Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/2009 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2009 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 9, 2009 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. AITENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Leezer, Wylie, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Matt Cox, City Attorney Bill Van Vactor, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. 2008 Annual Financial Report. Accounting and Audit Manager Mike Crocker presented the staff report on this item and introduced Chuck Swank. In accordance with Oregon statutes and the City's Charter, the city is required to complete an annual audit and financial statement. The report will be presented to the City Council at the February 17,2009 regular meeting on the consent calendar. Grove, Mueller & Swank, PC, the city's independent auditors, have completed their audit of the city's 2007/2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and have issued their opinion thereon. Mr. Swank from Grove, Mueller & Swank, PC will review the audit process, their audit report and the financial report during the work session. As a preliminary summary for the council's information, you may note that the auditors found no material weaknesses in the city's internal financial controls and they issued a "clean opinion" on the city's annual fmancial report, which indicates we are properly accounting for the city's fmancial resources and that we are using adequate controls to prevent any improper use of City resources. The auditors did have management points not critical to the audit which were not material and . therefore not presented in a written report. Mr. Swank discussed the preparation of this document. He said the quality ofthe document he received from the City was far above any others thanks to Mr. Crocker. This was in part because City staff wanted to fmd the right answers. He appreciated the questions and interchange from the staff from Finance. Mr. Swank referred to the City report. The purpose ofthe Auditor's report was to tell the reader what the auditors did and what they found. It was important to the auditors that the financial statements were recorded fairly and in accordance to generally accepted accounting standards. He suggested the Council read the MD&A (Management's Discussion and Analysis), which gave some explanation of where we were, how we got there and where we were going regarding finances. He discussed the budgetary documents which compared the revenues and expenditures against the budget of all the individual funds. He referred to the back of the document which City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 9, 2009 Page 2 included requirements by the State and Federal government. Springfield did receive some Federal funding last year which required specific reporting. That was shown on page 143 and the City did well in this category. : Mr. Swank referred to pages 135, 136 and 137, which identified the State of Oregon disclosures. The City did well in this regard as well. He referred to the statistical information, which started on Page 117. This included ten years of financial information and could provide a picture of how the City of Springfield had changed over the last few years as it related to financial informatiOIi. The City submitted this document to the Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) to have it graded outside the State of Oregon to see how the City did in accordance with following generally accepted accounting standards. The City will hear in June how they did on that. Last year, the City was awarded the GFOA certificate for excellence in financial reporting for the twenty-seventh year in a row. That record showed the dedication of the fmancial staff to meet quality standards. Councilor Pishioneri asked about page 7 of the MD&A. He asked if the increase in assets was because bonds were sold, or the levy passed. There was about a $15M increase. Mr. Swank said the statement of net assets was on a full accrual basis, so it would show all the capital assets owned by the City and all the liability against them. City Accountant, Nathan Bell said the increase was donated infrastructure from several different projects. Councilor Pishioneri asked if that was a normal trend. Mr. Bell said the City received donated infrastructure every year, but this year was higher than normal. ' Mr. Grimaldi said he would suspect it would slow down. Mr. Swank explained how this occurred. He said when contrasting the numbers that way, there was a significant increase in assets for the governmental funds, but from a budgetary standpoint, the proprietary funds increased net assets by almost $9M (page 23) and the governmental (page 20) decreased $1 OM. They needed to watch which basis of accounting they were on for each statement. He explained further. Mayor Leiken asked how many other municipalities Mr. Swank's firm worked with in Oregon. He also asked if they worked with jurisdictions outside of Oregon. Mr. Swank said they did not work with anyone outside of Oregon. They audited about 50 agencies throughout Oregon. In this area, they worked with the Eugene School District, Bethel School District, Lane Transit District (LID), Creswell Schools, City of Salem and some in the Portland area. About thirty of those that they worked with were cities. Mayor Leiken said he thought Oregon's tax system was rather old and he would like to compare with other states. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 9, 2009 Page 3 i Mr. Swank said he appreciated the opportunity to work with the City and the City's professional staff. . I I Mayor Leiken thanked staff and Mr. Swank for their work. Springfield h~d never been in trouble, and that was a great sign for staff and the consultant. I I 2. The "Big Look" Task Force's Final Report to the 2009 Legislature on Improving Oregon's Land Use Planning System. I' i City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. The B~g Look Task Force issued its fmal report on January 9,2009. The Task Force also drafted legislative amendments to state planning statutes (HB2229) with the intent of improving Oregon's land use planning system. At issue is how the fmdings of the Task Force and the proposed changes :( or lack of changes) in the state's planning system may affect Springfield. I I I i In 2005 the Governor and the Legislature appointed a bipartisan task force of individuals from I around the state to review Oregon's land-use program. The "Big Look" Task Force was charged with conducting a comprehensive review of the Oregon Statewide Plannihg Program. I , I The Task Force issued its fmal report earlier this month and has drafted H~gislation (HB2229) for implementing its major recommendations. Attachment I summarizes the recommendations of the Task Force. Attachment 2 summarizes the implementing legislation. ! I The report clearly states that "The Task Force does not believe that furtdamental changes are needed in the state's land use system, but instead recommends strate~ic adjustments." I I Perhaps the most innovative initiative would allow counties (two or mor~ must work together) to develop regional criteria for designating farm and forest lands, if they al~o protect important natural areas and assure that development is sustainable. i I The Task Force was charged with making recommendations on "the respective roles and responsibilities of state and local governments in land use planning." Nd significant change is proposed in the strong role that the state plays in local planning decision~. I , The Task Force recommendations reflect a strong continuing commitmeJtto protecting farm and forest lands. The recommendations for economic development developed by the Task Force are included in the legislative recommendations for protecting farm and fore~t lands and for strategic planning. I Mr. Metzger presented a power point presentation. He said that tonight hb would focus on the latter part of the presentation. . I , I The Task Force identified some consensus values that Oregonian's seem6d to have, such as strong support for environmental protection, a strong economy, a high qdality of life and to create livable communities, and a fair and equitable growth management systerrL There were some conflicts in the list of values. He explained. I I The Task Force released some early conclusions in 2007 and wanted to f~cus their , recommendations on those conclusions. There was confidence that Oregon's land use planning City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 9, 2009 I Pqe4 I had done a good job in protecting farm and forest lands, and had contain~d sprawl. There was I strong support for property rights, farmland and farming, protecting the environment, and using natural resources as a foundation of jobs and economy. There was less stipport for Statewide land use planning. There was not a lot of support for having a strong policy ori holding urban growth boundaries (UGH), but a desire to see some flexibility. i i The State's planning program was viewed as regulatory, especially the D:epartment of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). There was the idea that prograIDs became too complex with too much dependence on rules and laws. There was also the idea th~t the land use system should reflect distinctions between high growth and low growth areas. ~ere was also perception of rigid rules for exclusive farming land. The Task Force felt that Oregon should be the leader in adopting the best practices and providing more incentives and flexibility for planning and responding to market forces. I . i There was an idea that Oregon did not have a strategic method for understanding the values of Oregonians as they shifted over time. There was a lot of support for Oregon's planning system when first adopted under the McCall administration. Over the years, people's feelings about the planning system had changed for various reasons. This conclusion reflected those changes. " , , Most Oregonians shared a few basic principles that when properly balanqed in the State planning system helped to create a sustainable Oregon. It wasn't that people didn't want development, but that they wanted good development. He appreciated that about Springfiel~. I i Mr. Metzger said the Task Force did not believe that fundamental chang~s were needed in the State system, but rather strategic adjustments. He referred to a document in the agenda packet (Attachment 2) that summarized legislation that was going with the Task iForce report to the legislature. What was not identified in the legislation was the relationshin between the overarching goals and the statewide refining goals currently in place. I Task Force Recommendations: 1. Adopt four guiding principles for land use planning in Oregon . Provide a healthy environment . Sustain a prosperous economy . Ensure a desirable quality of life · Provide fairness and equity to all Oregonians 2. Foster regional land use planning I He referred to the attempt by Springfield to be part of regional planning. There was a move at the , State level to refine that regional problem solving and planning system. The legislation clarified how it would be done. i I I 3. Allow counties to develop regional criteria for designating farm and forest lands, if they also protect important natural areas and assure that development is sustain~ble. C" d '. . d h . I lties an counties were reqUlre to ave comprehenslVe plans that designated which lands were marginal, good for farming and forest, etc. Some counties had felt like thb current policies were too rigid, not allowing counties to think locally. I ! City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 9,2009 Page 5 I I I I I There would be an effort at the State level to perform an audit of the language of the Oregon planning system to make it easier for people to read and understand. 4. Reduce complexity 5. Strategically plan for a sustainable Oregon I , , , This related to strategic planning at the State level and tied in to work done under former Governor Barbara Roberts and the Oregon Progress Board. The idea was; to get State departments to work together, look ahead and include land use planning to achieve better outcomes for i Oregon. I i I Mr. Metzger said they were trying to establish follow-up review of planning laws and policies. In addition the Task Force recommended the following: ! I I i 6. Improve citizen participation 7. Improving infrastructure fmance This had the potential to benefit cities as primary users of infrastructure q.nance. The legislation ' related to this allowed the State to tie infrastructure financing to projects they supported. I I 8. Addressing climate change I i This was not part of the original mission of the Task Force, but had takeJ on more importance i over the last few years. 9. Planning for a vibrant economy Mr. Metzger said in looking through the report, he was not able to find aJything new regarding economic development. There were hopes that economic development would benefit from strategic planning. i I Mr. Metzger referred to Attachment 2, the summary of Legislative Recoriunendations of the , Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning. Section 17 of the legislative dbcument stated "to provide for areas added to UGB's to be annexed to cities before theywer~ rezoned to allow urban uses". Currently, Springfield had areas outside our city limits and inside Jur UGB that had plan designations for urban uses based on an arrangement the City had with ube County. He gave an example. This legislature stated that if the City assigned a plan designatidn outside our city limits tp any new land brought into the UGB, that land would need to be annexJd at that time. It was confusing. Mr. Tamulonis also looked at that language which stated, "If ~ City brought territory within its UGB, the City shall annex the territory to the City". Mr. Metzg~r called John Evans at DLCD about this. Staff from DLCD was hearing a lot of negative feedbadk from cities on this issue. Mr. Evans said the one page bullet summary that talked about anneking at the point where the City re-designated something for an urban use was currently being cObsidered, in the form of an amendment to the language stated above. That whole section (#17) may be dropped, but the City needed to pay attention. i i I , I I I , I I i Mayor Leiken said he knew Mr. Metzger had been involved with this issue for some time. When the Big Look was created there was quite a bit of fan fare, but he had beeh extremely disappointed because he felt there was not much substance to the fmal report. Little had been done since SB100 became law. When something was in place for over 30 years with very little , change, it could not be successful. He talked about the protection of farm;land and noted that many 300 and 4th generation family members did not want to protect their!farmland, but rather develop it. One thing that was key was the DLCD, because of their staff mterpreting the laws. The challenge to cities was who would be interpreting this report, and irthey could overrule the local communities. He felt this process was a waste of taxpayer money. Based on those measures, Oregonians in Action would most likely put another measure out there on land use. , , , Councilor Lundberg said she was also less than enthusiastic about this bdcause it put us right back where we were. It included statements about fostering economic development, but in the same breath about preserving farm and forest land. She referred to Attachment; 1-3 "fostering regional land use planning", and noted that we had already been down that path ~d found it to be less than perfect with huge differences of opinions. Cities didn;t always shart1 the same goals and that's why flexibility and separating of our boundaries became an issue. Allowing counties to set limits on new uses raised red flags about what would occur and why that iwould keep us where we were instead of moving forward. She discussed citizen involvement and said that in some cities, lack of participation in a public meeting did not mean there was lack of c~tizen involvement, but meant people were happy with how things were going. When computers ,are used more and people use the internet to respond, involvement would increase, especiall~ from younger people. She didn't want that dictated. : City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 9,2009 Page 6 Councilor Lundberg said that was an example of how watered Clown these things got because of lack of agreement on fundamental issues. There should be something to allow us to move and change as needed. This report didn't allow that. i ! Councilor Wylie said communities needed some better guidance to protebt key areas in our state and allow for growth. I Councilor Ralston said it would be interesting to see how they could imP~ove infrastructUre financing. I Councilor Wylie asked about the organizational chart in the audit report where it referred to the , City Manager and the City Manager's Office. ' Mr. Grimaldi explained that it included the support staff in his office. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 9, 2009 Page 7 3. Strategic Planning. In response to Council Goal Setting last year the Executive Team has prepared a draft strategic plan. The larger Management Team has also worked to define the varipus outcome and process measures that will be used to measure progress toward the Council's goals. I As it stands now, the plan clarifies our: i Mission - what business we are in Vision - what we want to become Values - operating principles which guide all decisions Key Processes - what we must do well Goals - what we will do this year I Staff will make a brief presentation on the planning process arid the docJment to the City Council I in preparation for the Council Goal Setting Session on February 23, 2009. During that meeting I the plan will be reviewed in detail and the Council will be asked fOJ: guidance and direction leading to adoption of the plan. i I Mr. Towery presented a power point presentation on the strategic plan. Staff was creating a , strategic plan that didn't create a lot of new information, but consolidated a lot of the good work that Council and staff had done over the years. Some of the reasons for tills plan were to provide , I) clarity for the organization and community; 2) a mechanism to set goals; and 3) to report more thanjust progress, but rather efficiency, effectiveness and innovation. Th1s was a different mechanism than had been used historically. I ' Although the substance of the plan was a draft and subject to Council's r6view and guidance, staff had tried to build on the good work that had occurred with the Coun~il over the years and not create a lot of new information. Staff felt this format did state the mission, but it was up to Council to provide guidance and direction. l , He noted that the Council vision goals had remained fairly steady over the years. Staff had combined the existing goals to make five visions statements: ' I. Financially sound and stable government services 2. Community and economic development and revitalization 3. Preserve public safety 4. Maintain and improve infrastructure and facilities 5. Preserve hometown feel, livability and environmental quality The organizational values had been well documented and used for many years. I 'Key processes' was a new term, but generally described the work done ill the organization aimed at implementing the Council's vision. There was both an internal and external focus on these processes. Staff identified a number of goals for employees during this process as wl(ll. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 9, 2009 Page 8 i I Mr. Towery distributed a draft of the plan document that Council would be working on during their Goal Setting session. There could be a few changes that occurred o~er the next couple of weeks, but nothing dramatic. The plan would remain draft until Council ~pproved the fmal . I verSIOn. I Mr. Towery reviewed the layout ofthe document. He explained the measurement methods and how it was identified which department was responsible forthose measurement methods. Under each of the measurement methods were the baseline and targets. The bott'om two-thirds of the document included the key processes and was the mechanics of how the 6rganization and the Executive Team were going to use this document. The policy level of this document was the top one third, which included the vision, missions, goals and how we would ineasure progress towards those goals. This was the high level summary of the document. ~ch department had a more complex version of this that identified their process and outcome measures that they would be tracking on an ongoing basis. All of that information eventually workdd its way up to the summary document. Councilor Pishioneri asked what the 'S's and 'O's meant. S=Process Supporters, O=Process Owners I I I i Mr. Towery said not at this level, but they were owners of all the process 'and outcome measure from their department level sheets. For some departments, only a handful: of measures came to this level. He acknowledged the assistance from Courtney Griesel on this I document. He reminded Council that this would be the focus ofthe Council's discussion during their goals setting session I on February 23. . I Councilor Pishioneri asked if Finance and Library owned anything. , Councilor Pishioneri asked if the priority of services Council worked on J few years ago was used when creating this document. I ! Mr. Towery said priority of services was used departmentally day to day, 'ii but was not a resource for this document. " I i Mayor Leiken asked when staff started working on this. I Mr. Towery said they started in May 2008, worked on it through the summer, took a bit of a hiatus in the late summer/early fall, and continued work in the last few m~mths. Mayor Leiken said he liked this because it was forward thinking, putting 1ur organization in a good position strategically. Staff started this before the economic downtutn, and he felt that was good planning and would be good for the public to know. He was looking forward to goal setting. I I ADJOURNMENT I The meeting was adjourned 6:35 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes February 9,2009 Page 9 ~.~e& David Ralston ~ft~ Council President Attest: Amy<i:t~ City Recoroer