Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/2007 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MAY 14,2007 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 14,2007 at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Christine Lundberg (5:30-5:45.p.m.) and Mayor Leiken (5:45-7:50.p.m.) presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken (5:45 p.m.) and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also pr~sent were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery,. City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Also present from the Plimning Commission were Chair Frank Cross and Commissioners Bill Carpenter, Gayle Decker, Steve Moe, Johnnie Kerschenmann. Commissioners Lee Beyer and David Cole were absent. 1. Joint Work Session Discussion with the Planning Commission to Discuss Issues Related to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). Planning Manager Greg Mott and Development Services Director Bill Grile presented the staff report on this item. The Metro Plan is nearly as old as Oregon's Statewide Planning Program, which is currently undergoing a comprehensive review ~alled, "The Big Look." There is value in doing a similar review of The Metro Plan. This joint work session provides the Council and Planning Commission an opportunity to discuss thoughts and concerns about The Metro Plan and the extent to which it is meeting or not meeting Springfield's needs and expectations. The Lane County Commissioners and Mayors/Councilors from Springfield and Eugene are engaged in a series of meetings to discuss Oregon's Statewide Planning Program and The Metro Plan. These local meetings are being called, "The Little Look." Attachment 1 provides background about "The Little Look" process and substantive questions being used by a facilitator to guide the discussions. In particular, Questions 7, 8 and 9 relate directly to the Metro Plan: 7. Are the fundamental principals of the Metro Plan still relevant for decision-making today? [See Attachment 2] 8. How well does the Metro Plan partnership system meet the needs of citizens, elected officials and the region today? 9. Is the Metro Plan meeting current and future needs related to buildable lands and UGBs, service districts and service delivery, transportation, housing, Measure 37 claims, other? Lane County has expressed eleven Metro Plan issues it feels merit examination. These are available for review at Attachment 3. The City Council and Planning Commission meet at least once annually to discuss issues of mutual concern. The May 14th Joint Work Session provides an opportunity for the Council and Planning Commission to discuss issues related to the Metro Plan and specifically, the extent to City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14,2007 Page 2 which the Plan is or is not meeting Springfield's needs and expectations. Questions 7, 8 and 9 (above) and Lane County's eleven issues can be used as a framework for the discussion, if this is ~M. ' Mr.Grile thanked the Council and Planning Commission for their time serving on these boards. He and Mr. Mott were available to answer any questions. He noted some concerns brought forward regarding the Metro Plan. Commissioner Moe said metro planning in the late 1970's and early 1980's was going on all over Oregon and lie was involved in that planning for our area. The advisory committee at that time was new to this type of planning and included some things in the plan that they felt other metropolitan areas were doing, but found later they were not. This plan was now thirty years old and he was surprised there weren't more changes. He was an advocate for Springfield and Eugene having their own boundaries. Councilor Ballew asked if there were other issues besides boundaries that needed separate identities. Mr. Moe said it had been his feeling that each City was individual and should have control of things within their own boundaries. Councilor Ballew asked if the two cities should share in transportation issues. Mr. Moe said those things had come up and had been resolved in different ways. Commissioner Decker said she was involved before the plan was passed. The discussion was largely focused on the issue of what happens in Eugene affects Springfield and vice versa. They wanted to have some type of input into the decisions that would affect Springfield. She said she was not sure that argument continued to hold up. There were certain things they did share such as the air and transportation. She felt that housing and other internal issues should be handled on our own. Any development having to go through all three jurisdictions was an onerous process and should change. Co~mission Chair Cross asked what the largest thing was that hindered us in the metro area. Mr. Grile said the amendment process was complex and unique in Oregon. The anxiety it created about whether or not potential future actions would be universally supported by the other two jurisdictions had some unintended consequences. Commissioner Decker said when the Metro Plan was passed, the elected officials from Eugene and Springfield were trying to put pressure on Lane County because they were so much farther behind in the process. She said it had never been a joyful relationship between the three entities. She felt that it was always two against one in one way or another and that should stop. If Springfield had our own version of the Metro Plan, it should be more autonomous, but perhaps address transportation as a joint issue. Commission Chair Cross asked if there were funding benefits in being part of the Metro Plan. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14,2007 Page 3 Mr. Mott said he couldn't think of any funding benefits in being part of the Metro Plan. Partnerships existed that pre-dated the Metro Plan, and there was a transportation plan that the Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO) was responsible for. There could be a benefit in assistance for updating those documents, but those partnerships were already in place. From a land use planning perspective, it was difficult to say if there was an advantage or disadvantage in being autonomous or a partner with respect to money. There was no immediate demonstrable financial benefit. Mr. Grile said there could be economies of scale in producing documentation and having the three jurisdictions working together on a transportation plan. He referred to an example of two cities in western Oregon that were contiguous with each other that produced a partially State funded transportation plan, and then each adopted the relevant portions into their discreet Comprehensive Plan. They saved money by producing the document together, but then adopted their perspective portions. Mr. Mott said the requirement to periodically update the plan, could be a shared burden with the partners. He said Springfield may not save any money on the analysis of buildable lands inventory by partnering with Eugene and Lane County because we would only want the part that related to Springfield. In looking at some of the work that had been done since 1994, he couldn't imagine it would take Springfield fourteen years to complete an update of our transportation, which it had taken working with the other two jurisdictions. Councilor President Lundberg welcomed Mayor Leiken to the meeting. She said as elected officials, they had been meeting with Lane County and Eugene and looking at the questions listed on the agenda item summary (AIS). She said it would be useful to hear what the Planning Commission members had to say about these same questions. Council could give feedback from the Little Look meetings. Mayor Leiken said the Little Look meeting today was cordial and they had a good solid discussion. He noted those that were present at the meeting. Most were positive regarding the Metro Plan, but the plan was rated average or below regarding whether or not it was serviceable. The questions were related to the Big Look, but were more focused on the Eugene and Springfield area. A lot of things had changed over the years related to land use. Their conversations focused on the questions. Councilor Pishioneri said the plan was relevant when written, and many areas were still relevant, but no longer effective. The questions related to relevancy were in regards to whether or not it was working for citizens, for the region and for the entities. Councilor Ballew said at her meeting the attendees were mostly polite, but there were differing opinions about the future. Councilor Woodrow agreed. He said Mayor Piercy stated that there was no animosity between the cities, we just didn't agree. The indications were low on how well the plan was doing. He asked who wrote up the Fundamental Principles noted on Attachment 2-1. Mr. Mott said it was a consensus of the elected officials. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14,2007 Page 4 Councilor Woodrow referred to item 3 in the list of Fundamental Principles: "require that urban development occur in a compact configuration with the metropolitan UGB." He said that statement was outdated and didn't reflect the growth each entity had ~een. At this time, Eugene would like to continue in a compact configuration. Springfield couldn't expect to provide family wage jobs for those people moving in. Commission Chair Cross clarified that Eugene was for the Metro Plan and Springfield was not. Councilors Ballew and Woodrow said that was the case in their meetings. Mayor Leiken said his group felt some aspects of the Metro Plan were relevant and some were dated. Councilor Woodrow said one Eugene councilor agreed with the Springfield councilors. Councilor Ralston said their group was very encouraging. It was pretty much unanimous that the Metro Plan was not an effective tool anymore. The indicated marks on the chart at the meeting showed that everyone was in agreement that the Metro Plan needed to be radically revised, or HB3337 would work in Springfield's favor. Development in compact urban growth boundary was a philosophical difference between the two cities. . Councilor Lundberg said Mr. Mott and Mr. Grile were the staff members at her meeting. She said growth management meant how to handle growth. Eugene could stay as compact as they wanted, but the outlying areas were having housing booms and would grow into Eugene. It would be self-defeating for Springfield to try to be denser and Region 2050 pointed that out. Lane County Commissioner Stewart brought up flexibility during their meeting, and there wasn't flexibility in the current Metro Plan. There were many differences of opinions, yet all seemed to come together regarding the effectiveness of the Plan. Commissioner Decker said one of the driving forces behind part number 3, was the high cost of extending urban services to the outlying areas, and that hadn't changed much. She asked if Springfield was looking at not requiring people to connect to the sewer or other urban services in outlying areas. She asked how Springfield would handle that cost. Mayor Leiken said it would still be the same and there would be an upgraded wastewater facility. He said a good example of handling outlying areas was when Coburg wanted to hook-up to MWMC. The cities were open to that, but Coburg would have had to pay for the cost of adding to that system. Other outlying areas may be interested in doing this as well. Eugene and Springfield were set up to deal with growth issues. Smaller communities had more concerns about development in their areas because they didn't have resources for water, sewer, etc. Councilor Ballew said SDC's for improvements should take care of some ofthe cost of growth for services. The users would be paying and there were charges for hooking up to the sewer. Commissioner Decker asked if current Springfield users would be subsidizing new development. Councilor Ballew said no. She explained. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14,2007 Page 5 Commissioner Decker said there were concerns about having enough room in the schools. There were a lot of things to consider. The City needed to make it clear that if the UGB was extended, the development wouldn't be subsidized by existing citizens. Councilor Ralston said a bill was going through the House regarding raising SDC's for schools and park districts. These costs were built in so development would pay for the services they would require. It wasn't fair to ask the rest of the citizens to subsidize development. The Housing Policy Board would be asking Willamalane and the School District to make exceptions . for low-income housing. Councilor Pishioneri said another issue was that there needed to be an equal balance of what was being brought in and the infrastructure needed to support the development. He discussed the issues smaller communities faced. It would be foolish for Springfield to allow a sprawl of huge residential areas without other types of zoning such as commercial and industrial. This Council had always been cognizant of city-wide impacts of development. He said he was confident that if Springfield received permission to move the UGB, it would be a thoughtful process. Commissioner Kirschenmann explained the bill that was currently in the legislature regarding the new SDC's. Commissioner Carpenter said discussion had been held regarding transportation, sewage disposal, schools and hospitals. It sounded more like it was the implementation of the Metro Plan rather than any restrictions the Metro Plan had placed on the agencies that was the issue. Rather than scrapping the Metro Plan, it would be better to determine what the problems were and look to amend the plan. He said the concept of having compact configurations in metropolitan areas was a statewide Oregon goal. He didn't feel Springfield wanted a Los Angeles type sprawl up the McKenzie valley or down to Creswell. The Metro Plan to date had halted that type of development and allowed the area to be more livable. He suggested forming a committee to determine what the obstructions were and work around those obstructions. Representative DeFazio claimed that Springfield was his constituency. Springfield would be more the middle person trading off Eugene's more liberal densities with the County's less liberal densities. He said the Metro Plan should maybe be revised regarding process. Mayor Leiken said Springfield had discussed that very thing for several years, but h~d trouble getting Eugene and Lane County to share in those discussions. In his opinion, the conversations currently underway with the Little Look meetings would not have happened without Representative Terry Beyer's introduction ofHB3337. This issue was getting the partners to the . table to determine what the benefits were and what the shortcomings were of the Metro Plan. If Lane County's tax measure didn't pass, Lane County would need to have a conversation about service delivery and land use. HB3337 should still go forward because he felt Springfield should have its own UGB. It didn't mean we wouldn't continue to work and plan together on certain issues. A serious dialogue needed to occur about this issue with all three jurisdictions. Staff from all three jurisdictions needed to go through the Metro Plan and discuss with their elected boards what was working and what was not. This Council had been ready to move forward on many of these issues and he completely agreed with Commissioner Carpenter. Commissioner Carpenter discussed how politics worked. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14,2007 Page 6 Councilor Ralston said infill and increased density was always a good goal to have, but we wanted to look at options. Springfield was constrained by rivers and flood'plains, but there were areas that did make sense to expand. He would continue to encourage redevelopment in many areas, but it was often market driven. Springfield was trying to fill up their tool box with options. Commission Chair Cross asked what the ramifications were of doing away with the Metro Plan if a way wasn't found to fix the Metro Plan. Mayor Leiken said the City could walk away from the partnership and create their own Comprehensive Plan. That was an alternative that could be considered. Springfield could probably incorporate a lot of what was included in the Metro Plan now to create a separate Comprehensive Plan, but it would be specific to Springfield rather than an entire region. Commissioner Moe said the Metro Plan was in a computer someplace and someone could just start editing the plan, separating it between Springfield and Eugene. Each jurisdiction could then modify their plan. Commissioner Cross asked what Council wanted from the Planning Commission besides sharing information. Councilor Ralston said he wanted to hear what the Planning Commission had to say to validate what Council was saying, ferret out some of the obstacles or offer suggestions. The only border that was shared with Eugene was 1-5, everything else was open. The only thing that really tied the two cities together was the TransPlan and that could still be valid. Councilor Lundberg said the Planning Commission heard the public first before the Council. Getting the Planning Commission's feedback was very important. She loved Commissioner Moe's idea regarding the Metro Plan. Unless the Planning Commission was supportive of what the Council was doing, or at least understood where the Council wanted to go, they wouldn't be on the same page when making decisions. She wanted to know what the Planning Commission saw as the challenges, obstacles and opportunities. This was the beginning of the conversation. Commissioner Carpenter commented on two factors of TransPlan: facilities and use of the facilities. Many people lived in one town and worked in the other. There were multiple economic and business interests intertwined between the two communities. He felt the interrelation between jobs and houses had not decreased over the last twenty years. Commissioner Decker said she didn't feel the numbers had decreased, but the impact had decreased. Councilor Woodrow said no matter what was done, Springfield would be joined with Eugene, and both communities had worked on TransPlan and providing service to citizens. He didn't feel that the Springfield Planning Commission or Springfield City Council decisions in Springfield should be held up to the discretion of another city. Springfield had to follow state land use goals and proper planning and could do that without someone else weighing in on our decisions. It had been convenient in the past, but it was time Springfield was recognized as its own entity. The ability to grow property should be at our own discretion. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14,2007 Page 7 Commissioner Decker said one of the biggest drawbacks of the Metro Plan was that the inventories were based on a metro-wide count of land. If Springfield filled up its land, but Eugene didn't, Springfield was stymied and vice versa. She felt Springfield needed to pull itself out of that so we could deal with the actuality of what's on the ground. There were parts of the Metro Plan that worked, but inventories should not be shared with Eugene. Councilor Pishioneri said ifHB3337 passed and Springfield had its own UGB, he would like, the Planning Commission to follow the Metro Plan closely. There should be very few exceptions when citizens came to the Planning Commission. The Metro Plan had a lot of validity, but was interpreted differently which diluted the plan. Commission Chair Cross asked Councilor Woodrow if Springfield would have better leverage in getting cooperation from Eugene and Lane County if we were separated. He said we now had difficulty getting them to the table to discuss things, and wondered if we would have an advantage if we were separated. Councilor Woodrow said he was not in favor of throwing out the Metro Plan, but rather throwing out the ability for Eugene to vote to stop Springfield from doing something. He referred to the expansion of the UGB and highway expansion. If those types of things came forward and all goals were met and the Planning Commission and City Council agreed, Springfield shouldn't have to ask Eugene for permission. It should be Springfield's decision. Commission Chair Cross confirmed Springfield would still need County input on areas outside the UGB. Councilor Ralston said the discrepancies in the inventories for the two cities was the impetus for this conversation. In order for Springfield to be able to plan for what we might need, we needed to know what we did or didn't have and Eugene was unwilling to do that. If Springfield separated, we wouldn't have to ask their permission. Commission Chair Cross said there were times when the two cities would have to work together. Ifwe were separated from the partnership, not necessarily out of the Metro Plan altogether, we would have more ability to move out on our own which could give Springfield more leverage over Eugene and Lane County to get a better response from them for the joint projects. Councilor Ralston agreed. Councilor Ballew said there was a real problem when the cities were dependent on each other's approval. The cities had very different corporate philosophies and that led them to anticipate getting negative response. Springfield would need to maintain their partnership with Lane County because we coexisted on the same property. One of the questions by the County was whether or not a citizen could come to the County after getting a negative response from the City. She didn't agree with that. Mr. Grile said the County was responsible for coordinating the land use activities ofthe cities and special districts in Lane County. That was true in every county in the state. Lane County was responsible for coordinating the growth management strategies and philosophies of Cottage City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14, 2007 Page 8 Grove and Creswell, just as it was Eugene and Springfield. The County had chosen to make that coordination mechanism for Eugene and Springfield, the Metro Plan. Councilor Lundberg said the County would always be a partner, but that made more sense. Springfield had instances where Eugene was invited to discuss issues, such as the GatewayIBeltline intersection, yet declined to participate, yet all residents across the freeway in Eugene would be affected. She said HB 3337 was an attention getter. If the cities were separate, we would have the interest level because Springfield was so close to Eugene. Mayor Leiken said there were good pieces of the Metro Plan. Sprawl couldn't occur due to state goals that would prevent that. The State goals were fairly broad, but the Metro Plan was fairly specific. Springfield was in a good position to take control of the future of our community. He would like the Planning Commission to look at those goals, what the Metro Plan could or couldn't do for the area, what we wanted Springfield to look like in the future regarding land use and how Springfield wanted to grow. The community of Ontario was going through the same issues but were more concerned about Idaho than other neighboring Oregon cities because of the more relaxed land use in Idaho. Looking at what could make Springfield competitive with regards to land use would be exciting for the Planning Commission. He said he was looking forward to seeing the official numbers from the Little Look meetings. It would be the City Council, the Planning Commission and other committees that would keep the Springfield momentum alive. We now had a golden opportunity. He was proud of the relationship of the City Council, Planning Commission and other committees. Councilor Lundberg said it was important to set Springfield up as the community of choice. Commissioner Decker said the problem was the same as it was when they first looked at the Metro Plan: would our children be able to live in this community? Councilor Wylie said we had come to this place naturally. Springfield had gone through a period of rapid growth with the potential for more growth, and we wanted our own identity and the ability to make our own decisions. We wanted to do what needed to be done for our community. The City Council thanked the Planning Commission for joining them this evening. 2. Fire Station Location and Emergency Response Study. City Manager Gino Grimaldi introduced this item. Acting Fire Chief Mark Walker presented the staff report on this item. The purpose of the Standards of Cover and Deployment Study is to provide Springfield Fire & Life Safety (F&LS) a tool for: · Assessing community fire and non-fire risk factors · Defining baseline emergency response performance standards · Determining appropriate apparatus and staffmg patterns · Evaluating workload and determining unit utilization · Measuring current and ongoing service delivery performance . Planning for future station locations City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14,2007 Page 9 . Assisting in the strategic planning and policy development process relative to resource procurement and allocation The SOC provides a "snapshot" of the current level of fire and life safety services as well as a sl;1mmary of future challenges. It provides a standardized "best practices" method of evaluating the demand for services and making adjustments as needed to maintain service levels. A summary of recommendations from the consultant are included. Mr. Walker said F&LS contracted with Emergency Services Consulting, Inc. (ESCI) for the Standards of Cover plan. This plan would be a valuable tool for the F&LS Department to identify community needs for fire and life safety in the future and would give staff a tool to use to bring comprehensive recommendations to the Council. He introduced retired fire chiefs Randy Iverson and Roy Palmer currently with ESCL Mr. Iverson had thirty-four years of fire experience, fifteen years of that as fire chief and ten years of experience with ESCL Mr. Iverson said Council should be very proud of Springfield's Fire and Life Safety Department. It was a solid organization in delivery service and future thinking. The recommendations were to build on something that was already good. He thanked staff from the F&LS Department, Planning Department, Geographic Information System (GIS) and other departments. He said he lived in Medford and was formerly a fire chief for a district in the Medford area. Mr. Iverson presented a power point presentation. The note outline for the presentation was included in the Council agenda packet. He noted that several pages in the report related to different parts in the presentation. · SFLS Deployment Goal: Pages 83-94 in the report provided more detail. . Two Phase Project: Standards of Cover and Deployment Study Mr. Iverson discussed the Standards of Cover. He said it was a process of going through several different steps to determine the best way to cover a community. It was a self-assessment program. The Deployment Study dealt with station location and assignment of apparatus and personnel. The Standard of Cover was detailed in the first seven chapters of the report. . Standards of Response Coverage Mr. Iverson discussed the seven points in the Standards of Response Coverage. He discussed distribution and reliability. Everyone in town needed some type of protection, but things weren't equal in any town. On one hand, fire service needed to be distributed to cover everything, but on the other hand, service needed to be concentrated where the biggest risk existed. The idea was to . find the best balance. He discussed reliability and determining how often the department was meeting their goals , . Community Risk Assessment Mr. Iverson said the goal was to match the level of service to the risk that existed now and in the future. The level of service was defined in terms of station location, apparatus, personnel and time. Time was a critical factor. . Community Risk City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14,2007 Page 10 Mr. Iverson referred to a chart showing population growth in Springfield. He discussed the different factors that affected the amount of service needed. . Community Risk Assessment (additional factors listed): Pages 17-48 in the report provided more detail. He noted the number of issues that related not only to fire services, but many other City services as well. It was very important that all these departments worked well together and understood each others issues. . Current Station Deployment Mr. Iverson discussed the current station deployment. Springfield had five fire stations and the chart showed the coverage area for each station. He explained. Appendix A in the report showed a review of the existing stations and apparatus in Springfield. . Current Performance: First Unit Response Time Mr. Iverson said this related only to emergencies that required lights and sirens, and excluded areas outside the demand area. He discussed the average response time. Five minute response time was the nationally recognized standard used in many urban areas, but was a policy decision and not mandatory. Springfield had very good numbers and provided for a very large service area. · First Unit Coverage (map outlining areas of response within 5 minutes) Mr. Iverson discussed how the timing could be improved and addressed. He discussed the different maps included in the report and how they were created to show different aspects of the fire service. Councilor Ballew confirmed that the average response times did not include trips up the . McKenzie River. Mr. Iverson said the map on page 85 showed four different colored areas heading out east. The table at the top gave the area, response time and percentage of meeting. It was County standards once outside of city limits. Springfield was meeting the standards in all areas. · Additional Workload Analysis: Pages 80-84 in the report provided more detail. . He discussed additional workload analysis, regarding unit hour utilization, call concurrency and primary unit response reliability. · Deployment System Performance Measurements at the 90th Percentile: Pages 93-96 in the report provided more detail. Councilor Woodrow asked how many units were required to respond to a low-rise fire. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14,2007 Page 11 Mr. Walker said that was three stations, three units and one chief. Councilor Wylie asked who arrived first on the scene. Mr. Iverson said it could be any of the three. Councilor Wylie asked about the logistics if a burning house was located down a narrow road. Mr. Walker said that was a policy and training issue. Typically, vehicles were not committed or sent to an area that they could not get out of. The first arriving engine would make an assessment while the others would stage on the street until direction was received. He said they had specialized hose loads for pan handle lots because the vehicle could not get close enough. Mr. Iverson said it took a lot of quick thinking and decision making. He referred to Chapter 6 in the report which basically explained that an effective fire force meant having the people needed to get the job done. . Current Coverage Capability . Coverage with Station 2 and 4 Relocated Mr. Iverson said adding new streets could increase response times in some areas. He discussed overlapping of coverage when more than one station had five minute response times. This information was referred to in Chapter 9 of the full report. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the five minute response time was from the time the unit exited the station or from the first call. Mr. Iverson said it was from the time the tone went off. It included turnout time and travel time. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the turnout time was different for different stations. Mr. Iverson said yes. One of the biggest factors was time of day and whether the firefighters were sleeping. Design of the building could also be a factor, although not as significant. Relocating Stations 2 and 4 could make more efficient service. Although it would be expensive, it wouldn't be as expensive as building, staffing and equipping a new station. Councilor Woodrow asked if the program took into account the train tracks. Yes. Councilor Ballew said if the density in the City shifted, the suggested relocates might not be ideal. These were all projections. Mr. Iverson said that was correct. He summarized his presentation with recommendations for 1) existing deployment system; 2) actions to improve performance; and 3) planning issues (future needs). He referred to the appendix that gave detailed discussion regarding relocating or building a new station. He encouraged Council to read through the complete report. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14,2007 Page 12 Mr. Iverson recommended the City perform the risk assessment to show the needs of the community and then look at the operational answers to the assessment. Policy choices would need to then be made on which way to go. Councilor Lundberg said there were properties she would like to have the City purchase downtown to possibly relocate Fire Station 4. It could possibly deal with some ofthe issues downtown. This report was very valuable for those decisions. Councilor Ralston said philosophically, he was not interested in building and staffing a new station, but moving two stations made a lot of sense. He said the trigger would be when development went in to those areas. Both Glenwood and the Jasper area had potential for development. They would possibly need to consider purchasing the property within the next couple of years. Councilor Woodrow said the Jasper Road area was being developed now. He said the City many want to work with the developer and start negotiations soon. Councilor Ballew said she didn't feel she had enough time to look this over before making any decisions regarding purchasing property. Councilor Ralston said there would be trigger points that would make it necessary. Councilor Ballew said it would be about $2M to move each station. Councilor Ralston said if those two were moved, it would open the property they were currently sitting on that could be sold to recoup some of the costs. Councilor Ballew said she wanted to review the whole thing. It was a bigger issue than for just this evening. Mayor Leiken asked if Council agreed. Councilor Ralston said Station 4 would probably be the first station to be moved. He was happy to wait. Councilor Woodrow say he was fine waiting, but didn't want to wait too long. This should come back to Council relatively soon. Mayor Leiken thanked the consultant for the information. He said he explained it -very well. Mr. Iverson said staff could provide Council with more detail. Councilor Lundberg said time should be taken to look at this issue. The key pieces would be to determine the triggers and what Council should be looking at to determine timing. She asked staff to bring that information back to Council. Mr. Walker said the advantage of tonight's information was that it was now a familiar tool when staff brought it back to Council. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 14,2007 Page 13 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa ~~t SRhrery-~~~ Christine~dberg ~ Council President Attest: AmY~~ City Recorder