HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/2014 Work SessionCity 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 payirig 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 staffs 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:
2ru X
Amy Sow
City Recorder