and Arts Commission Liaison Kristen Cure presented the staff report on this item. In
response to news releases in December 2013 and January 2014, the Arts Commission received four applications for four vacancies. The Arts Commission reviewed and met with all applicants during its
February 11, 2014 meeting.
The Arts Commission recommended that Richard Reed and Amy Orre be appointed to the Arts
Commission to fill the two vacancies left by term expirations for full terms that expire December 31, 2017. The Arts Commission recommended that Donald Durland and Jeanette Buxton be appointed to the Arts Commission to complete the two vacancies left by resignations for partial terms that expire
December 31, 2015. Richard Reed is a painter, sculptor, potter and author. He has worked in many communities on the restoration of historic buildings and redevelopment of vibrant downtown areas, most notably, in St. Paul Minnesota. Amy Orre has a BA in art and was experienced in teaching
elementary school children in extracurricular activities. She currently works part-time as a youth activity leader at Willamalane. Donald Durland served for six years on the Springfield Arts
Commission from 2002-2008. He is a practicing artist and retired from higher education, where he
taught classes in the visual arts. Jeanette Buxton is a musician who has served on the Oakland (OR) library board, the Oakland Museum board, the City Parks Commission, and co-founded the Maui
Youth Theater and Maui Symphony Orchestra.
The Arts Commission believed the candidates were eligible and qualified to serve on the commission.
The Council was requested to review the Arts Commissions’ recommendations and interview the candidates at the Work Session and appoint 4 members to the Arts Commission during the Regular Meeting on March 3.
The Mayor and Council chose the questions they would ask of each of the applicants. The Mayor and Council introduced themselves to the applicants. They interviewed the following applicants: Richard
Reed, Amy Orre and Jeanette Buxton. Donald Durland was ill and not able to attend the interview. 1. Why are you interested in serving on the Arts Commission? (Mayor)
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 18, 2014 Page 2
2. Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become an
Arts Commissioner. (Councilor Brew) 3. Describe your familiarity with the Springfield Arts Commission’s past or current community
arts initiatives. (Councilor VanGordon) 4. Which initiatives are you interested in working on if you are appointed as a Commissioner? (Councilor Ralston)
5. Have you attended an Arts Commission meeting? If so, what were your impressions? (Councilor Moore)
Council discussed the qualifications of each applicant. Mayor Lundberg asked Councilor Woodrow for her feedback regarding the absent applicant who she met during the interviews with the Arts
Commission.
After discussion and input from Councilor Woodrow, Council agreed to appoint the four applicants to
the Arts Commission during the March 3 regular meeting. Two of the applicants would be appointed
to fill out the last two years of a full term (Donald Durland and Jeanette Buxton) and two applicants would be appointed to fill a full four-year term (Richard Reed and Amy Orre).
2. Lane Transit District (LTD) Route Review.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi introduced Ron Kilcoyne, General Manager and Andy Vobora, Director of Customer Services and Planning from Lane Transit District (LTD).
LTD was proposing to adjust the current service along Main Street (Route 11) to provide service south of Main Street. The new service would provide service along 32nd Street to Jasper Road and 42nd Street. LTD was also proposing to eliminate Route 19 which served the Willamalane Adult Activity
Center, Mill Street, Fairview Drive North of Centennial Boulevard and Aspen Street North of Centennial.
Mr. Kilcoyne said several open houses would be held over the next few months, including one in Springfield. Public hearings would be held on March 19 and April 7. The Board will take action at the
April meeting on the final draft with any changes generated from the open houses or public hearings.
Mr. Vobora presented a power point on this topic. In 2010, LTD restructured their system during the
recession based on input from the community. The proposed changes were the first time LTD had added services back in four years. Normally, this would have gone to the staff group much earlier in the process which would have led to an earlier discussion with the Council. Most of the focus was on
needs for the future. He previewed a map showing Route 11 that went through Springfield and out to
Thurston. This was a very active and productive route. He noted that they had served the south area in 2008 and were now adding it back to the route.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the route would no longer go into the Thurston area to the north.
Mr. Kilcoyne said the proposed route would cover the current route 5 times an hour, and would include the south portion one time per hour.
Mr. Vobora said they felt the Thurston loop was over served at 6 times an hour, so had looked at ways to split that up as an interim solution to allow the south service.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 18, 2014 Page 3
Councilor Woodrow asked where the route ended in the northeast Thurston route during that one run.
Mr. Vobora said it would end at the roundabout on 58th and Thurston Road. He discussed the timing
issue and why it ended at that location. Councilor Woodrow expressed concern with the south route because of the number of school zones
along that route. She asked if LTD had surveyed the neighborhood about the proposed route.
Mr. Vobora said they had not done a survey, but would send a mailing one-half mile on either side of
the route inviting those neighbors to the open house where they would solicit feedback.
Councilor Woodrow said she would look forward to hearing the feedback from the neighbors.
Councilor VanGordon asked if adding the south loop would increase the ridership on this route.
Mr. Vobora said they would get an increased service area including the Relief Nursery and other neighborhoods that have grown in that area.
Councilor VanGordon said he would expect to hear that ridership would increase with the proposed route. He wanted to make sure that the change was to help increase ridership.
Mr. Vobora said they could isolate that change to determine what type of impact it was having. When they entered a new neighborhood, the population was told they would study the change for 18 months.
Mayor Lundberg asked if there were any stops currently in the area along Main Street.
Mr. Vobora said that main line service would remain. He explained further. They were looking for feedback from people about the times and routes. With the proposed new route, the RideSource
boundary would also change. He noted the current RideSource boundary and how it would change,
providing service to more people in that area.
Mayor Lundberg asked if RideSource was a cost to LTD. Mr. Vobora said that was correct. He reviewed the Fairview route and boarding information. This was
a low ridership route that was costly for LTD. The stops with the most ridership were close to Centennial and could be an option. LTD staff was recommending the Fairview route be removed. They were working with Willamalane to find ways to address transportation for those going to and
from the Adult Center such as using Willamalane buses. This route ran every two hours. Councilor Woodrow said whenever she had been by the Willamalane Center, she had seen several
people waiting for the bus. During inclement weather, Willamalane was not as reliable as LTD so she was concerned that people wouldn’t have access to the Center. The area near Fairview had many low-
income residents. She asked if they could alter the route so it wasn’t as big rather than remove it.
Mr. Vobora said the alternate was the Centennial Boulevard route, and the alternative for the Senior
Center was Willamalane’s bus.
Councilor Ralston asked if they could run up Mill Street.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 18, 2014 Page 4
Mr. Vobora said Mill Street was even less used.
Councilor VanGordon said he was concerned about the Senior Center as well. He recalled that in 2010
this route was nearly removed. Mr. Vobora said it was, but was reduced to number of trips instead.
Councilor VanGordon asked if things had changed since then.
Mr. Vobora said service levels actually got worse. When trying to make business decisions, they looked at productivity.
Councilor Moore asked if service for the senior center qualified for RideSource.
Mr. Vobora said some could, but if they were able to ride the normal LTD bus, they would not qualify
despite losing a route.
Councilor Brew asked how much it cost to run the Fairview route. Mr. Vobora said it was about $1000 a week. He understood that from a business standpoint it made sense to remove that route, but he would like to have them work with Bob Keefer at Willamalane to provide service.
Mr. Vobora reviewed some of the other route changes proposed that were in Eugene. He noted that they would be restoring some holiday services that had been removed. There would be other service
additions in the future due to growth and development. He reviewed the change for the Veterans Clinic and how it affected the Gateway area. He discussed the open houses scheduled in the next two
months.
Councilor Woodrow said she was not happy with the proposals. She felt that Route 19 was being
swapped out for the south Main route. She would like to see community response for the Jasper area.
It was a nice quiet neighborhood with a lot of kids which caused her concern for safety.
Councilor Moore liked the change to south of Main. Mayor Lundberg said with 10 minute service, buses were full. A route running once an hour was not
convenient and people may not ride for that reason. This was not a good time for the change to the route running south of Main because of the other Main Street projects going on at this time.
Mr. Vobora said this was just the beginning of the process. The proposal for south Main was a trade-off to get neighborhood coverage. If that was less of a desire than service on Main Street, they would take that into consideration. They looked forward to hearing from the neighborhood.
Mr. Kilcoyne said the Route 19 and the route going south of Main Street were completely separate
issues. There was no cost for the south of Main proposal.
Mayor Lundberg said she would like to see how things went over the first year. There were a lot of
changes coming to the area in the future. She thanked them for the presentation.
ADJOURNMENT
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 18, 2014 Page 5
The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2014
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 at 7:01 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie (by conference phone), Moore,
Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Finance Director Bob Duey, City Attorney Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
a. Approval of January 2014 Disbursements for Approval
2. Minutes
a. January 27, 2014 – Work Session b. February 4, 2014 – JEO Public Hearing
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6310 – AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, AND WILLAMALANE
PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT; AND WITHDRAWING THE SAME TERRITORY FROM THE GLENWOOD WATER DISTRICT.
5. Other Routine Matters IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
ITEMS REMOVED
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not
yield their time to others.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 18, 2014 Page 2
1. Telecommunications Business License Tax.
ORDINANCE NO. 2 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 4.600 “DEFINITIONS” TO ADD/AMEND DEFINITIONS TO TELECOMMUNICATION BUSINESS LICENSE TAX, AND AMENDING SECTION 4.706 “FEES FOR USE OF PUBLIC WAYS”, SECTION 4.712 “REGULATORY FEES AND
COMPENSATION NOT A TAX”, SECTION 4.714 “PENALTIES AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT”, AND SECTION 4.716 “AUDITS”, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Development and Public Works Department Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this
item. Currently, under Springfield City Code, a telecommunications company with facilities in the
City’s right-of-way pays a fee for use of the right-of-way. Other cities charged utilities a franchise fee or a business license fee.
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILEC), companies leftover from the break-up of the Bell monopoly in the 1980s, were taxed differently from other utilities creating a disparity in the market.
Under State statute, cities were limited to charging ILECs 7% on the revenue from local exchange service for use of a city’s right of way. “Local Exchange Service” revenue was only that revenue that resulted from the dial tone access charge, approximately $12.60 per month. Revenue generated from
the other telecommunication services—such as cellular backhaul, voicemail, call forwarding, caller identification, call waiting, and other modern amenities—were not calculated as a part of the 7% fee. In contrast to ILEC, other utilities (such as Comcast) were charged a fee of 5% of gross revenue—
essentially all of the revenue the company earns.
CenturyLink, the local ILEC, paid the City seven percent of the local exchange charge (that charge
was about $12.60 a month per customer). On the other hand, Comcast, CenturyLink’s principal competitor in Springfield, paid based on five percent of the total bill (about $65 per month per
customer).
At a work session on February 10, 2014, staff reviewed an alternative approach which would change
the right-of-way user fee from a fee for using the right-of-way to a tax on doing business. The tax
would not be subject to the State limitation. No change was proposed for the rate—currently five percent of gross revenue.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
1. Tim Goodman, Director of Government Affairs, Comcast, Beaverton, OR. Mr. Goodman
thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak on this subject. He was here on behalf of Comcast and in place of Sanford Inouye who had recently retired from Comcast. Comcast felt
the ordinance brought parity to the tax situation among telecom companies and was fully supportive of the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 18, 2014 Page 3
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance Amending Springfield Municipal Code 6.060.
ORDINANCE NO. 3 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE 6.060 BY ADDING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT
WITH PRIVATE, PUBLIC OR NON-PROFIT PARKING ENFORCEMENT SERVICE
PROVIDERS (FIRST READING)
Senior Management Analyst Courtney Griesel presented the staff report on this item. The current
Springfield Municipal Code language limited the enforcement of parking violations to police department personnel only. In an effort to expand opportunities and efficiencies in parking
enforcement and program management, staff was proposing the attached amendment to Chapter 6.060 which would allow the City to contract with certified parking enforcement service providers.
On January 6, staff brought amendments to Springfield Municipal Code Section 6.060 to Council for a first reading. The Springfield Municipal Code currently stated the Police Department shall enforce parking within Springfield. This code language did not allow the City to contract or partner with other
parking enforcement service providers, which limited opportunities for partnerships, potential cost savings, and improved service delivery.
Following the January 6 first reading, it was brought to staff’s attention that the code as amended excluded the possibility of partnering with another public entity to provide enforcements services.
The amended ordinance highlighted additional language to be added which would allow the City to
contract with a public entity in addition to a private or non-profit organization.
Council was asked to adopt the proposed ordinance in order to allow for the opportunity to contract
with certified parking enforcement service providers for the enforcement of parking violations as outlined in sections 6.005 to 6.075.
No immediate fiscal impact was anticipated.
Mayor Lundberg said she liked the idea that this provided additional options. A concern was that there would be a dramatic change to parking which would have people upset since there would be enforcement. She was pleased they were making this change.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 18, 2014 Page 4
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Moore noted that Christina Payne was the new Executive Director of Lane
Workforce Partnership (LWP). Ms. Payne’s first meeting was this month and Councilor Moore felt she was doing a great job. There were a lot of changes coming in the future for LWP.
2. Councilor Woodrow gave kudos to Springfield’s Animal Control. A dog was reported
missing in Springfield and was posted on FaceBook. Councilor Woodrow reported it
to Brian Austin, Animal Control Officer, who had found the dog. The owner and dog were reunited within 20 minutes of that phone call. Brian Austin has done an
excellent job staying on top of that and using social media to facilitate the process.
3. Councilor Wylie said she was having a wonderful vacation in the sunshine.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:15 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________
Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest:
____________________
City Recorder