HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/2014 Work SessionCity 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 greatjob 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 1LECs 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 CentutyLink challenged the Portland ordinance in Circuit Court last year, the Court granted
summaryjudgment 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. Be 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 I 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 thepurchase 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 Recor er