The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/08/2000 Team Springfield . . . TEAM SPRINGFIELD MINUTES End-of Ycm: Update lv{ecting TEAM Springfield met in the boardroom of the Springfield Sd100l District Administration Building, 525 [VI ill Street, Springf~e1d. Oregon, at L :00 p.m., on Friday, December 8, 2000, with 'Mike Kelly convening. Hre~ent: Joe M.ttthieu, Virginia Lauritson, Springfi(~ld Utility Board; Mayor Sid Lciken, . Anne Ballcw, Tammy Fitch,L:yle Hatfield, Cllrisl.inc Lui1dberg, Fred Simmons, Dave Ralston, Springfield City Council; Tom Atkinson, Fred McDaniel, Jennifer lleiss, Garr)' 'Weber, Springfic,ld School Board; Blake Hastings, JimM.ayo, 5tu Burge, WiIlnmabne Board; Jamon Kent., Mike Kelly, Bob Keefer, Stc';"(~Ll)veland, Chris Pryor. 1. Review of Team SpJingfield History. City M(\nagcr Mike Kelly noted that TEAM Springfield was formed I:wo years ugo as a result of a perceived need to update Springfield Tomorrow, completed in 1991 to identify what citizens in Springfield wanted for their fut:uJ."c. He said the. combined bourds felt they needed 10 do a better job communicating with citizens to make them' aware of \vhal we're doing. He saicllhe handouts for Ihe meeting inclucted fi vc..yenr goals and one-year target~ establisht~d by TEAM Springfield one yeiJt~ ago. The. purpose for the rnceting was to review the targets and detcmunc where TEAM. Springfield should go in the future. lIe said the group wOllld. be looking at priorities und trying 10 identify from one to five joint projects. Mr. Kelly said the agencies needed to look at Teum Springfield and whether Joint projects should be pursued only when money was available Of to Gominue trying to do pr~jects together even in tough times. . H. Review of Mcadow Park Pilot Project Ml'. Kelly said the Meadow Park Pilot Project combined t.he goals of combined feasibility of neighborhood-based citizen involvement and developing a communicaliclfls pltUl. Alisa Carillo, Springfield Community Development Corpormion, introduced residents of the Mcadow Park area who have been working with the project to speak about the project. Tina Novak, property owner. Amanda L:.i'ne, resident aIld home owner, and Cialin Mills-Ostwald, resident and home owner, spoke in support of the project. 'rhey said it \-\lUS important for residents of the rvleadow Park area to know that community age.ncies cared. Ms, Carillo handed out copies of a progress report on the project. Ms. Calillo said she hoped to have other services available in park, slIch OED services and perhaps having \Villama]ane provide targeted activities for aft.erschool ilctlvitic$ for kids. Slle said the group \.vol.lJcI also likt:. 10 expand the sheltt~r in the park to allc)\',.' for space for more activities. . 1 . III. TEAM SpTingfidd Newsletter. Mr. Pryor reporte.d thnt since an executive group of the chairme.n and CEOs of the agencies had produced January 1999 five issues of the TEAM Springfield ne.wslcttcrs, wilh Mr. Pryor and Cherie Kistner coordinating the writing. . Cost of the publication is an issue: for discussion. Total cost for four issues per year is approximately $31,000 or $8,000 per issue. Broken down fanhel', (he costs for each issue are: Waphic arts 37 h'ours @ $25 per hour or $925, $2,500 t.o $3,000 (depending on the size) for ptinting by the Springfield News, postage at $3,400, and $] ;000 for a mailing service to ma.iI each issue. Ntr. Pryor said the shiff timc for wliting and editing was not covered in the calculation and. \\lUS not charged to the publication. . Mr. Pryor said the que.stion was whether the I1;;A,lI,'l Sprinpjidd newsletter of value. He said [hano date, three of' the four agencies had carried the prime J'cspQnsibility for [he newslette.rs. He said the agencies had not conducted scientific readership studies on rhe newsletters, but (he agencies had received comments and questions from readers. He said . .. the Springfield Utility Bom'd had its own publication and had chosen not to participate in the Tl:.."AM Springfield newsletter. He said SUB had not been fonnally asked to pmticipate in the newsletter. Discussion followed. M.r. Loveland said that SUB staff felt that theTEAAI Sprinxfield . newsletter would not be of benefit to SUB. . Mr. Burge said that the team concept resulting from a coordinated cHorr was the fruit of Ihe endeavor. He said this was a community effolt that we collectively decided. lIe said he felt ha\'ing individual agencles opt out of some projects \.vould undermine what TEAM Springfield was trying to do. He said he. felt if the c;ol.lcctive effort was important. Mr. Loveland sajd it \VUS <l question of priorities. He $aid SUB supported Team Springfield in concept, but there was always the issue of how best to allocate resources. He said Sl..IB glafffelt the newsletter was a low priority. Mr. Hatfield said thcrewere lY~nef.it& for all of the agt~ncies iri the newsletter. He said the newsletter was a way to communicate the successes TEAM. Springfield had achieved, such as the coordination between SUB, Willamalane, Rotary, and the scbool district to replace the lights on the Hamlin baseball fields. He said he thought working together was a way to save the public money. He said the ne\vstetler is one more way of reaching people and talking about our SlIccesses, and he thought SUB was an integral paft of that. Mr. M'atthicu said he \\louM like the issue to be brought before SUB's board. . M$. Lundberg said the newsletter was a wny to inform the public of what "ve do, how we . do it, and why we do it. She suggested the possibility of reducing the number of issues puhlished during the year and making t~uc:h isslIe largcr. She.~ suggested that perhaps the newsletter could be an ,mnual report or he available on line and thus avoid print.ing costs. 2 . . . Mr. Pryor said the nc\vsJetter was a nice issue to starr discussjngthe future. Ms. Fitch said she heard from residents that they appreciated getting information from the agencies on how their dollars were being stretched. Ms. Lauritson said she would be interested in seeing numbers on costs to lh~ agencies. She said it was obvious that when schodl district staff were \\iorking on the, they aren't. doing some,thing else. Mr. Hastings said he would be interested in cOlltilluing the newsletter, but trying to reduce costs. Ms. Ballew said aU of the agencies faced the issue of having few people in the audience dwing their board mccqngs. She said she felt educating the public WH$ really important and that the newsletter was a good communications piece. TV; TEAM. Springfield Mr. Pryor asked the group the question: In a time of limited resources, do you view Team Springfield as being a drain or a benefit? Mr. Leikcn said TEAM Springfield had been important in working toward having federal cOUlthollse.. With dollars an issue, it's important when we need to lobby Salem to make it a group effol1., to go up as a whole. I think we should make 8tlrC our bonds arc strengthene.d. McDaniel: I'm a proponent of Team Springfield. I think we need to get together and talk ilnd show our citizens thut \ve work together. Mr. Hatfield said there was a need for common goals. He said each agency had a pm1 of the goals, but there were still opportunities for cooperation and. coordination between rhem. He said public perception was veryimportunl: How do the citizens of Springfield vie\\' theentitiCs? He said public perception \....ould be more positive if the agencies worked toget.her. Mr. Hatfield said he thought it was important that the agencies could tulk at the. board level and that they had achieved some successes, such as the Hamlin lights and the Meadow Park project. He said it was important to work on specific issues and to seck a fe\\' goals to work toward. Mr. Matthit~u said this wus no time to build walls around our own entities. He said he felt this was a time to see how \Vc can help one an()rh(~r. M1'. Burge said he supported the team concept. Hcsaid each of the four public agencies had different jnh descriptions, although they overlap, but the ugencics still report to one boss, the 51 ,OOD residt~nts of Springfield, He said the agencies had an opportl.ln it)' und responsibility to rcport back to the people on how the agencies were spending taxpayers' money. Mr. Burge said he thought education was impoliant. He said education shuts at 3 . bilth and ends at death, and that everyone was learuing every day. He said sometimes it seemed thaI: "the only time we talk to our employer is when we arc asking for money." He said the. agencies Jcpresem the 51,000 residents of Springfield but ulso had the responsibility of communicating back to residents. He said people didn't participate because they didn '{ know what the agencies were doing. I-Ie said he believed {hat education could help. He said he cQlIldn't be more supportive of the learn concept. Mr. H.astings said (Toss-juris.dictional bureaucracy is a problem. He said meeting togethercould solve some of the bureaucracy and also would be more efficient. / M.l'. Simmons said that the mutual benefit of Team Springfield outweighed the iIldividual agency disadvantage. He said rhe boards could then understand the fJwblr,ms each agency faced. He said that the united front approach to both Salem and WnsbJngton wus important to all of the agencies. Ms. Lundberg said the agencies had made a loose commitment to this point. She said this discussion provided rhe opportunity for a more formal agreement. She s,lid the agencies needed 10 show the public they could cooperate and. were trying to save UL'\ dollars, She said the group needed to choose a fc\v goals to focus on. Mr. Matthieu said the joint lobbying effort was another big advantage to TEAlv1 Splingticld, . Ms. BaIlew said there was consensus that there was a need to conlimK', the TEAM Springfield efforts. Mr. Pryor: agreed that he heard con~enslls thar it was important to continue TEAM Springfield Hnd that you the boards had invesred the CEOs to cont.inue the efforts. .He said the CEOs met monthly. He suggested that rhe CEOs develop a recommendation regarding the TE4M Springfield newsletter and bring it back to the bourds. V. Goals and Strategies. The boards divided into two groups to talk. abnllt previously identified targets and projects. They were asked to prioritize the items included in the list of short-term targetsfpr~jects. Mr. Pryor said the purpose, was for the group to decide which two or Ilm.lc to focus on. TEAM S prin~fic;ili;l · Citizen involvement & communications - nc\vsletter · Develop communication program - newsletter · Develop united front .-.(?ommunioat:i-oll progfilfll DUPLICATJO:\1 . fuhUcS.lJ t~'JY · Program to address propelty crime 4 . . . d . Continue SRO and DARE . Continue Meadm.v Park Projec[ . Continue to coordinate services :Bellle u.JiQl1 . Promote more yo lith programs . Yni-teJ..froBHo..&alem DUPLlCA TION +---Premo-ltHnore youth progrum~; DUPLICATION . Create fiber optics network tkQJ10fHY.. . Rtw.italization of downtown Mi.llruce project Each agency does property inventory Multi-use facilities . . . IA.Y.;~biUlY- . Improve neighborhood bike paths, open space Improve public transportation .Jmpmv~...ffi.ke paths, opcn spat'-e DUPUCA TION Expand Springfield cleanup . . . Using the top two prioritized projects detennined by ea.ch group in each area, the elected officials each indicated their number one plloriry project. The top five are indicated in bold print. POINT TOTAl..S Team SpriJ1gfi~J.g · Citizl~n Involvement and comnmnication, newsletter . Develop communications program, newsletter - 10 . Develop united front -10 Pub..!ic...S.af~.ly. . Program to address property crime - 10 . Continue SRO ~md DARE - 1 . Continue Meadow Park Project - 9 · Continue to coordinate services - 6 Education · Promote more youth progrnms . 15 · Create fiber optics net. - 4 [;~QQn9Jn~ . Revitalization of downtown - 6 5 . . . · Millrace project .- 8 · Each agency does property inventory - 5 · Multi...use facilities - 0 lASf1hLUry .. Improve neighborhood, bike pnt.hs, open space - 19 .. Improve pllbhc transportation- 2 .. Expand Springfield cleanup - 0 Mr. Pryor then asked which project or projects had the top priority. M:r. Hatfield said some projCCh would be contmued by a single agency even withollt TEAM Springficld'support. He said that commuoie.niol1sund united front for .lobbying were unique to TEAM Springfield. l\'1.s. Lundberg said within the communication program and united front, [he other thcme~ would be what the group focused 011 ~Ind talked about for the next six months. She suggested th<lt TEAM Springfield focus time, energy and attention 011 those priorities and collect feedback from the community. Mr. Pryor said tlmt an issue.made the list meant thLlt it had some level of importance. H.e said there was consensus on continuation of newsletter and that .identification of the prioritized issues "V<IS valuable. He sai.d future rneelings of TEAM Springfield would be scheduled. Ms. Ballew said she thought the ~igeI~cies were coming together. The meeting adjoumed at 3:30 p.m. Minutes Recorder: Nancy Schmidt of the Springfield School DiSlJiCl Minutes of the TEAM Springfield Goal Setting Session held December 8, 2000. Approved by the Springfield City Council this 20th day of 5 ruary, 2001. AT~.~ Kim Krebs, City Recor er 6