HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Council MinutesAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 9/3/2019
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: AJ Ripka
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: 1. May 21, 2018 – Regular Session 2. June 4, 2018 – Work Session
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL
HELD MONDAY MAY 21, 2018
The City of Springfield City Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday May 21, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg, and Councilors: VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Stoehr, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Kristina Kraaz, City Recorder
AJ Ripka, and members of the staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lundberg led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
a. April 2018, Disbursements for Approval
2. Minutes
3. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-12 APPROVING AND RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE GLENWOOD URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR REAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-13 ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ENGINEERING
DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.
4. Ordinances
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6379 - APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN
TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND WILLAMALANE PARK AND
RECREATION DISTRICT; AND WITHDRAWING THE SAME TERRITORY FROM
THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 6380 - INCORPORATING SPRINGFIELD ENGINEERING
DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES MANUAL APPENDIX 1A INTO THE
DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CODE SECTION 3.4-200, GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MIXED-USE PLAN
DISTRICT, TO IMPLEMENT GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN
TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
5. Other Routine Matters
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 9
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 2
a. Approval of Liquor License Application for Gambinos Hut, Located at 868 Main Street,
Springfield, OR.
b. Approval of Liquor License Application for Dark & Stormy LLC, DBA: Dark & Stormy,
Located at 420 & 424 Main Street, Springfield, OR.
c. Approval of Liquor License Application for Public House, Located at 418 A Street,
Springfield, OR.
d. Authorize the City Manager to sign contract C2082 with Smart ERP for $121,560 and
execute all documents required to affect the transaction.
e. By motion adopt the Springfield Community Development Block Grant section of the FY
2018-19 Eugene-Springfield One Year Action Plan.
f. By motion adopt the substantial amendment to a prior year CDBG One Year Action Plan.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Sanipac Rate Increase
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-14 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER SCHEDULE OF
MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES, RATES, PERMITS AND LICENSES TO AMEND THE
MAXIMUM RATES FOR THE COLLECTION OF GARBAGE AND REFUSE.
Mary Bridget Smith, City Attorney, presented on behalf of Neil Obringer offered Council a staff report on
Resolution No. 2018-14. Sanipac is requesting a 1.1% increase for additional costs associated with the
continued world recycling crisis, a 4.2% CPI adjustment (based on the 2017 annual Portland CPI) and a
pass-through disposal increase from Lane County of 2.6% at the landfill. The 1.1% recycling increase is
applied to the full rate, the 4.2% CPI increase is applied to hauling costs only, and the 2.6% landfill
increase is applied to user fee (disposal) costs only. The end result of these changes is an approximately
5% overall increase in the total rates for the collection of garbage and refuse.
Mayor Lundberg opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 p.m.
Kris McAlister, Springfield, OR Mr. McAllister spoke in a favor of another free dump day in light of the
proposed Sanipac rate increases. He asked that Springfield work in partnership with Sanipac to cater to
those Springfield residents living in poverty.
Mayor Lundberg closed the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m.
Councilor Moore expressed concern over the rate increase. She said before she could vote on the
Resolution, she needed assurance from Sanipac that they would do everything in their power to work with
low-income families and individuals in Springfield.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 9
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 3
A representative from Sanipac, referenced a memo sent to Springfield City Council in which it was
divulged that Sanipac is indeed taking steps to mitigate the effects of a rate increase on Springfield
residents, and especially those with low/no incomes.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2018-14. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 RECUSAL [conflict of interest] – COUNCILOR STOEHR).
2. Solid Waste Code Change – Construction & Demolition Debris
ORDINANCE NO. 3 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE
“GARAGE AND REFUSE” SECTION 4.400 “DEFINITIONS,” SECTION 4.402 “EXCEPTION,”
SECTION 4.410 “RECEPTACLES,” AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE(FIRST
READING).
Mary Bridget Smith, City Attorney, presented on behalf of Neil Obringer offered Council a staff report on
Ordinance No. 3. During the Council work session on May 14th 2018 staff described the needed changes
to Chapter 4 of the Springfield Municipal Code. The proposed code amendments to Chapter 4 of the
municipal code implement DEQ’s requirements for the Construction and Demolition Debris recovery
program under OAR 340-0900040(3)(L), which the City has elected to implement as one of the seven
required recycling program elements in the Opportunity to Recycle Act, ORS 459A.007. Specifically, the
City must require persons who generate and self-haul more than six cubic yards of construction and
demolition debris to either source separate the recyclable materials from the waste at the site of
generation, or dispose of the waste at an authorized material recovery facility (MRF). Lane County will
begin turning away self-haulers of more than six cubic yards of non-source separated construction and
demolition debris from the Glenwood transfer station on July 1, 2018. These self-haulers will be directed
to one of two MRFs in the area – EcoSort or McKenzie Recycling. The proposed code amendments will
prevent these self-haulers from circumventing the requirement to take waste to an MRF by disposing of
the waste outside of Lane County or at the Delta Sand and Gravel quarry. The proposed code
amendments also update the municipal code’s references to the Oregon Opportunity to Recycle Act in
ORS 459A as amended by Senate Bill 263 (adopted in 2015).
Mayor Lundberg opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m.
Eric Ramdass of Springfield, and representing the Waste Management Control Company, asked Council
to look closely at the proposed Ordinance, as it would remove the opportunity for Waste Management
Control Company to meet the DEQ standards through source-separating.
Steve Hopper of Eugene, and is the owner of Waste Management Control Company, said the proposed
language changes would prevent his company from source-separating recyclable and/or hazardous items
from trash cans, especially in multi-family dwellings.
Mayor Lundberg closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m.
Councilor Moore asked if Waste Management Control Company operated only in Springfield, and how
many multi-family complexes were served by the company.
Mr. Hopper replied there were approximately 117 multi-family complexes in Springfield and Eugene, and
the Waste Management Control Company provided daily source-separating services for all of them.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 9
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 4
Councilor Moore asked how many people the Waste Management Control Company employed.
Mr. Hopper answered there were four full-time employees, and one part-time employee.
Councilor Moore referenced a concern mentioned in the background material on this Ordinance, which
addressed the safety of the employees of the Waste Management Control Company as they performed
source-separating duties.
Mr. Hopper asserted that after being in business for 25 years, no Waste Management employees had
never been injured by items—such as hypodermic needles—in the materials they sort. He offered that
since they perform their duties daily, they are not dealing with more than one day’s refuse at a time.
Councilor Moore asked if the Waste Management Control Company was licensed to perform their
service(s) in Eugene.
Mr. Hopper responded there was no licensing which dealt with recycling.
Councilor VanGordon offered that his main concern was people going through garbage containers.
Mayor Lundberg said that since was the first reading of the Ordinance, more information would be
gathered, and then the Ordinance would be revisited in a future Council meeting.
Councilor Pishioneri stated that he was a proponent of recycling, and if Springfield was able to continue
taking advantage of the Waste Management Control Company’s services without running afoul of State
Law, they should certainly look at ways of doing so.
3. Annexation of a series of Linear Parcels and Portions of Public Right-of-Way in Glenwood
ORDINANCE NO. 4 – AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN
TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND WILLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION
DISTRICT; AND WITHDRAWING THE SAME TERRITORY FROM THE GLENWOOD WATER
DISTRICT (FIRST READING).
Andy Limbird, Senior Planner offered Council a staff report on Ordinance No. 4. ORS Chapter 222 and
SDC Article 5.7-100 authorizes the City Council to initiate annexation of public land by resolution. The
City Council adopted Resolution 2018-09 on April 2, 2018 to initiate the annexation of linear strips of
property adjoining the Franklin Boulevard project in Glenwood. The property was acquired by the City
for road widening and contains paving, curbing, walking surfaces and other improvements related to the
first phase of Franklin Boulevard. Annexation of the road widening is requested to facilitate dedication as
public right-of-way under Springfield’s jurisdiction. In accordance with SDC 5.7-155 and ORS 222.040,
222.180 and 222.465, if approved the annexation will become effective 30 days after signature by the
Mayor or upon acknowledgement by the State – whichever date is later. The proposed annexation area is
contiguous with the City limits along the Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway rights-of-way, and the
total area proposed for annexation is approximately 1.93 acres. Staff advises that a full range of urban
services and utilities are available along the Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway corridor. However,
the subject property is designed and intended to be part of the constructed improvements for the Franklin
Boulevard project and therefore an Annexation Agreement is not warranted for this annexation request.
The staff report confirms the annexation request meets the criteria in SDC 5.7-100. Staff recommends that
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 9
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 5
the City Council conducts a public hearing and first reading of the subject Ordinance to annex the subject
territory to the City of Springfield and to the Willamalane Park and Recreation District; and to withdraw
the same territory from the Glenwood Water District. If given first reading at the regular meeting on May
21, 2018, the Annexation Ordinance would be scheduled for second reading and potential adoption at the
upcoming City Council meeting on June 4, 2018.
Mayor Lundberg opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 p.m. seeing no one signed up to speak on Ordinance
No. 4, she closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Jennifer Potter of Springfield spoke in favor of the City of Springfield terminating its contract
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She said the contract was not worth the strain it
put on the LatinX community of Springfield and surrounding areas.
2. Carol Heart of Springfield spoke in favor of the City of Springfield terminating its contract with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She said the majority of the people in Council
chambers as she spoke, were immigrants, unless they were of Native American descent. She cited the
machinations of ICE as inhumane.
3. Irene Henjum of Springfield spoke in favor of the City of Springfield terminating its contract
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She said she understood the Springfield Justice
Center needed revenue, but this was not the way to go about securing it. Ms. Henjum said the revenue
generated by the ICE contract was not substantial enough to justify the inhumane nature of ICE
activities.
4. Larry Kirk of Springfield spoke in opposition to the City of Springfield terminating its contract
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He offered he saw nothing wrong with local
authorities turning over people in their custody deemed as in the U.S. “illegally” over to ICE.
5. Sarita Lief of Springfield spoke in favor of the City of Springfield terminating its contract with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She asked everyone in attendance who opposed the
ICE contract to stand up, which they then did. Ms. Lief then played a recording of a woman (one
would assume a LatinX woman) describing that she and her family were legal residents of the U.S.,
and of Springfield, OR, and ICE activity in the area presents a danger to her and her family. She said
the woman in the recording was not in attendance herself for fear of broadcasting her name and
address as is required to address Council.
6. Kuri Gill of Springfield spoke in favor of the City of Springfield terminating its contract with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She offered the contract with ICE enhanced the
already-present fear experienced by LatinX members of the Springfield community, whether they
have legal resident documentation or not.
7. Johanis Tadeo of Springfield spoke in favor of the City of Springfield terminating its contract
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He said it was impossible for Springfield law
enforcement to serve and protect the populace if the residents of Springfield do not feel safe. Mr.
Tadeo said the contract with ICE was promoting hate and racial division in Springfield.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 9
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 6
8. Shelley Corteville of Springfield spoke in favor of the City of Springfield terminating its
contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She offered that she was bothered by the
fearsome effects of the ICE contract on the Springfield community, and she posited everyone in
Springfield should be as bothered as her by it.
9. Miriam Malcolm of Eugene spoke on behalf of Virginia Osteen of Springfield. In the statement
read, Ms. Osteen spoke in favor of the City of Springfield terminating its contract with Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She cited the Springfield City Mission, which states Springfield is a
welcoming, inclusive community, but the contract with ICE is not conducive to those characteristics.
10. Alex Tadeo of Springfield spoke in favor of the City of Springfield terminating its contract with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He said he wanted to live in a community that is not in
constant fear of the police.
11. Kris McAlister of Springfield said he had some ideas about how to make Springfield more
inclusive. He suggested, to help mitigate nuisance calls for trash/yard debris, the City could take
advantage of its relationship with Sanipac to offer vouchers for cleanup. Mr. McAlister said he
disagreed with fines for trash/debris buildup at a Springfield residence, and suggested instead that the
City reach out to its community members in a non-punitive way. He also spoke in favor of the City of
Springfield terminating its contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Mr.
McAlister said the public nature of Springfield’s contract with ICE could possibly jeopardize other
members of the community from whence a person taken into ICE custody came.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
Mayor Lundberg offered that Council was still having discussions about the ICE contract, and no
decisions had been reached as of this meeting.
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Friends of Sanctuary, Eugene, OR regarding the Springfield Jail’s contract
with ICE.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR VANGORDON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
Councilor Moore thanked Springfield Public Works, and all the volunteers, for a great Clean-Up Day
which was held the Saturday prior to this meeting.
Councilor Stoehr reported the Springfield Planning Commission was considering a proposal to develop
Marcola Meadows. He said there was an early plan to put in cluster housing in the area that would
provide housing for Springfield residents, and also possibly commercial development to follow.
Councilor VanGordon said that as a Council, they could, through lobbying, possibly take advantage of
additional transportation revenues from an additional incremental gas tax stemming from the
transportation bill making its way through State legislature.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 9
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 7
1. Small Cell Pole Attachment
This item was originally scheduled during the work session that preceded this meeting, but the Council
ran out of time.
Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney, presented on behalf of Neil Obringer offered Council a staff
report on small cell pole attachment. She offered that During Council work session on June 12, 2017 staff
provided a briefing on inquiries from cellular providers regarding the potential deployment of small cell
installations in the public right of way. In addition, during this meeting Council reviewed a draft Master
Pole Attachment agreement and directed staff to utilize this document during negotiations with cellular
providers. During the most recent update to the master fees and charges schedule Council adopted a
$5,000/pole/year small cell attachment fee.
These actions taken by Council were an effort to respond to inquiries from cellular providers interested in
small cell deployment in Springfield and to provide a clear and equitable process for deployments. At this
point in time no small cell projects have been authorized by the City of Springfield. However, staff has
been contacted by AT&T who is interested in a Springfield project.
AT&T has successfully executed a pole attachment agreement with the Springfield Utility Board in order
to allow for attachment to SUB owned poles. They are also interested in attaching to City owned poles. In
order for AT&T to move forward with their Springfield deployment they need to execute a ROW use
agreement with the City in order to occupy the public ROW and pole attachment agreement in order to
attach to City owned poles.
Small cell deployment is a new and evolving topic in Oregon. Several communities in Oregon are
working with cellular providers on potential small cell installations but few have reached final agreement.
Ms. Kraaz said there were several components which needed Council input. They were as follows,
including Council action options, and staff recommendations:
A. Adjust the Master Pole Agreement to also function as a Right-of-Way (ROW)-Use agreement.
Option 1: Integrate ROW use agreement provisions into the Master Pole Attachment agreement so the
City executes a single agreement with providers.
Option 2: Execute a separate ROW-Use agreement.
Staff recommendation: Option 1 (combined agreement). This is the recommendation of the City
Attorney’s Office who has already drafted a revised version to integrate a ROW use component into the
existing pole attachment agreement.
B. Amend the adopted attachment fee and adopt a small cell ROW-Use fee.
Option 1: Current adopted fee amount of $5,000/pole/year.
Option 2: Accept AT&T offer of a $250/pole/year ROW and $1,000-$1,200/pole/year attachment fee.
Option 3: $1,250 ROW use + $250 pole attachment/pole/year.
Option 4: $1,550 ROW use + $250 pole attachment/pole/year.
Option 5: $2,400 ROW use + $250 pole attachment/pole/year.
Staff recommendation: Option 4 - $1,550 ROW use + $250 pole attachment. This puts the City near the
price set by EWEB which is the highest local price and very close to the price set by the City of Salem.
In addition to the annual fees charged to the provider staff recommend that Council consider following
the Salem model by setting a one-time installation fee as a means of compensating the City for the
engineering review and other one-time staff costs associated with deployment.
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 9
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 8
C. Adjust the duration of the Master Pole Attachment Agreement.
Option 1: Maintain initial 5-year duration from original draft.
Option 2: Accept AT&T proposal as described above.
Option 3: Middle ground. 5-year initial term with two additional 5-year terms with the option to
terminate at the end of each term.
Staff recommendation: Option 3 (middle ground). Staff appreciates the need for AT&T’s return on
investment. However, since this technology is new to the community staff are proposing a middle ground
where there are more frequent options for the City to terminate/renegotiate the terms of the agreement.
D. Include integration of new laws/re opener for change of law.
Option 1: Reject addition of any new language to the Master Agreement.
Option 2: Accept AT&T’s proposal as described above regarding integration of new law.
Option 3: Add language that helps to ensure fair treatment and equity across providers but does not
provide for the integration of new law.
Staff recommendation: Option 3. Since it is likely in the City’s interest to be consistent in its treatment
of all provider’s staff recommends amending the language to provide some guarantee of equity across
providers
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the aforementioned agreement between AT&T and Springfield Utility
Board (SUB) had required any City involvement.
Ms. Kraaz said any individual installation in the ROW would require an encroachment permit.
Councilor Pishioneri wondered how many poles would be involved.
Tom Boyatt, Interim Springfield Development and Public Works (DPW) Director, offered the carrier that
Springfield was in talks with was suggesting a maximum of 30 pole attachments, most of which would
not be on City poles, but many of them would be in the ROW.
Councilor Pishioneri said, as far as amending the adopted attachment fee and adopting a small cell ROW-
Use fee was concerned, he liked a hybrid of Options 4 and 5 as stated above.
Councilor Woodrow expressed support as follows: For part A, she liked Option 1, for part B, either
Option 3 or 4 (although she showed preference to Option 4), for part C, Option 3, and for part D, she
preferred Option 3.
Councilor VanGordon’s support was as follows: For part A, he liked Option 1, for part B, Option 4, for
part C, Option 3, and for part D, he preferred Option 3.
Councilor Stoehr wondered if the City had been approached by providers other than AT&T.
Ms. Kraaz said there were conversations with Mobility over a year ago, and some permits were
submitted, but she did not believe said permits had ever been finalized.
Mr. Boyatt said they had it from AT&T in writing, that their view of the first term of 10 years would be
necessary to recoup the cost of each pole attachment.
Councilor VanGordon agreed with AT&T’s sentiment, but he wanted to insert language that would allow
the City to terminate any pole connection, if serious issues occurred.
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 9
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 9
Ms. Kraaz said there was default language written in, in case of a breach of the agreement occurred.
Ms. Kraaz read back what appeared to be the agreed-upon options for each part of the agreement. They
were: Part A – Option 1, Part B – Option 4 (or otherwise a hybrid of Options 3 and 4, in which the ROW
use fee would be between $1,500-$1,800, with the $250 pole attachment fee), Part C – Option 3, and Part
D – Option 3.
Ms. Kraaz said that AT&T would like to put a signed agreement in place over the summer which would
state that if Springfield is not able to get final terms negotiated on some of the other items of the
agreement, would Council be comfortable with staff coming back with a substantial agreement before
summer recess that the City Manager could then work on and execute over the summer break.
Council gave its consensus for the City Manager to act in their stead on this matter during the summer
recess.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Minutes recorded by Rodney Cimburke, LCOG
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
AJ Ripka
City Recorder
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 9
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY JUNE 4, 2018
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday June 4, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Stoehr, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, and members of the staff. Councilor Wylie was absent (excused).
1. Master Fees and Charges Schedule
Springfield Finance Director Bob Duey offered Council a staff report on Master Fees and Charges Schedule.
The City’s schedule of fees and charges are established by Council action. Staff consolidated past documents describing the City’s various fees and the method for making changes into a single document titled Master Fees and Charges Schedule. This document provides an easy reference for citizens, Councilors, and staff to identify the current fees authorized to be levied and collected by the City. Changes to the City of Springfield’s fees and charges can be modified through action by the Council or staff. The most common of actions by the Council is by simple resolution. The authorization to levy the fees may be contained in the municipal, building, development, or fire codes, but the actual amount of the fee itself is established by resolution. These are most commonly brought to the Council with a public hearing and are adopted at that time. Other fees may be authorized by the municipal, building, development, or fire codes, and the specific amount of the fee is also contained within that same code. In those cases, the code itself must be
amended and most commonly requires a public hearing, a first reading, and a second reading prior to adoption.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if Courts were included in the Police category of Governmental Activities Expense and Program Revenues. Mr. Duey said Courts was not included. He added there was some debate on where exactly to place Court revenues. Councilor Pishioneri said, without the addition of Courts to Police expenditure/revenue, the graph, and the report itself were made unclear. Councilor Moore wondered if Police and Fire levies were included in the Police and Fire category of Governmental Activities Expense and Program revenues.
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 4
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes June 4, 2018 Page 2 Mr. Duey said they were, because they were considered part of the tax system. Councilor Moore asked if those levy funds she mentioned came out of the General Fund. Mr. Duey replied both police and fire services would be considered as coming from the General Fund if they weren’t supported by citizen taxes.
Mayor Lundberg asked if court fines were included in the bar graph in the staff report. Mr. Duey said they were represented in the bar graph, but they were not represented in the fees and
charges manual itself. Mayor Lundberg asked if court fees had been set.
Mr. Duey said some things were set, such as issuing warrants, and repayment fees, whereas penalty fees as may be handed down by a judge, are set through statute or practice.
Mayor Lundberg asked, since part of those revenues goes to Lane County, and to the State, what percentage remained in Springfield. Mr. Duey said he could not give the exact percentage(s) off the top of his head. Gino Grimaldi asked if the percentages of revenue going to the County and the State were fixed. Mr. Duey said they were fixed. He pointed out since the amount of Springfield revenue monies going to the County and the State were fixed, if a Springfield fine was reduced, it would be the City who took the financial hit.
Councilor VanGordon asked if the 15.8% of City Government revenues from fees and charges were to eventually be brought closer to 20% as suggested by Mr. Duey; he was also wondering how much
additional City revenue would be generated. Mr. Duey said it would most likely generate around $2 million in additional revenue. Councilor Moore said as she pored over the staff report, she noticed a disparity between licensing fees for businesses; she said some of them seemed really high to her, while others seemed fairly insignificant. Mr. Duey offered that the current review of the Master Charges and Fees did not look at any business license fees themselves, but at the cost differences between year one and year two. Councilor Moore asserted those disparities should be examined more closely in the future. Councilor VanGordon said the balance between the fees and costs incurred by local developers
through Springfield, and ways in which the City could offset those fees and costs—perhaps by changing the way the City did business—was of utmost importance.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 4
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes June 4, 2018 Page 3 Councilor VanGordon wondered, as he looked through the Business License portion of the Master Fees and Charges document, if there were some of those licensing fees which were not being used, or could otherwise be collapsed for simplification purposes. Councilor Moore asked for clarification on the license fees associated with Sale and Distribution of Tobacco and Tobacco Products to Minors (page 3 of 77). Mayor Lundberg said there was an Ordinance tied to this particular licensing fee regarding the
Distribution of Tobacco and Products. Councilor Pishioneri pointed out the annual licensing fee for tobacco retailers was $61 annually,
whereas the annual licensing fee for tobacco vending machines was $38 annually. He wondered why these fees were not the same in both cases.
Mayor Lundberg said it differed because the owner(s) of the establishment in which a tobacco vending machine was located, were not necessarily the same as the owner(s) of the machine itself. Mayor Lundberg requested City staff to look over the fees to see if there are any which could be combined for simplification purposes. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the Public Passenger License which was issued by City of Eugene (page 4 of 77) was a revenue generator for the City of Eugene. Mr. Duey said he believed City of Eugene collected and kept the fees in question.
Mayor Lundberg posited Springfield should try to get Uber in place before beginning to dissect the Public Passenger License.
Mr. Duey discussed Section 2 of the Master Charges and Fees – Fire and Life Safety. He said there was an up-front correction to be made on Life Flight helicopter rescue services. Mr. Duey said Life Flight services did not fall under Fees and Charges, but would be addressed in the contract City of
Springfield will have with Life Flight. Councilor VanGordon wondered if the City was generating revenue from FireMed memberships. Chief Joe Zaludek answered that FireMed was still a viable product, and that viability was experienced mostly through social equity and access to healthcare for fixed-income individuals. Councilor VanGordon posited that FireMed needed modernizing to ensure it remained a viable product. Those present agreed.
Councilor Pishioneri asked for a justification for raising CPR training fees by 25% (page 11 of 77), while all other increases were between 4-8%. Mr. Duey replied the CPR training fees were directly tied to the market for those classes. Councilor Woodrow said she would like to have a separate discussion about dog licensing fees. She
opined if the fees kept getting higher, it felt to her like dog owners were being punished for dog ownership, and as the fees went up, compliance would most likely go down, defeating the purpose of
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 4
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes June 4, 2018 Page 4 the dog licensing fees in the first place. She also wondered where the monies collected from dog licensing fees were being applied. Councilor VanGordon agreed with Councilor Woodrow, that the subject of dog licensing fees should be a separate discussion, possibly its own Work Session. Councilor Stoehr agreed an ad-hoc discussion on dog licensing fees was needed, including the topic of mandatory reporting of unlicensed animals by Springfield veterinarians to the municipal government.
Mayor Lundberg was interested in having a conversation in the near future about grant writing, and how to raise the percentage of approved grants.
Mr. Duey said the two main topics of a future Work Session would be: Animal Licensing and Utility Right-of-Way fees. He asked the Mayor and Council if there were any other topics they wished to
discuss at the next Work Session. Councilor Pishioneri said there were some other items he would like to address at an upcoming Work Session, but he would email that list to Mr. Duey offline. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Recorded by Rodney Cimburke, LCOG
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________
AJ Ripka City Recorder
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 4