Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/1996 Work Session . MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1996 The City of Springfield Council met in Work Session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Morrisette presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Morrisette, Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist, Maine and Shaver. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Harold, City Recorder Eileen Stein, Administrative Aide Julie Wilson and members of the staff. I. Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) Update. Police Chief Bill DeForrest presented the staff report on this issue. The PSCC, formed in August 1995, by the Board of County Commissioners as mandated by Senate Bill 1145, includes 22 top decision and policy makers for all segments of the community safety and justice system and six lay members. Senate Bill 1145 establishes the primary role of the PSCC to be the development and implementation of a comprehensive plan for community safety and justice service system, using both local and state resources. . In February 1996, an interagency agreement was crafted between Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County designating the PSCC as the coordinating body for criminal justice issues. This agreement identifies specific criminal justice planning responsibilities that are in addition to the PSCC statutory duties. In Lane County the PSCC duties and responsibilities as defined in SB 1145 have been expanded by the Intergovernmental Agreement to include criminal justice system planning. In addition to expanded duties, the Intergovernmental Agreement expands the membership of the PSCC. The PSCC has been meeting regularly since August, 1995. A work plan has been adopted which calls for work to be assigned outto various task groups.inc1uding Prevention, Enforcement, Adjudication and Treatmentand Sanctions Task Groups. Each of these groups have specific tasks assigned and are responsible for establishing, time ,lines and producing recommendations for PSCC to review, approve and provide direction. The work plan includes an organizational framework within which work is to be completed. Estimated costs to provide staff and other resources to support PSCC are $250,000 annually. Springfield has $50,000 budgeted in FY 96/97 to pay its share of these costs for the first year of operation. There is an issue related to continued operating costs ifPSCC continues in its present configuration. . Chief DeForrest explained that the Council was being provided with the PSCC statutory responsibilities, the intergovernmental agreement, a membership roster and the PSCC work plan. He explained that he, Councilors Burge and Maine and School Superintendent Jamon Kent were involved with the PSCC. Work Session Meeting Minutes August 26, 1996 Page 2 . Chief DeForrest reviewed the costs associated with the support of the project. Councilor Ballew discussed the preliminary budget and questioned what the funding would cover. Chief DeForrest said he would provide Councilor Ballew with this information related to the budget and what costs were covered and included in the budget. Councilor Burge felt good dialogue had occurred between the various groups. He stated that each component had issues and some groups may be more sensitive on issues than others. He wondered if the project would be completed within the two year time frame. He also expressed concern that this would become another agency and this concerned him due to increased costs. He felt this was a healthy process but did not want this to become a process and nothing more. He discussed task group chair positions held by him, Councilor Maine, District Attorney Harcleroad and Judge Leonard. He discussed the interdependencies of the entire criminal justice system. . Councilor Maine stated that the task force subgroups are focusing on specific issues. She referenced the population management study prepared by David Bennett and was glad to have the information. She stated that this helped her to understand issues better~ She stated that the task force group process has been slow but sometimes this does occur. She explained that she and others have stepped into the role of task group chair in hopes of expediting the process. She was optimistic and felt the group now had a good structure. She explained that the task groups would start meeting soon, and recommended others attend the meetings. She felt this was a starting point and the appropriate time to bring Council to into the process. She explained that outreach to others was an important part of the process. Chief DeForrest said he would ensure that Council was aware of the task force meetings scheduled. Councilor Burge explained that Superintendent Jamon Kent represented the schools in this process. He recognized the talent of those participating in the process and many of them, had much knowledge. Chief DeForrest stated that this would be a slow process. He stated thaJmany complex issues were being addressed and that dealing with the criminal justice system is very complex. He stated that comprehensive issues would be addressed. He stated that everyone shared responsibility for making the community safe. He felt the Council could make remarkable progress on the project. Mayor Morrisette stated that many communities were dealing with similar issues and he hoped that sharing of information would occur. Councilor Burge felt it would be beneficial to know what other communities were doing. . Councilor Ballew suggested an attorney be included on the enforcement group. She expressed concern regarding the dedication of staff effort and time toward the project. Work Session Meeting Minutes August 26, 1996 Page 3 . Chief DeForrest discussed goal and direction of the task force(s). He explained that much of the work has already been completed and the task forces may focus and pull together the information they have. He also discussed the formal plans other agencies had and discussed coordinating the information. 2. Eugene Growth Management Study. Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this issue. The City of Eugene is engaged in a comprehensive growth management study. The expected outcome of this study will result in recommendations concerning type, density and location of future development and redevelopment in the City of Eugene and its urbanizable area. It is probable that the City of Springfield and Lane County will be directly involved in the outcome of this study because of the likelihood that the Metro Plan will require amendment. He felt this would be a good time to provide Council with an update on this issue. He introduced City of Eugene City Councilor Jim Torrey and City of Eugene Planning Director Jan Childs. . Mr. Torrey discussed the issue of growth in Eugene. He explained that as they have begun to accomplish economic development goals initiated by previous City Councils, they were at the point of needing to determine what their next goals would be. He stated that they had a:lot of growth and traffic within the community and that they wanted to be in front of and manage' growth rather than reacting to it. He explained that the Eugene Planning Commission was directed to undertake a comprehensive study on this issue and at the same time the location of Hyundai was announced.whichmade this a central issue for the community. The project is called "Managing Eugene's Future." He discussed the public input process that had been part of the study and the continuing need for input from others. He stated that things they do will impact other surrounding communities and discussed the impact on the City ofVeneta as it relates to west Eugene growth. Mr. Torrey stated that the next phase was to review how well the goals were established and stated staff was directed to see how they compared to other cities of similar size. For example, he said Eugene was growing faster than other university, communities.. He. stated that there was a need and concern about where they would go in the future. He explained that the next phase was to develop strategies. and the framework for. options '" available. He felt that the frame work would provide information on direction for, policy. and implementation. He stated that they have been dealing with this for three months and it was difficult to get consensus and agreement among participants. They were preparing to hold another forum for public input next fall. The four scenarios were growth oriented, no-growth oriented, recycle Eugene, how are we doing today in Eugene as we are currently implementing the law and the Metro Plan implemented (to its fullest). He stated that they have spent a lot of time and money and stated that this would impact the community of Springfield. He hoped that the appropriate staff members or elected officials would participate and provide comments throughout this process. . Ms. Childs stated that the study was an outgrowth of a request made by a Councilor a few years ago. The original request was focused around how the Metro Plan could be followed and implemented. People were becoming aware that the community was growing. As the Work Session Meeting Minutes August 26, 1996 Page 4 . study keyed up, it became a top priority to the Planning Commission on their work plan program. The study grew into a large project addressing many community issues and concerns. Ms. Childs stated the City of Eugene is in periodic review and she explained that it is not the City's intention to update the Metro Plan. She stated that what they were trying to do was to review existing policies around growth and eight topic areas. They also wanted to review the policies as a region. She explained that the study was being completed within the context of the existing Metro Plan and that growth in Eugene would impact Springfield, along with other surrounding communities and areas. She stated that Springfield was a partner with the City of Eugene in this process and felt that this session was an introduction and invitation to work together. Mr. Torrey stated that Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) had completed a study on the cost of growth and he provided his copy of the report. Councilor Maine asked how the City of Eugene would account for growth that may result in Springfield, Veneta or other places as a result of the City of Eugene's growth policies. Mr. Torrey responded that they did not know yet and explained that this is one of the reasons theY'~ were addressing the Council this evening. The City of Eugene wanted input and ideas from, the City of Springfield and to work together to address the impact which would likely occur. . Councilor Ballew discussed increased population and tax base. She stated that.if Eugene has. denser growth, the City would have to figure out ways to deal with the service demand without any additional funding. Mr. Torrey responded by stating that they needed to take a closer look at how to take care of these issues. Councilor Maine was surprised that the Eugene Council discussed the issue of growth management related to the environment and transportation issues. She hoped that the information now available would be considered. Mr. Torrey responded that the information would be used in relation to the study of density. He thanked the Council for their time and. attention to this matter. 3. Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority's (LRAPA) Role and Relationship with the City of Springfield City Manager Mike Kelly presented the staff report on this issue. The recent resignation of Don Arkell, LRAPA Director, has provided an opportunity for LRAPA's role and responsibility to be reviewed and re-examined. Several months ago, the LRAP A Board asked that each member agency review LRAPA's value and assistance to that community in preparation for an upcoming Board discussion regarding the agency's preferred mission and approach in exercising it's authority and regulatory powers. Of particular importance is the discussion surrounding the value of local versus statewide (DEQ) control over air quality rules and regulations. . Councilor Maine introduced Don Arkell, LRAPA Director. Mr. Arkell introduced staff members Kim Metzler, Public Information Coordinator, and Craig Bressan, Environmental Work Session Meeting Minutes August 26, 1996 Page 5 . Specialist. She explained that the reason this issue was being raised was due to the recent resignation of Mr. Arkell. Councilor Maine explained that the staff report contained background and information on this issue. She explained that she was at the point of asking if Council had any questions, input or concerns to be incorporated into the decision making process regarding LRAPA's mission and approach. Mayor Morrisette asked ifDEQ assumed LRAPA's functions in Lane County, what would happen to revenues from the Air Metrics Product. Mr. Arkell discussed the legal status of the AirMetrics product and its potential sale and distribution. Councilor Maine noted that an attachment contained in the staff report provided additional information regarding this issue. Councilor Ballew stated she saw this issue as more than just a regional issue and felt it was important to consider. Councilor Burge questioned the need to duplicate services. He stated that DEQ did have an office in Eugene and was not necessarily supportive of the way LRAP A has operated to date. He clarified that this was not directed toward any individual, but the agency and its policies. He stated that the local agency was a cost to the taxpayers. He had a difficult time supporting the need for a local jurisdiction. . Councilor Beyer felt that there was a need for LRAPA to continue as a local agency but she did have questions about how LRAP A handled individual cases. She thought there might be a .. discrepancy in how things were processed. Councilor Shaver received a call from a citizen regarding his treatment by LRAP A. The citizen felt they were not treated well as the their violation was a first offense and the penalty was $4,000. The citizen stated that LRAP A offenders are not always treated well. Councilor Shaver stated that if the organization was maintained locally, there needs to be better monitoring, DEQ should just take over. Mayor Morrisette stated that his experience with LRAP A was a positive one. He referenced a local complaint regarding a coffee company. Mayor Morrisette explained that the LRAP A Board worked with the owner of the business and it was a successful process. He also noted another example in which the Board worked with a company for one year. He also discussed asbestos and open burning. He recalled working with the Board and citizens very well. He felt the LRAP A Board was in control and was a responsive body. He felt the local control was a positive force and there was a need for it. Councilor Shaver suggested that communities who had local agencies should be contacted to solicit input and comments about why the local agency was closed. Councilor Maine stated that this was the type of information she would like to gather to assist in the decision making process. She noted that the air quality standard has been met for the last five years. She also discussed non attainment areas. . . . . .. I" ,. ,- Work Session Meeting Minutes August 26, 1996 Page 6 Council discussed the cost of funding the local agency. Mr. Arkell clarified information regarding agency funding, grants and the budget. He explained that LRAP A receives approximately one tenth of state revenue contributions into Lane County. He discussed fines and fees and how much of this would revert back to the State of Oregon. He discussed the multi tiered fee system and discussed federal fees that were set by DEQ. Councilor Maine reminded Council that this was an information process at this time and this was not the point to make a decision yet. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson A~ Eileen Stein City Recorder