HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/2007 Work Session
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2007
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, SpringfieId, Oregon, on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 6:40 p.m., with Mayor
Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow, and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Building Maintenance Funding Needs.
Public Works Director Dan Brown presented the staff report on this item. He introduced Stacey
Kintigh, the new Maintenance Supervisor in the Public Works Maintenance. The City does not
fund building maintenance at a level which ensures that our buildings will be safe and functional
for the duration of their life expectancies. At its January 2007 goal setting session, the City
Council directed staff to develop alternatives to provide funding to address both short and long
term building maintenance needs. Then, in February 2007 the Council received a City Building
Condition Report, prepared by DLR Group, architects, which identified $600,000 (in 2005
dollars) of deferred building maintenance as well as annual needs of $300,000 (in 2005 dollars)
for the next 5 years, rising to annual needs of $1 M (in 2005 dollars) for the subsequent two
decades.
Excluding the Booth-Kelly complex, the new Justice Center, and the Springfield Depot, the City
buildings inventory is comprised of 13 buildings with an estimated replacement value of
$35,000,000 - $40,000,000.
The basic goal of infrastructure management is to keep the infrastructure in good working order
for its anticipated life. Industry standards for annual expenditures for building maintenance
range from 2 to 4 % of the replacement value of the facilities. DLR Group's City Building
Condition Report categorizes maintenance needs first by building and time frame (immediate;
within the year; the next five years; and long term - the next 24 years), and then by prioritization
which considers safety, aesthetics, structural/mechanical and working conditions. DLR
identified immediate needs of approximately $600,000 --- half of which are designated as safety
or structural/mechanical needs --- and this is our backlog. The average need for the subsequent
five years is about $300,000 per year. As previously mentioned, all cost estimates in this report
are in 2005 dollars so, as time passes, the estimated costs will have to be adjusted for inflation.
Both the City Council and City staff realize the importance and urgency of the need for increased
building maintenance funding. We are the stewards of the public's infrastructure so it is
important that we strive to ward off premature failure of the infrastructure, including our City
buildings. The task team focused on compiling funding source suggestions and evaluating them.
The results are included as Attachments B and C. Although the team considered almost every
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
December 3, 2007
Page 2
conceivable source, it turned out that all decent ideas seem to have already been considered and
evaluated by the City in previous searches for new revenues. Many of the options were found
insufficient by themselves to provide the revenue necessary to either eliminate the backlog
projects or to provide the annual revenues for building maintenance in perpetuity.
Mr. Brown noted that Mr. Duey was present to help answer any questions that Council may have
on this issue related to the funding. Staff recommends that increased building maintenance
funding be identified through the normal budgeting process for the FY09 Budget, rather than
implementing a new tax or fee to create a dedicated funding source for building maintenance.
City staff would look at the budget and try to identify the $300,000 needed per year over the next
five years in the normal budget process. One time funds may be able to come from reserves, but
the ongoing funds would need to be identified from more sustainable revenue sources or
reductions.
Councilor Woodrow said most private companies had a depreciation fund. The depreciation fund
was not necessarily dollars, but a paper figure for taxes. He would like to see if the City could
establish a depreciation fund, putting a percentage of money into this fund that would build up
over the years. He was not sure what percentage that could be. He was wondering if staff could
bring back some information on this.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if a depreciation fund would be for capital replacement only or maintenance,
too.
Councilor Woodrow said it could be for either.
Mayor Leiken asked if the proximity of most of the public buildings was close to downtown.
Mr. Brown said the fire stations were spread out, but most other buildings were downtown.
Mayor Leiken said one of the challenges was to try to put any type of tax forward to the public.
It would be interesting to see if urban renewal funds could be used as well as some Booth Kelly
funds. It was hard to get the public behind something like this, even though it was a practical
application. The challenge would be to get the public to understand the outcome and what it
would do for them. There could be a way to sell that, but it could be difficult. The City utilized
taxes well to get these things done. He would suggest getting that word out to the public.
Councilor Lundberg said she agreed with the recommendation. She looked at which was the
bigger asset - reserves or buildings. The buildings would cost more in the long run if not
maintained and were the biggest asset. The City had enough on our plate in terms of growth and
development and it was time to take care of what we had. She agreed some type of set aside fund
should be established. The City had taken care of our streets and she would like us to do the
same with our buildings.
Councilor Pishioneri concurred. He suggested that when staff looked at the budget process, they
look at where the funds came from and each department's ability to pay. It may not be a straight
across percentage. He would like to see stafflook internally at Public Works funds. He did not
want to go for other taxes.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
December 3, 2007
Page 3 ,
Councilor Ralston said we needed to do the responsible thing and make the improvements, but
noted that the budget process was going to continue to be very difficult. He said he would be
very surprised if we could come up with the needed funds. There was not only this funding issue,
but the issue of increases in wages and benefits. He agreed with the Mayor that the citizens had
to recognize that it would be irresponsible for the City not to take care of their assets. He would
not approve new taxes, but thought perhaps General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds could be a way to
do this appropriately. He didn't feel the City could save enough money to do the work.
Councilor Ballew said this was a microcosm of the whole City. The City had made an effort to
be as lean as possible. In order to provide these services, the City needed more revenue, such as
the amusement/entertainment tax or restaurant taxes. She was fine with leaving this for one year,
but they needed to look at other options ill' the future to get more revenue, or service levels would
deteriorate. It was difficult to prioritize services.
Councilor Wylie said ongoing maintenance should be part of the ongoing budget, and not part of
a rainy day fund. She asked ifthere would be some sort of revenue forecast at the January
Budget Committee meeting. Yes. She discussed some of the taxes listed in the council briefing
memorandum included in the agenda packet. She felt there should not be additional taxes for
something we should already have in our budget.
Mr. Brown said in the November 1995 election, a bond provided $2M for building maintenance.
He explained some of the projects that were completed with those funds. He agreed that building
maintenance was not something easy to sell to citizens.
Mayor Leiken said the work staff had done was very good.
Councilor Ralston said he would not support using reserves. Before long our reserves were
depleted. The reserves were to be used for emergencies.
Councilor Lundberg said being involved in that 1995 bond measure, she knew it was difficult to
sell to the public because it was something we should have in our budget anyway. The voters had
been very generous over the years and she was not comfortable asking for money for
maintenance since we just passed a measure for construction of the new Police facility . We
needed to figure out how to address this as an ongoing budget item. She referred to prioritizing
and felt that exercise was still legitimate.
Mr. Brown said we still had a number of years left on the 1995 bond measure.
Mayor Leiken said staff had a meeting with Representative Barnhart, Chair of the House
Revenue Committee scheduled. It was worth sitting down with the State legislature to discuss
some issues. Federal dollars were no longer allocated to cities and it was frustrating for the City
because this was where people lived and worked. He would like to talk to the representative
about what the legislature could do to help. There needed to be a partnership. He noted that all
government was considered one and the same to the public.
Mr. Grimaldi confirmed that Council agreed with the recommendations. He also noted the
suggestion for establishing reserves for building maintenance, improvements and replacement.
Staff could bring that information to Council during the budget discussions.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
December 3,2007
Page 4
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:04 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest:
Am~~
City Recorder