Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 7/21/2014 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) June 9, 2014 – Work Session b) June 16, 2014 – Work Session c) June 16, 2014 – Regular Meeting DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY JUNE 9, 2014 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday June 9, 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. Communications Manager Neil Laudati presented the staff report on this item. Greg James, Chair of the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI), joined Mr. Laudati for the presentation. In 2013, a small sub-committee made up of members of the City Council, the City Attorney’s Office and the City Manager’s Office met on several occasions 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. The issue was then forwarded by the City Council to the Springfield Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) for review and direction. A survey was released on April 3, to all city boards and commissions via email and to the community at-large via the city’s social media sites, websites and email lists. Local media outlets also covered the survey and provided information on how to participate. Over the course of two weeks, 282 people took the survey, with 76-percent of those surveyed in favor of supporting a charter amendment. The unedited responses, along with all public comments, can be found on Attachment 1. A public hearing took place on May 20. No one spoke on the issue. The CCI recommends that the council move forward in placing a charter amendment regarding council compensation on the ballot in Novembers, 2014 with the following additional consideration: That the base compensation be at $300 a month for councilors with an allowance for cost of living for future years. And, the Mayor start at $500 per month with the same cost of living application. Decision points: 1. Move forward with a ballot measure using the recommendation from the CCI and discussion from the council 2. Hold a public hearing prior to moving forward with a ballot measure 3. Keep the charter as is with no changes and no ballot measure City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 2 Next steps if council decides to move forward (prior to July 21): 1. Finalize compensation options 2. Prepare ballot title Mr. James said the CCI knew they needed to vet this issue and get input to provide the councilors with the information they needed to move forward. He reviewed the survey and the results of the survey, including the comments received. He noted that nine of the comments stated that the amount wasn’t enough. Six of the comments indicated that it was important that the compensation is indexed so the Council could not change it on their own. He had done some outreach to the Springfield Chamber of Commerce to invite people to speak during the public hearing to provide input to the CCI. Although they had not taken any formal action, the Executive Director of the Chamber said the Chamber was generally in support of the Council stipend. The CCI unanimously passed a recommendation to place Council compensation on the November ballot at $300 for councilors and $500 for the Mayor. Councilor Ralston asked how any of this affected the reimbursements for the cell phone and internet. Mr. Laudati said they would still receive reimbursement for those items. Mr. James said the survey was set up to address the stipend only. Councilor Woodrow said the possibility of a COLA increase was noted in the agenda information. She would prefer to increase the base compensation to $400 (councilors) and $600 (Mayor) rather than a COLA increase, with a two year review by the Budget Committee or CCI. She agreed it should not be in the Council’s hands to increase the amount. There are many ways to determine a COLA so it might be difficult to choose. Councilor VanGordon asked about the impact for those currently on Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Mr. Grimaldi said there should be no impact since this will be a stipend rather than paid from payroll. Councilor VanGordon asked if it would be possible to exclude PERS or healthcare in the Charter amendment. Ms. Smith said they will likely be changing the language in the Charter, not just removing the current language. The new language could include something about the stipend being reviewed bi-annually by the Budget Committee. It will probably be best not to include anything in the Charter regarding health care. Charter’s she had looked at included an option of choosing health care. Language can be drafted to eliminate any reference to health care so nothing could be read into it. Councilor VanGordon said he was not in favor of going forward with this at this time because he felt the community was relatively divided on the issue. As a group they normally act on behalf of the entire community. This will only benefit the Council, so he was more cautious. His preference was that if this was something they are concerned about, they have the citizens file a referendum or initiative to place it on the ballot. He felt they may expend some of the goodwill they have built in the community. He didn’t feel the Council should be the group to initiate the action. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 3 Councilor Ralston said it was in their best interest and the people that serve on the Council. There may be people that don’t run due to the financial impacts and he felt the community would understand that. Our citizens are well informed and support Council decisions. He asked if this would be a taxable income or just a stipend. Mr. Laudati said it would be taxable. Discussion was held regarding the impact of additional income for those on social security. Councilor Moore said she saw being a councilor as a volunteer position and $300 a month would not change that. She didn’t think they were making a decision, but were giving the citizens an opportunity to make a decision. She is not just thinking of this Council, but of Council’s in the future. Many people discover once they are on the Council how much more time is involved in being a Councilor. That might be something they publicized more. She appreciated Mr. Laudati’s effort to get the word out about what the Council does and time spent. She felt they should go forward to put this on the ballot. If citizens disagreed, they would vote accordingly. She thought they had originally chosen $400 and $600. If they started at $300 and $500, adding a 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) would not be much. She felt the citizens should be given the option to vote on this topic. Councilor Brew said he was supportive of moving forward, and was ambivalent about amount. It is a reasonable recognition that there are real costs to being on the Council. No one expects to make money serving on the Council, but doesn’t expect to lose money either. The voters should have the chance to decide. He agreed it should go to either the Budget Committee or CCI to make recommendation of any future raises. Mayor Lundberg agreed to take it to the voters, but did not want to build in a mechanism to raise the rate without the voters’ approval. People are not happy when things they vote on get changed down the road. Even if it goes to another committee, it is out of the hands of voters and voters could see the potential for abuse. She would advocate for a variation or mechanism outside of a COLA that could be built in to assure voters there would not be abuse, but would change over time. Ms. Smith said if they put a flat amount in the Charter, any change would need to be changed by an amendment in the Charter, which would require a vote. The only community that had the COLA increase was Eugene. They included language in their Charter that they would use the Portland consumer price index (CPI), and if there ever became a Eugene CPI, it would switch to that. Another option would be to have another City committee, such as the Budget Committee, make any adjustments. It might be difficult to include the voters without going through a Charter amendment or other election format. Ms. Smith said she drafted a ballot title based on the CCI recommendation of $300 and $500 with the CPI used for increases. They would need to include the details of the effect in the explanatory statement. Councilor Moore said they may need clarification of how a stipend could affect social security. It was decided that was not necessary. Mr. Grimaldi said Council needed to provide direction to staff about what they want in the ballot title. That ballot title would then be drafted and could be brought back for review during another work session, followed by a regular meeting to put it on the ballot. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 4 Councilor Brew said they could put something in the language that any increase approved by the CCI would be no greater than the Portland CPI. It seemed wasteful to go back to the voters each time an increase was needed. Councilor Ralston said he liked the method used by Eugene. It is not controlled by a group, but based on a financial environment that exists, whether it is the Portland CPI or some other standard. He didn’t want it to be more complicated than it had to be or have to go back to the voters each time. Councilor Woodrow said it wasn’t cost efficient to go to the voters with each increase. If they had something locked in that would be used, the citizens would be voting on that. If someone wanted a major change, it would probably be a long time down the road. She is comfortable with $300/$500 or $400/$600. Mayor Lundberg said this would not preclude them from going back for another Charter amendment. They need to have more information regarding the Portland CPI and one more work session. Mr. Grimaldi asked if they wanted to see the ballot title with a dollar amount and the Portland CPI, along with information on the Portland CPI. The goal would be to come out of that work session with the final language for the ballot title. Mr. James said the CCI was very willing to do whatever they need to get this on the ballot and get information out to the public. 2. Costs and Impacts of City Administration of Nuisance Code Enforcement in the Urban Transition Area. Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. The topic of effective code enforcement in the UTA has been the subject of several previous Council discussions primarily because the Springfield Municipal Court, and by extension the effective implementation of Springfield’s codes, has no jurisdiction outside the city limits. This condition has persisted ever since the County transferred Urban Transition Area planning and building authority to the City in 1987. All of the City’s efforts to date to enforce land use and building codes in the Urban Transition Area have relied upon cooperative compliance or in extreme circumstances, an appearance at Circuit Court. The Council Briefing Memorandum includes the analysis of providing nuisance code enforcement organized into three principal discussion sections: 1) The codes and programs subject to city administration in the Urban Transition Area; 2) the costs to implement the Administrative Civil Penalties process; and, 3) the impacts to the code enforcement program in general and inside the city limits in particular. The analysis of implementing nuisance code enforcement in the Urban Transition Area identifies three components, and their costs, necessary to accomplish this program authority. These include creating an Administrative Civil Penalties process; installing the equipment and adopting the procedures needed to support the Administrative Civil Penalties process; and providing the staff resources needed to accommodate the volume of work generated by the City’s code enforcement programs. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 5 The City also enforced portions of the Springfield Fire Code as part of an obligation of a contract service the City provides for the water districts. That includes about 40-50 inspections annually for businesses to identify violations of the Fire Code. The City also has jurisdiction over illicit discharges. That is performed through our contract with Lane County and includes inspections and violations. Police have enforcement for animal control in the city limits only. The only service people aren’t receiving in that area is the nuisance code. In order for the City’s Nuisance Code to have an effect in that area is to have an enforcement tool. The only thing that works outside of the City limits is the Administrative Civil Penalties process which provides the City with the ability to cite people to encourage them to comply. If they object to that, they go to the Hearings Official. Staff recommends the Administrative Civil Penalties be applied to the Nuisance Code in the UTA. Circuit Court was not practical to use on a regular basis due to cost, etc. Councilor Brew asked if we would be enforcing the County or City nuisance code. Mr. Mott said the City Code. We would not want to enforce the County Nuisance Code because it is not as stringent as the City’s. Councilor Brew said he recalled that one option could be for the County to adopt the City’s nuisance code. Mr. Mott said they would still need to do that and the City would enforce. The City and County have an existing agreement related to land use and buildings to have the Hearings Official, but that person has only acted on land use. Staff feels they could adjust that IGA so the Hearings Official would have the authority to hear appeals of the nuisance citation. The third element is whether or not this change would have an effect on our existing code enforcement program inside city limits. It would and the City would likely need to hire additional enforcement code staff. To implement the Nuisance Code in the UTA, along with the Administrative Civil Penalties process with staffing, the estimated cost would be about $117,000 the first year, and $107,000-$110,000 each subsequent year. This is just an estimate because they don’t know how many citations might be issued, and how many of those might go to the Hearings Official. It could be comparable to action occurring within the City limits. This also opened up the ability for the City to cite for violations of the Development Code, Building Code and Fire Code, closing the loop on what we currently have in place. Councilor Ralston asked why it wasn’t being enforced now by Lane County. Mr. Mott said the County is enforcing their Nuisance Code, but they have fewer violations. They do exercise some selective enforcement and their remedies are different. He explained. Mr. Grimaldi said the County has a less stringent code geared toward a county environment with larger properties. The City has more stringent codes for the urban environment. Mr. Mott said they have only one staff person to enforce their code in the whole County. Councilor Ralston asked if the City could contract for that service from Lane County to save us money. Mr. Grimaldi said staff could ask the County. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 6 Councilor Ralston said he is concerned we will be imposing our codes in an area where properties are bigger, and they have and expect more freedom. Mr. Grimaldi said this would only be for properties between the City limits and urban growth boundary (UGB). Many of those areas are developed like the City, although not all. Councilor Ralston said he does not want to adversely affect those that are not developed. Mr. Mott said the County’s code included a distinction between County property inside or outside the City’s UGB. Many of the codes enacted by the City, except the Nuisance Code, have been co-adopted by the County. If the City talked to the County about contracting through the City to do the enforcement, they would insist it remain just in that area (between City limits and the UGB). Councilor Woodrow said because they were in the urban transition area (UTA), they are in an area that could come into the City. There is currently no one taking care of the situations of people concerned about violations by the neighbors through Code Enforcement. She would like to see the City pursue this to provide a better way to take care of these situations. The City needs to step up enforcement. Councilor Brew he felt that this was a City service paid for by City taxes that they are considering giving to people not annexed to the City. He sympathized with those in this area, but didn’t feel City citizens should pay for this service for people outside the City. Councilor Moore referred to Attachment 1, page 5, which stated, “The provision of this service outside the city limits without cost might be regarded by some as an action in contradiction with the city’s efforts to incentivize annexation”; but also noted that the City will benefit from the establishment and implementation of an Administrative Civil Penalties process to provide a mechanism for enforcement of all of the city’s existing programs in the Urban Transition Area currently without such a tool. It seems reasonable for those residents who might eventually annex into the City to already meet City Code. She also sees that this will benefit the County. She agreed they should try to contract with the County to cover the costs the City will be taking on. Mr. Mott said one of the benefits was that people would come to the City for all land use and building needs, making it easier for developers. Having the City enforce those codes simplifies things. Councilor Woodrow asked what the difference was between the UGB and UTA. Mr. Mott said there are approximately 4800 acres within the UTA. Other than the County sanitarian, County Commissioner or sheriff, people came to the City for most everything else. Individuals can only annex their own property and land must be contiguous. That is one reason the City chose to annex Franklin Boulevard, so all of the properties along that road would be contiguous. Mr. Grimaldi said if one neighbor annexes, and the other neighbor does not, there is no Code enforcement for violations by the non-annexed neighbor. Councilor VanGordon asked about the costs after implementation. Mr. Mott said he is comfortable with the cost for City staff necessary to staff the hearings official and code enforcement program, and of hosting our system. What is not known is how many times the hearings official will conduct business. The hearings official would be hearing all cases, not just those City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 7 for nuisances. If the City chose not to enforce the Nuisance Code in the UTA, but wanted to go forward with the Administrative Civil Penalties, we would still need the hearings official at a cost of approximately $6000-$8000. Councilor VanGordon asked if with the amount of households and number of cases would drop over time, or would it remain about the same. Mr. Mott said nuisances can sometimes be centered around a particular neighborhood. Because people know the City doesn’t address nuisance in the UTA, people don’t call so it is difficult to have a good sense of what is out there, so they are comparing them to City calls. Once it becomes common knowledge that the City is enforcing, they may see more than they are predicting. It will eventually level out. The costs would not increase substantially, but may change by a few thousand dollars. Councilor Brew said the difference was that people are paying for the building permit, fire code, and illicit discharge. This is a service no one is paying for unless we get something from the County. Perhaps they could implement a district or non-district rate. Councilor Moore asked what other cities in Lane County did regarding nuisance codes, building codes, fire codes, etc. Mr. Mott said Eugene has the same IGA for land use building as Springfield. The Nuisance Code in the UTA around Eugene is handled by Lane County. He didn’t believe other cities had the same agreement for the land use and building permits due to lack of resources. Councilor Moore asked if we could implement a fee. Mr. Mott said currently the City charges UTA applicants more than City applicants for building and land use. Councilor Moore asked if we could have a Nuisance Code fee that was higher. Mr. Grimaldi said it would be difficult to make it pencil out. Councilor Ralston said he felt they needed to move forward, but that they needed to collect something. He would like to approach Lane County to subcontract at least half that amount. He also felt they should charge more for those in the UTA that use the hearings official. It isn’t fair to the citizens of Springfield to have to foot that bill. The area north of Springfield was very dense like neighborhoods, but those areas south of Springfield included large acreages. There should be a way to distinguish different situations based on lot size. Mayor Lundberg said she is fine charging extra for those not in City limits. She wouldn’t go so far as to designate separate areas because it could get very complicated and she wants to keep it simple. She is in favor of enforcement of our Code in this area and agreed they should speak to the County about sharing the cost listed. One of the areas they are having issues is Glenwood, which will be annexed sometime in the future. If they enforce the code now, they can get some things cleaned up better before they get annexed. Councilor Ralston said they need to use some reason because the farmers that live in the south area have numerous vehicles on their property with tractors and trucks. If he lived in the county, he would City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 8 expect to be entitled to certain things. We can’t expect our standards to be acceptable to someone who lives on ten acres. Mayor Lundberg said the issues revolve around neighborhood areas, and is complaint driven. Mr. Grimaldi said the first step will be to talk with the County to see if a portion of the funding can come from the County. Staff will also look at possible fees associated with going to the hearings official. After gathering that information, staff will come back to the Council. He noted that he spoke to the new County Administrator who has some ideas he will discuss with his staff. If that discussion goes well, it may be something they can move forward with at a lower cost. Mr. Mott said staff was going to bring the Administrative Civil Penalties to Council as a separate topic. That item has been rescheduled to September. Whether or not that topic needs to come to Council will depend on decisions made regarding the Nuisance Code. 3. Street System Communication Update and Revenue Options. Deputy Development and Public Works Director Anette Spickard and Operations Manager Brian Conlon presented the staff report on this item. She thanked staff members Rhonda Rice, Greg Ferschweiller, Bob Duey, Len Goodwin and Jeff Paschall for their work in getting this information together. A power point was presented. The City of Springfield shares the same struggle that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and numerous Oregon counties and cities face regarding adequate funding for transportation system needs. The City of Springfield continues to look for appropriate and sufficient revenues to support desired levels of transportation system operations, maintenance and preservation. Staff estimates a $4.5 million annual unfunded need to effectively support the City’s transportation system operations and preservation objectives, in addition to an approximate $25 million backlog of more comprehensive street rehabilitation projects. At the October 28, 2013 Council Work Session, staff was asked to explore in more detail potential revenue options that can inform the next step of polling citizens on a preferred approach to begin addressing the funding gap problem. At Council’s direction from the October 2013 work session, staff has researched potential Street Fund revenue options to address the $25 Million rehabilitation backlog and the annual $4.5 Million operations and preservation unmet need. Our research shows that Springfield is not alone in dealing with street system funding challenges. According to information provided by the League of Oregon Cities there are 23 cities that have implemented a Local Fuel Tax and 34 cities that have implemented a Transportation User Fee. Springfield is primarily reliant on State and Local Fuel Tax for our Street Fund but both State and Local Fuel Tax revenues have remained relatively flat, continuing a trend that began in mid-FY08. The majority of feedback and suggestions staff received during presentations of the Street System Communication Plan to numerous community and civic groups centered around two potential revenue approaches: debt financing, such as voter approved general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, or municipal loans; and “pay as you go” methods, such as increasing local fuel taxes and/or implementation of a transportation system maintenance fee. The goal of any approach is to match system operations, preservation, and rehabilitation objectives with the appropriate revenue source and amount. In the briefing memorandum staff provides for your discussion potential strategies for the City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 9 short, medium and long term that Council may consider as reasonable solutions to address the street preservation and rehabilitation needs of our community. Mr. Conlon said the City has faced street funding problems since 2003, continuing with preservation for about three years until 2007. Since that time, the City has not funded preservation activities. The unfunded backlog at that time was about $4.5 Million, and is currently $25 Million. Staff also estimated an approximate $4.5 Million funding gap which consists of operation needs ($1.5 Million) and $3 Million for continued preservation. Councilor Brew asked if the $4.5M is an annual cost, with a backlog of $25 Million. Mr. Conlon said that is correct. The two are separate. It is important to fund preservation annually so we didn’t lose more streets. Ms. Spickard said before 2007, the City did seals on residential streets every 7 years and worked through the whole City on that cycle. The $3.5M was what it would cost to get back on that cycle. Mr. Conlon said people really notice when the problem is on the street they live. Almost every street that falls into the residential classification is due for preservation slurry. The revenue has remained flat taking in about $4.2 Million annually through State fuel tax and local fuel tax. In 2012, staff started doing public outreach and put together a communication plan that was successful. The objective was to connect for people that the street system is important to them and point out how much more complex the street systems are now. It was evident through the outreach that people believe in taking care of the streets. The solutions and options for how to fund street maintenance had not changed since the 2007 Mayor’s Task Force. Ms. Spickard referred to pictures of current conditions of City streets. Staff will try to do work on some of these segments this summer. Councilor Woodrow asked if during the outreach, the public had indicated they were amenable to an increase in a fuel tax. Mr. Conlon said when they met with civic groups, people asked why our fuel tax was different than Eugene’s. Some people were aware that the City had gone out for an increase in the fuel tax and that it failed. A 2 cent increase in the fuel tax would bring in about $650,000. Ms. Spickard said as of January 2014, any increase in the fuel tax would need to go to the voters. Councilor Ralston said the State needed to raise the gas tax enough to support all street systems. Users should be paying for it. He asked if there are any discussions going on about the State raising the rate. Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said when the Transportation Enhancement Act, Legacy for Users was enacted in 2009, there were discussions about increasing and indexing the fuel tax. At that point, the House refused to consider it then and again in 2012. At this point, there are no conversations in the current Congress about increasing the tax or indexation, even though the estimate is that by July 31, the Highway Trust Fund will be unable to pay its bills. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 10 Councilor Ralston said he is hoping that whatever the City does is temporary. They should set a goal to keep up with things. Last year he would have supported a big bond measure to take care of it all, but he’s not sure that’s the solution anymore. Tax bills are continually going up. Ms. Spickard said they could go with the two pronged strategy to get the City back on a regular preservation cycle to address the ongoing system needs with a pay-as-you-go financing method, and another funding option to address the backlog. The proposal includes exploring another gas tax ballot measure or user fee for the ongoing needs, and a possible General Obligation bond for streets and other capital improvements. Staff would bring information back to Council on those options if directed. She referred to a matrix that outlines the different mechanisms, how they are authorized, who will pay, what the revenue could be used for, how it would be collected, the potential rate and the amount it could raise. Staff did an analysis of the pros and cons of each, and which stakeholders will be impacted. She reviewed some of those options. She referred to Attachment 4 of the agenda packet which compares what other cities in Oregon are doing. Four cities have done both a fuel tax and Transportation System Maintenance Fee. Ms. Spickard said staff recommended getting Council direction to investigate implementation of the Transportation System Maintenance Fee by reaching out to people to help with the rate structure, public education and the collection method. They also proposed identifying $100,000 of existing City resources using the Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) tool to do some high priority slurry seal for residential streets and look at a future ballot measure for the local fuel tax and future bond measure. Mr. Grimaldi reminded the Council that the City will be going out for the Fire Levy in 2015 and the Police Levy in 2016. Councilor Woodrow asked how the collection of a TSMF might be handled since Springfield Utility Board (SUB) was not amendable to adding that to their bill. She wants to see how much of the potential revenue from the TSMF will be lost with the cost of administration. She asked how far $100,000 would go for slurry seal. Ms. Spickard said page 4 of Attachment 2 of the agenda packet provided a list of slurry seal projects needed. Staff would prioritize projects based on the street condition index. Mr. Conlon said one of the processes involved in doing a slurry seal was crack sealing. Staff had incorporated crack sealing into the costs listed on page 4 of Attachment 2. The chosen projects would be done right and by private contract. Councilor Woodrow spoke regarding a GO Bond for 2017 and said if they want to get it passed, they need to be very specific about the use of the funds. The first strategy is to determine the specifics for a bond. Ms. Spickard said staff would bring back to Council a list of recommended projects. Councilor Brew said they had also talked about going out for a bond for the Library. He felt a $2M revenue stream from a County vehicle registration fee could service a $22M revenue bond. If they could get the County on board to implement such a fee, it would not impact voters and it would not get in the way of a Library bond or other levies. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 11 Councilor Ralston said the Transportation User Fee didn’t seem reasonable because they didn’t have a way to collect. He also doesn’t think the GO bond is a viable option because of the levies and other possible bonds coming forward. The only things left are the gas tax and vehicle registration fee. Both have a collection process already in place. They can explore the other options, but will need to find a way to collect on them monthly. He asked what type of increase in the gas tax is needed in order to get the funds needed. Ms. Spickard said each one cent increase brought in approximately $325,000 a year. It would take a ten cent per gallon increase to fully fund our preservation gap of $3-3.5 Million. Councilor VanGordon asked if they could use the Priority Based Budgeting to find more than $100,000 for the slurry seal projects. Ms. Spickard said they could try. There are some vacant positions they could choose not to fill. Mr. Grimaldi said staff could bring back what that will look like and Council would make any decisions about how to adjust the funds. Councilor VanGordon said he wasn’t sure he wanted to go for fuel tax as it is not sustainable. He would like to see what the Transportation User Fee will look like in terms of industrial rates. Ms. Spickard said there was a wide variety of ways to structure fees using trip counts, etc. Councilor VanGordon said he is open to explore a vehicle fee and a 2017 revenue bond attached to the vehicle fee. There is no one thing that will solve the problems, but will be a package of proposals. He wants to see this word towards a steady fund for maintaining our streets and catching up on our backlog. Councilor Woodrow asked if the projected revenue from vehicles registrations was for every two years. Yes. Councilor Moore referred to an article in today’s paper about Transportation User Fees. She asked if they chose that option if it will go to the voters or just be enacted by Council. Ms. Spickard said that would be the Council’s choice. If it is enacted by ordinance, citizens could file a referendum by gathering signatures, which would put it on the ballot. Councilor VanGordon said he would like more information about everything before going forward. Ms. Spickard said staff’s recommendation took into account that Council would want to be pragmatic and inform the citizens along the way. It will take the next year to further develop options. Councilor Moore said finding a way to collect the Transportation User Fee would be key. Regarding the fuel tax, she understood the State is looking at other ways for funding. In the meantime, Eugene is collecting two cents more yet it doesn’t seem to affect the cost much. It would add money to our revenue. She asked how quickly they could put a fuel tax on the ballot. Ms. Spickard said to give them time to develop the language, it would be best to wait until May 2015. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 12 Councilor Moore said she appreciated the information provided by staff. There is no easy answer and we need more money for the roads. She is not impressed with the Transportation User Fee. Councilor Ralston said the TUF is inherently unfair for those that didn’t drive much and he would look at that as a voter. Those that drive more should pay more. The gas tax is the only common sense option. Councilor Woodrow said she looks at the TUF differently. All things that come to everyone come by road, so in a roundabout way all should pay. She didn’t have an issue with it adding $5 per household, but would if it was more. She is fine with the gas tax because gas prices jump around so much that any change would only be noticed for a short time. She didn’t want to raise it by a lot, but perhaps enough to even it up with Eugene. Mayor Lundberg said this topic has been discussed many times and there are no new options. Tough decisions had to be made. She doesn’t like the TUF and never has. Once something like that is in place, it can be raised without going back to the voters. She also felt it is not equitable in terms of number of vehicles per household. She would like to look at finding more than $100,000 through the PBB process. She doesn’t think a gas tax will pass. She noted that there is discussion about the O&C money being stabilized for the County. Those funds helped fund road projects in the past. She encouraged the City to work with the County on the registration fee and sharing that revenue. She wouldn’t mind paying a fee for tires, especially studded tires. That could include some lobbying to the State. She would encourage letting the County know they wanted to look at the registration fee. Mr. Grimaldi asked if Council wants staff to look further at all of the options presented, or if they want any of them removed from the list. Councilor Woodrow said she is comfortable removing the TUF. Mayor Lundberg said she would like staff to look at the gas tax, vehicle registration, and a capital bond that is specific for preservation. Councilor Ralston said he is proud of how Springfield is proactive, but he didn’t want to do anything that took care of all of our problems because the federal government needs to do something. He felt there are too many reasons not to do a bond, including other bond and levies already on the horizon. There is never a good time to go out for big bond measure. Councilor VanGordon said he would like to keep the bond measure on the table. They didn’t have to do it all and could reduce the amount of the bond if that’ what they chose. Councilor Woodrow said she would like to spend more time on the gas tax, vehicle registration, the increase above $100,000 through PBB, and have some discussion on a bond measure for the future. Mr. Grimaldi said the bond topic would not be brought back until further out in the future. Councilor Brew said because the City is behind on maintenance, the streets are starting to fail now. He would like to look at some type of revenue bond that did not need to go to the voters to front-load the cash needed to address the current needs. They could use the County vehicle registration fee or gas tax funds to pay for that type of bond. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 9, 2014 Page 13 Councilor Brew said he would be resigning from his Council position due to work load and moving out of Springfield. He read the email he sent to the Mayor and Mr. Grimaldi regarding his resignation. In his email, he stated "It has been an honor and a privilege to serve the citizens of Springfield over the past eighteen months. Springfield will always be my hometown, and I’m proud to say so. The City Council and the City staff have much to be proud of, and much to look forward to.” His last meeting will be July 7, 2014. Mayor Lundberg thanked Councilor Brew for his service to Springfield. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 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 MONDAY JUNE 16, 2014 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday June 16, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Annual Joint Work Session with Springfield Museum Board and Director. Administrative Specialist, Brenda Jones, introduced Jim Cupples, Springfield Museum Director. The City owns the Springfield Museum building and its permanent collection of historical artifacts. Under an agreement that renews annually, the City contracts with Springfield Museum Board (a non- profit corporation) to manage the Museum for the benefit of the community. The City / Museum Board management agreement sets forth obligations for both parties. The Management Agreement at Section 7 (Attachment 2, page 5) addresses compensation for Museum Board services. The base fee for 2013/2014 remains at $45,000. Several Museum Board members were present. Chris Stole, President was unable to attend due to a scheduling conflict. Mr. Cupples presented a slide show of the highlights from the 2013-2014 year. The Museum is a partner with businesses downtown. He discussed some of the events held at the Museum in more detail and how the events have increased visibility for all businesses downtown. He noted the partnerships between the Museum and other entities to bring fun and unique exhibits to Springfield. Mr. Cupples noted the other materials in the agenda packet, including the annual report. The Museum had set a goal to digitize and catalogue the Museum collection and that has been completed. The next step is to take a closer look at their collection with the program. A volunteer, Kurt Lantz, is working on digitizing all of their photographs. Councilor Woodrow asked if the digitized collection would be accessible to the public. Mr. Cupples said it would be accessible to the public through a request to the Museum. He hopes they could someday have it available online, but that would take a grant. That was a possibility and he would be looking for that type of grant. Councilor Moore said she had been very impressed with the events at the Museum over the last year. She thought Mr. Cupples had done a great job. Councilor VanGordon asked for more information about the Strategic Plan. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 2 Mr. Cupples said he partnered with Bob Choquette from the University of Oregon and his graduate students to develop the Strategic Plan. Mr. Cupples provided all of the Museum’s information to them. One of the things they came up with was additional administrative support for Mr. Cupples, so a part-time assistant, Tina Case, had been hired for the Museum. The Museum just received a grant of $4500 for collection materials and Ms. Case had spear-headed that effort. Councilor VanGordon said what the Museum is doing downtown was great. He enjoyed seeing the exhibits and especially the Strategic Plan to improve even more. Councilor Woodrow said she had heard a lot of people commenting on what they were seeing at the Museum. That was something new and had elevated the quality of the Museum. Mayor Lundberg said the Museum used to belong to the City – it was our building and our collection. She felt an affinity for the Museum since they are doing work for the City for their collection of historical materials. It is a very important role. In looking at the Strategic Plan she didn’t see a budget and wanted to know what percentage of the budget is the City contribution. She had heard that if the City funding went away, the Museum would go away and that concerned her. She asked if he could send the Council the budget. Mr. Cupples said the City did provide a large part of the Museum’s budget. He felt the City got a good return on the Transient Room Tax (TRT) funds provided. The Museum is open five days a week, for over forty hours. Wherever you find a City museum, a large part of the funding is from the City. He foresaw seeing more of their income from corporate sponsorships and grants. He agreed with her concerns and that the Museum shouldn’t be so dependent upon one source. They have improved the grants this year, as well as business sponsorships. He is not sure if the Museum would ever be self- sustaining. That is generally the case for any museum that houses a City’s collection. He felt the Museum should diversify where their income is coming from. He would send the budget to the Council. Mayor Lundberg said this is the City’s collection and building and they are doing wonderful programs. They want to take it up to the next notch. Perhaps within the next year, the Museum could take a look at how much funding they would need to step it up to the next level. If the City could come up with more, she asked if the Museum could match that to take it to that next level. The entire downtown is becoming successful and the Museum is a piece of that success story. If they can bring in more people, it is very legitimate to spend TRT funds. She would be supportive, depending on the proposal, of advocating for what they could do to increase funding to bring the Museum to the next level of success. Mr. Cupples said he would be happy to engage in that conversation and finding out if the Council has ideas to further attract people. The Museum Board is looking at doing something related to genealogy with a database. Mayor Lundberg said do an Antique Roadshows and bring back the wine event. She also suggested reaching out to the Council to keep them in the loop regarding events. She asked if the Council agreed that the Museum should bring a proposal to the Council next year for a way to move ahead. Councilor Woodrow agreed. She went online to her home town and looked at their Museum site. It would be fun to have that kind of access for our citizens. It could be something the City could provide matching funds to help with a grant for that type of project. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 3 Council thanked the Board and Mr. Cupples for their work. 2. Proposed Annexation Incentives Project. Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. The annexation incentives project is divided into three phases: 1. Information gathering; 2. Incentives program development; and 3. Incentives program implementation. The value of Phase 1 is directly enhanced by Council endorsement of the materials used in this phase, including a survey of incentives options and a facts sheet showing tax differentials, city services, and fees and assessments related to city sewer service. The principal objectives of Phase 1 of this project are to identify the level of interest in annexation; identify the reasons why people have not annexed; and identify the priority of city-only services received upon annexation. Much of this information focuses on costs and most of these costs involve sewer. An important element related to sewer costs is when a home with a functioning septic system must connect. The Springfield Municipal Code requires connection when sewer is available within 300 feet regardless of the condition of the septic system. State law requires connection when the septic system needs repair and sewer is available within 300 feet. This difference in standards is a local choice that can be amended at the Council’s option. However, unless the Council indicates this is something they would consider as a potential incentive, such possibility cannot be included in the fact sheet provided in Phase 1. On February 4, 2013 the Council conducted a work session discussion follow-up of the December 10, 2012 Council Goal setting session and identified the following action as a short term goal: “Develop incentives for those developed areas just beyond the city limits to annex to the city.” This topic was briefly discussed, but no decisions were made other than to revisit at a later work session. Tonight’s work session materials were prepared in support of this broader discussion identified by the Council on February 4th and includes a briefing memorandum that cites some annexation options available for Council consideration, and a map that displays the different tax assessment rates residents of the urban transition area pay. The map uses different shading to represent the difference in rates, from a low of $8.25 per thousand to a high of $14.75 per thousand. Mr. Mott discussed the costs involved for annexation. That is often the reason people choose whether or not to annex. He discussed the sewer and stormwater connections and when those are required. Mayor Lundberg clarified that state law allowed people to stay connected to septic if it is working properly even when the sewer is within 300 feet. If the septic is not working, they are required to connect. Mr. Mott said staff hasn’t talked to the public yet until they knew what Council was willing to do in regards to incentives. Some of the costs are adjustable and some are not. Staff outlined the costs and which are adjustable. Mayor Lundberg said if someone does need to do something with their septic tank, there are other costs involved, such as decommissioning the septic tank, for the private property owner. If their system is still working, but their septic is still working, they would not have to incur those costs if changes are made to the Municipal Code. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 4 Mr. Mott said that is correct. He reviewed the costs involved for someone wanting to annex, including the increase in taxes and connecting to the sewer. Mayor Lundberg said staff would go out to the public with some of these incentives based on Council input. Councilor Moore said she would want to include in the materials to the public the advantages (City services) people would receive by annexing into the City. Mr. Mott said they had identified those things. Some are just a direct switch from County to City such as citizenship in Springfield. Sometimes it is an additional service. Councilor Moore said those outside the city limits that received their fire service from Rainbow Water District, would receive city fire services if annexed, as part of their property taxes. She asked if they would change their water service as well. Mr. Mott said once annexed, those property owners would receive their water service from Springfield Utility Board (SUB). Councilor Moore asked if Rainbow Water District and SUB charged the same for water. Mr. Mott said he would check into that and let her know. Mayor Lundberg said the purpose of this is to gauge if people are interested in annexing. Those she knows of that want to annex say it costs too much. She wants information to go out so people know the cost of annexing and the advantages in annexing, such as representation by a City Councilor. Mr. Mott said another advantage is a reduction in planning services for those in the city limits. Councilor Ralston asked what the City’s hard costs are when someone annexes. He asked what the $1000 fee covered. Mr. Mott said fee was based on the average cost to do the work in annexing. He described in more detail. It came to a 65% cost recovery. Councilor Ralston said he is willing to incentivize annexation however possible. If they have a working septic system, he sees no problem in letting them keep that in place. Once it fails, they can then connect to the City system. Mr. Mott said tonight they just want to know if Council is willing to consider some of these things. Next time they meet, they may want to choose some specifics. Councilor VanGordon said he is willing to consider allowing them not to connect if they have a functioning septic system. The long term goal is to incentivize and get people annexed into the City. He is also willing to consider the options regarding property taxes and waiving or reducing annexation fees for a large group of neighbors wishing to annex at the same time. He wants more advantages added to the information to the citizens. Councilor Brew said he is willing to waive the annexation fee and is also willing to look at reducing SDC costs. The reality is that these people had been benefiting from City taxpayer for years by using City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 5 the roads, the planning services, fire service, etc. He is in favor of seeing what they could do. He noted the amount of tax revenue the City would get once people are annexed. He asked about the requirement to connect and a recent emergency annexation to connect someone whose septic had failed. Mr. Mott said if the septic system is functioning, they do not need to connect to the City line. City Engineer Ken Vogeney said if a property is not annexed and their septic system fails, in order for them to connect and receive service they would be required to annex. Mr. Mott said health hazards are different and regulated by the State. Councilor Brew said he didn’t like having to rush to annexation because someone’s system failing. He would rather proceed in an orderly way. Councilor Woodrow asked about the property tax delay of three years and how that worked. Mr. Mott said if Council initiates an annexation, they can modify the amount of taxes collected on those property for anywhere from 3 to 10 years. They would be phasing in the City taxes. Councilor Woodrow said overall she is comfortable in gathering that information to help with their decisions. Councilor Moore asked how the addition of all of these properties would do for the City’s population. Mr. Mott said they currently got about 3-4 properties annexed each year. Councilor Moore said potentially it would be a benefit to the City and to the property owners. Mayor Lundberg said she felt anything they could offer should be included in the incentive package. There are many properties that will end up needing to annex due to septic failure, so if they could put something together that would allow someone to make a decision ahead of time. She would like to look at all possibilities. 3. Transportation Systems Development Charge (SDC) Methodology Update. City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. Based on Council direction from the May 19, 2014 work session, staff presents two Transportation SDC rate scenarios using different approaches for allocating bicycle/pedestrian project costs to growth. Upon Council’s direction, the preliminary SDC methodology will be updated with Council’s preferred approach and staff will issue the statutorily required public notices announcing the availability of the methodology for review and comment. A public hearing will be scheduled at least 90 days following the public notice. City staff is in the process of updating the System Development Charge methodology for the Transportation System. Transportation SDCs were last reviewed and updated by Council in 2008. The Council adopted the city’s new Transportation System Plan (TSP) on March 11, 2014. The projects from the TSP that are expected to be built within the next twenty years from the new project list that is used in the SDC methodology as part of the process to set SDC fee levels. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 6 Per Council direction at the May 19, 2014 work session, the recommendations from the Citizen’s Advisory Committee have been incorporated into the proposed methodology along with the Council’s direction to assume 70% of roadway project costs will come from external funding. Staff has prepared two rate calculations based on the two bicycle/pedestrian approaches. Option A is derived from the “Level of Service” approach. Option B continues the City’s current practice and is derived from the assumption that growth will pay for 20% of all bicycle/pedestrian projects based upon the overall growth in vehicle trips. The Transportation SDC is comprised of two components: the Reimbursement Fee and the Improvement Fee. The updated Reimbursement Fee (growth’s share of the replacement cost of current arterial/collector system less external funding and bond principal) is calculated to be $16.14 per trip end, which is a decrease from the current Reimbursement Fee. The updated Improvement Fee (cost of future projects attributable to growth) is calculated to be $331.55 per trip end using bicycle/pedestrian Option A or $309.45 per trip end using bicycle/pedestrian Option B. Both options are an increase from the current improvement fee. The overall Transportation SDC calculated with the updated methodology and new Transportation System Project List is $347.69 per trip end using Option A or $325.58 per trip end using Option B. This is an increase over the current SDC of $86.39 per trip end for Option A or $64.28 per trip end for Option B. The difference between the two bicycle/pedestrian approaches is approximately $22 per trip end. Mr. Vogeney said they are looking to get direction from Council on the methodology for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Two ways of calculating the fees associated with these projects are outlined for Council. Staff recommended using the Level of Service calculation. Staff will put the selected methodology into the proposed methodology and schedule a public hearing in the Fall. At that time, Council could discuss what rate. Councilor Woodrow asked if the current method of 20% is adequate. Mr. Vogeney said it collected fewer fees giving the City less SDCs to apply towards bicycle and pedestrian projects, but enough to do some. Overall, the improvement SDCs will collect about 10% of the cost of the full project list. The more they collect, the more projects could be done. Staff felt the Level of Service basis more accurately reflects how the system will be used. Councilor Woodrow said it sounds like the Level of Service will provide a better adequacy. Councilor Brew said neither is perfect for different reasons. The second option of 20% assumed we are providing the right level now, and would increase the level to match the vehicle infrastructure. The Level of Service indicated that a good portion of the cost would be placed on growth, but gave us a better system in the end. That has been underfunded in the past. He supports the Level of Service. Mr. Vogeney said the projects identified for bicycle and pedestrian use have been set through the Transportation System Plan at a certain standard for the future. They then back-calculated the standard of today and determined that we are in a deficit. The City would be spending money other than SDC funds to catch up the deficit. The SDCs are then growth share for the future. Mayor Lundberg said she chose Level of Service. One of the reasons is because of the Safe Routes to School, connectivity and traffic calming devices such as flashing beacons, all encouraging safety. She City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 7 said they could utilize a bicycle and pedestrian counter through Paul Thompson from Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). The counter he has measures both bicycle and pedestrian traffic. It could give us a sense of areas used a lot for that type of traffic so they can prioritize areas for improvements. She asked staff to take advantage of those counters. Councilor Woodrow said it lines the City up with everything else they want to do. The rest of the Council agreed to Level of Service. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 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 MONDAY JUNE 16, 2014 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 16, 2014 at 7:03 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, 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 1. Mayor’s Recognition a. National Testing Day Proclamation. Mayor Lundberg read from the Proclamation and presented it to Paul Holman from the HIV Alliance. She encouraged all of Springfield to join in this observance. 2. Other a. Employee Recognition: Brenda Jones, 20 Years of Service. Mr. Grimaldi presented this recognition. Ms. Jones introduced her family members. Mr. Grimaldi said Ms. Jones always stepped up to do what was needed and got things done. She had been involved in projects such as Sony and currently served as the staff liaison to the Museum Board. She is an exceptional individual and great worker. He read the following comment, “Brenda is an outstanding example of administrative professionalism. Her professional competence is applied to everything she undertakes and applies her broad knowledge of the city’s policies and procedures and more importantly, her quiet determination to ensure a ‘job well-done’ mentality to every endeavor”. Ms. Jones said 20 years had gone by very quickly. She and her husband had chosen to move back to their hometown of Springfield to raise their family. Working for the City was a natural choice and she was proud to be a Springfield employee. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims a. Approval of the May 2014, Disbursements for Approval. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 2 2. Minutes a. May 12, 2014 – Work Session b. May 19, 2014 – Work Session 3. Resolutions a. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-17 – A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CITY PROJECT P20278; GLENWOOD WASTEWATER TRUNK SEWER. 4. Ordinances a. ORDINANCE NO. 6320 – AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A FIRE CODE FOR THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD BY ADOPTING, AMENDING, ADDING AND DELETING SECTIONS TO THE STATE OF OREGON 2014 FIRE CODE AMENDMENTS REGULATING AND GOVERNING THE SAFEGUARDING OF LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS ARISING FROM THE STORAGE, HANDLING AND USE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, MATERIAL AND DEVICES, AND FROM CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY IN THE OCCUPANCY OF BUILDINGS AND PREMISES AS HEREIN PROVIDED; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND COLLECTION OF FEES THEREFORE; AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 6257 ADOPTED JUNE 21ST OF 2010 BY THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. b. ORDINANCE NO. 6321 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 2.568(2)(c), 4.418(4), 5.604(1)(e) AND 7.352(7)(c) TO ALIGN WITH THE CURRENT FIRE CODE LANGUAGE ADOPTED BY THE CITY c. ORDINANCE NO. 6322 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 2.205 “DEFINITIONS”, 2.215 “NOMINATIONS FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE”, 2.235 “TIME FOR FILING PETITIONS”, AND 2.270 “DISTRIBUTION OF VOTERS PAMPHLETS” 5. Other Routine Matters a. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Mezza Luna Pizzeria, Located at 115 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR. b. Authorize City Manager to Negotiate and Sign a Contract with SIRSIDynix. c. Authorize City Manager to Sign a Contract with Hughes Fire Equipment, Inc. for Maintenance and Repair of Fire Apparatus. d. Approve the May 20, 2014 Primary Election Report of Board of Canvassers and Proclamation for the election for Springfield City Council positions for Ward 1, Ward 2 and Ward 5. e. Authorize City Manager to Ratify Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Springfield Police Association (SPA). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 3 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. 1. Resolution Certifying the City’s Eligibility to Receive State Shared Revenues from Cigarette, Gas and Liquor Taxes. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-18 – A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD CERTIFYING ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE-SHARED REVENUES FROM CIGARETTE, GAS AND LIQUOR TAXES, APPROVING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM, AND DECLARING THE CITY’S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES PURSUANT TO OREGON REVISED STATUTES 221.760 AND 221.770. The law provides that cities located within counties having more the 100,000 inhabitants, according to the most recent Federal decennial census must provide four or more municipal services from a specific list to be eligible to receive state-shared cigarette, liquor and highway taxes under ORS 221.760. The accompanying resolution will satisfy that requirement To be eligible to receive state shared revenues in the ensuing fiscal year, the City must provide at least four of seven eligible services, and perform five additional actions: 1. Advertise and hold a public hearing before the Budget Committee 2. Advertise and hold a public hearing before the City Council 3. Adopt a resolution certifying the City is eligible to receive funds under the ORS 221.760 4. Adopt a resolution approving the City’s participation in the program 5. File a copy of the resolution with the State of Oregon by July 31st A public hearing was advertised and held before the Budget Committee on May 13, 2014. The proposed resolution will satisfy items 2, 3 and 4. Upon adoption, the City’s Budget Officer will file the appropriate documentation with the State. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-18. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 2. Fiscal Year 2014/15 City Budget Adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-19 – A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 SPRINGFIELD CITY BUDGET, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 4 The City Council is requested to hold a public hearing on Fiscal Year 2014/15 (FY15) approved City Budget, and approve a resolution to adopt the Fiscal Year 2014/15 City budget, making appropriations and levy a property tax. Mr. Duey noted the two changes made by the Budget Committee to the original budget presented by the City Manager. The first is a part-time person for the Library adding four hours a week to the open hours of the Library. The second is additional funding for the Human Services Commission (HSC) in the amount of $4,264. The total budget is for $316,155,460, with an operating budget of $95,378,751. The capital budget is $28,347,590 and the non-department budget is $192,429,109. General Fund levies for $4.7403/thousand are included as well as the Police levy of $1.28/thousand and the Fire Levy of $0.36/thousand. He discussed the bonded debt for the two General Obligation bonds. All bring the total tax rate for next year to an estimated $0.8382/thousand. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-19. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE - Limited to 20 minutes. 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. COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Business from Council a. Committee Reports b. Mayor Lundberg said a vacancy was coming up in Ward 6, and there is an election in November. She felt the most logical thing to do was to let the position go to the November 2014 General Election. She asked for Council’s feedback. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 5 Councilor VanGordon said his preference would be to leave the position open until the November 2014 election. It is the citizens’ choice and this will give them that opportunity to vote. Councilor Moore said she agreed. She asked if the application process would be advertised. Mr. Grimaldi said staff would make the announcement for the election process. Interested parties would contact the City Recorder to file paperwork. Councilor Woodrow agreed. She is sorry to see Councilor Brew go, but understands. She thanked him for his service. Councilor Brew apologized for putting the City in this position. It had been an honor serving on the Council. Councilor Wylie said she hated to see Councilor Brew go, he had been a great councilor. Mayor Lundberg agreed. She said Councilor Brew had great perspective and a great sense of humor. She wished him the very best. Mr. Grimaldi said an announcement will go out tomorrow about how someone could run for election. This will likely get the normal news media coverage. c. Councilor Woodrow commended the Springfield K9 department for their accomplishments during the K9 competition on Saturday, June 14. The Springfield High School Silke Field stands were filled; it was a great competition and a perfect day. During the event, someone who chose to remain anonymous made a donation of $5000 that would pay for one-half of the cost for a replacement K9. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Franklin Boulevard – McVay Highway Jurisdictional Transfer. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-20 – A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD APPROVING THE JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 795 BETWEEN THE STATE OF OREGON, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FOR THE TRANSFER OF OR 126 BUSINESS TO CENTRAL OREGON AND PACIFIC RAILROAD SECTION, McVAY HIGHWAY, STATE HIGHWAY NO. 225 LANE COUNTY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 – A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 792, OREGON 126 BUSINESS: EUGENE ECL – McVAY HIGHWAY NO. 225 SECTION, McKENZIE HIGHWAY, STATE HIGHWAY NO. 15 LANE COUNTY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 6 Supervising Engineer Jeff Paschall presented the staff report on this item on behalf of Tom Boyatt and Len Goodwin. The City of Springfield and the Oregon Department of Transportation have negotiated the transfer of jurisdiction for portions of Franklin Blvd. and McVay Highway in Glenwood from ODOT to the City. The portion of Franklin Bld. to be transferred extends from the I-5 right of way at the west end to the intersection with McVay Hwy. to the east. The portion of McVay Hwy. to be transferred is from the intersection with Franklin Bld. on the north to the bridge over the railroad tracks to the south. Each of the two transfer IGAs, attached, contains a map of the area of transfer. Staff and the City Attorney have concluded negotiations with ODOT to transfer the two roadway segments identified above. ODOT will transfer to the City the rights of way for these facilities, several fee properties along the western edge of McVay Hwy. originally acquired by the state for future transportation purposes, the roadways themselves, and the ownership responsibilities to operate and maintain these segments for transportation purposes. The City will accept these assets and responsibilities in exchange for a one-time payment of $3.2 million, $1.7m for Franklin and $1.5m for McVay. This is all in keeping with the information presented to Council in work session on February 24th of this year. Once the City has signed the two transfer IGAs, ODOT will request approval by the Oregon Transportation Commission. After OTC approval, ODOT will finalize the transfer IGAs, remit payment to the City, and the actual transfer of facilities will be deed recorded. This process is expected to take approximately 60 days. Mr. Paschall said this started in 2008. Action taken tonight would get the ball rolling for a jurisdictional transfer to the City. Mayor Lundberg said as they started to annex pieces of the Glenwood area, there is still a Eugene zip code and address. She knew there was a big process to go through, but she would like to move forward with the necessary conversations towards getting a Springfield zip code and addresses as parts of Glenwood came into Springfield. She wanted to make this public so people understood this is the goal. Mr. Paschall said that was one of the items being discussed by the Glenwood team. Councilor Ralston asked if the money from this transfer was earmarked. Mr. Paschall said the plan was to bring the money in, put it in reserve, and assess maintenance activities. The money is not earmarked, but is a monetary payment for future maintenance. There is a potential of setting the money aside to leverage State and Federal dollars for the future Phase II of the project. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-20. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 7 2. City Prosecutor Contract Renewal. Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery presented the staff report on this item. Last year, during the request for qualification process, the firm proposed a number of possible changes to the service intended to result in a variety of improvements and efficiencies. The City Prosecutor has outlined those efforts and the impacts. In January of 2013 the City entered into an agreement with the firm of Leahy, Van Vactor, Cox and Melendy. The contract expires June 30, 2014 and the City is renewing their agreement for an additional year. There is no change in the amount the City pays annually for City Prosecutor services. Staff requests Council to authorize City Manager to sign each contract. Mr. Towery read an email from Officer Michael Massey from the Springfield Police Department. As a detective assigned to property crimes and most misdemeanor crimes, he dealt often with Matt Cox on most cases. Officer Massey said it had been a pleasure working with Mr. Cox who always made time to be available and kept the officer in the loop about his cases. Officer Massey wrote in his email that Mr. Cox had been attending the Annual DUII Conferences that many prosecutors statewide attend, to keep officers, judges and prosecutors up with changing DUII case laws. Officers had commented how much they like that Mr. Cox seeks training to assist the prosecution end of things. Officer Massey understood it was a hard change for many, but had been positive for him in this assignment. Mr. Cox referred to the memo that was included in the agenda packet explaining what the Prosecutor’s office had been doing in the last year and a half. One of the things they hadn’t been able to complete yet is the implementation of the new software system which was moving along slower than originally planned. Both Eugene and Springfield had implemented the Sunguard systems, first with Police and second with the Prosecutor’s offices. They were saving dollars by combining their training on this system. Because they don’t have the computer system up and running, it is hard to give stats on number of cases per week and number of trials. An estimate had been included in his memo. Councilor VanGordon said he appreciated the memo outlining what was done last year. He felt it was an impressive list of accomplishments and improvements. The thing that stood out to him was the drop in open cases. That was very much appreciated. Mr. Cox said they worked hard to get those opened cases completed. One change the City is making is to hire one group of public defenders to handle the cases. In the past contract, if someone failed to appear, their defense attorney was bumped off the case by order of the court. When they were picked up on warrant or turned in, a new attorney was assigned which was very inefficient. It also was a disincentive for defense attorneys to get cases resolved. The new system will start next month which will be more of a flat fee system per case, and will keep the same attorney, or one from the same firm, for the defendant. That was an example that the City had made that should make things better. Mayor Lundberg said the numbers speak for themselves and she is very happy with the Prosecutor’s office. She asked Mr. Cox to explain more about the Mental Health and Veteran’s Courts. Mr. Cox said the Mental Health Court is a system for people with mental health issues that may not be best served by the traditional route through the misdemeanor system. They can instead go into a ‘community court’, which is a deferred prosecution-type system. On offenses such as disorderly City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 8 conduct or criminal trespass, not more serious crimes, they would need to plead guilty or no contest to get into the program. While in the program, they are to do treatment, stay out of trouble, and pay some fines. The program can go six months, one year or eighteen months, depending on the case manager’s assessment. If they complete everything by the end of the program, the case can be dismissed. It gave them an incentive to work to get it done. Eugene has a Mental Health Court that has been very successful. It does have a treatment and supervision component which is an expense. The Veteran’s Court is similar, but is set up for veterans. He did point out that there is a weakness in the system across the nation particular to Misdemeanor Court. They had little to no resources to deal with those that commit crimes that are dealing with mental health issues. Unfortunately, they often have to dismiss cases when offenders are unfit to proceed, which means those people are back out on the street. Years ago, they could use the State system to send misdemeanor offenders to the State hospital, but that is no longer the case. They only take felony offenders. That is a hole in the system creating repeat offenders that use up a lot of resources. One way to address this is to use an idea from Jackson County. The Police, Prosecutor, Defense Attorney, Judge and mental health workers target ten individuals and put resources towards those people. Chief Doney has examples of people that were repeat offenders, but as part of this group with a daily check-in with a City probation officer, were able to turn things around in a relatively short time frame. He will talk more with Chief Doney to get additional information and perhaps invite people from Jackson County to talk with the Springfield Police and Prosecutor’s Office. That might be a way to move forward without asking Council for treatment dollars. Mayor Lundberg suggested having a work session once they get more information on this program. She is interested because mental health issues are huge and this is very important. Mr. Grimaldi said they could schedule a work session sometime near the end of this year or the beginning of next year. Chief Doney said he had contacted Jackson County and they are willing to come up and speak to Springfield staff. Mr. Cox said they would bring the information from that meeting, and perhaps be able to lay out a plan for the Council to consider. Councilor Woodrow thanked them for this information. When she sees all the parts of the community, there are isolated areas that need help. To see a system that offers resources even for one person at a time, it starts to address the problem and gives people a positive way out with support. She is looking forward to the work session. Councilor Brew said it had been pleasure working with Mr. Cox. He appreciated the way Mr. Cox laid their outcomes and plans out systemically in his memo. They had figured out new ways to approach things to make them work better. In doing so, they were looking after the citizens of Springfield and hey City resources. Councilor Moore said it was a difficult decision last year. She appreciated the innovative and creative ideas Mr. Cox was bringing forward and appreciated him being on the team. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 9 IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH THE FIRM OF LEAHY, VAN VACTOR, COX & MELENDY LLC FOR CITY PROSECUTOR SERVICES FOR THE TIME PERIOD JULY 1, 2014 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2015. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 3. Request for Permit to Work Outside Hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., South Franklin Blvd. McVay Hwy. (P21080). Civil Engineer Mark Van Eeckhout presented the staff report on this item. Section 5.220(c) of the Springfield Municipal Code specifies that construction activities are to occur between 7 am and 6 pm. In order to complete the Franklin/McVay Sanitary Sewer Extension project in a timely manner, and reduce the project’s impact on traffic, it is necessary to close roads to through traffic to complete installation of deep utilities. In order to minimize the impact of road closures to businesses and residents in the area, staff is requesting the ability to allow the contractor to work an extended work shift outside of the allowed City’s noise restricted work hours by allowing contractor to work between 6am and 10pm. As part of the Franklin/McVay Sanitary Sewer project, South Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway will be closed to through traffic during construction of the new sewer line. The roadway will be maintained during construction sufficient to allow for local and business access, but the roadway would be closed to through traffic. The need for the closure stems from the City’s experience working at these depths in similar soils. The width of the trench in similar projects has required the need for the contractor to have the roadway closed to through traffic. Language is included in the contract’s General Conditions section requiring the contractor to maintain access to businesses and residents during construction as required in Section 107.13 of the Springfield’s Standard Construction Specifications. The ability to work an extended shift will provide some flexibility to the contractor in meeting this requirement. The extended work shifts would also have the added benefit of reducing the overall time that the traveling public would be inconvenienced by the road closure to through traffic. Mr. Van Eeckhout described the project area and the closures needed to do this work. Staff had met with the businesses along this roadway and felt that allowing the extended work hours could provide more flexibility to work through the issues more easily. The contractor would be required to make a request of staff when they wanted to work the extended hours and provide justification. Mayor Lundberg said sometimes workers first arrive prior to the allowable work hours and slam doors and yell at each other. She asked staff to encourage the contractors to remind their workers to be quiet prior to the actual start time. Mr. Van Eechhout said he would make it a point to remind the contractors. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 10 IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF THE HOURS OF 7 AM AND 6 PM WITH CONDITIONS AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT 1 FRANKLIN/MCVAY (P21080) FOR WORK ON THIS JOINT SPRINGFIELD/SUB PROJECT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 4. Glenwood Refinement Plan Amendment, Franklin Blvd. Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item on behalf of Tom Boyatt. Several iterations of the design for Franklin Boulevard improvements have been reviewed and refined through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to minimize Project impacts. These design changes have resulted in a project footprint and project envelope that differ from those contained in the Glenwood Refinement Plan. At the time Council reviewed and adopted the 2012 Glenwood Refinement Plan amendments to implement the Glenwood Riverfront District, the Franklin Boulevard project concept had not been refined through the NEPA process. Since that time, staff and the consultant team have been through several design iterations to avoid impacts as practical, while maintaining the integrity and purpose of the planned improvements. At the February 24, 2014 work session, Council reviewed the final proposed Franklin Boulevard design and directed staff to develop and deliver a Franklin Boulevard improvement project based on that refined design. As a normal and necessary part of developing and delivering the Franklin Boulevard Project, staff recommends amending the Glenwood Refinement Plan to reflect more accurately the Project that the City plans to deliver. These amendments will provide transparency to citizens, businesses and agency partners regarding planned improvements, while assisting all parties in the coordinated development of the Glenwood Riverfront District. Mayor Lundberg asked if the new map has been provided to the public. City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said it was being presented when talking with citizens. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER OF THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN (PLAN), AS AMENDED, TO ADJUST THE PROJECT CONCEPT CURRENTLY IN THE PLAN TO REFLECT THE PROPOSED FRANKLIN BLVD. PROJECT (PROJECT) DRAFT DESIGN; TO ALIGN THE PROPOSED DRAFT DESIGN SUCH THAT ITS ALIGNMENT GENERALLY CENTERS ALONG THE EXISTING FRANKLIN BLVD. CENTERLINE TO AVOID ANY DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS TO FRONTING PROPERTIES; TO AMEND THE PROJECT ENVELOPE TO EXTEND FIVE FEET TO THE NORTH AND FIVE FEET TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT DESIGN; TO REFLECT THOSE CHANGES ON FIGURES 1 AND 3, PAGES 57 AND 58; AND, TO MAKE THE SAME CHANGES TO THE TEXT DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE PROJECT AND PROJECT ENVELOPE ON PAGES 56, 60, 61 AND 62. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 11 BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY Ms. Smith said several weeks ago, Council heard testimony on the chronic disorderly abatement property and the ordinance. Draft changes to the ordinance had been made and will be coming to the Council for their review in a few weeks. There are also some housekeeping measures on the business license tax regarding telecom companies which will be coming back to Council. The City Attorney’s office will file the amicus brief on the sand and gravel issue on Friday. Ms. Smith introduced a legal extern that had joined the City Attorney’s Office, Kristina Kraaz, a law student at the University of Oregon. She will be full-time for the summer. Councilor Brew noted that Ms. Kraaz was his daughter. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:50 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder