HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/2010 Regular
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, APRIL 5,2010
The City of Springfield Council met in regular sessiorf in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 5, 2010 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding~
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Wylie, Leezer, Simmons and Pishioneri.
Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff.
Councilor Lundberg absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCaOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCaOR
PISHIONERI TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - LUNDBERG).
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. February 26, 2010 - JEO Meeting
b. March 15,2010 - Work Session
c. March 15, 2010 - Regular Meeting
d. March 22, 2010 - Work Session
e. March 29, 2010 - Special Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Award the Subject Contract to JKG Electric, Inc. in the Amount of$95,527.00 for Project
P21036: Springfield City Hall External Lighting Replacement.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 2
b. Authorize the City Manager to Sign the "Sponsorship Agreement and Documentation of
Authority to Implement a Riparian Shading Project with the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission".
c. Approve Amendment No.2 to Agreement No. 23409 with the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) Correcting Inconsistencies and Officially Combining the Lane
County's Hayden Bridge Overlay with the City's Pioneer Parkway Overlay (P20438) and
Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute the Agreement on Behalf of the City.
ITEMS REMOVED
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available
at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may
not yield their time to others.
1. Sale of Surplus Real Property.
Civil Engineer Matt Stouder presented the staff report on'this item. On January 19,2010, the
Council, by resolution, declared certain real property surplus and,directed staff to offer it for sale.
This action involved a parcel of City owned property in fee subject to a restriction that it be used
as right-of-way, consisting of approximately 0.251 acres. It was no longer needed due to
construction of the Bob Straub Parkway (See Attachment 1 of the agenda packet).
Offers on the subject property were due to the City by March 22,2010. Staff received one offer
to purchase the property in question, but felt the offer was substantially below market value.
Staff was currently in conversation with the offering party regarding possible adjustment of the
offer.
At this time, staff recommended that Council open the public hearing on April 5, 2010, and then
continue the hearing to April 19, 2010, at which time staff hoped to be able to present Council
with an updated offer that could be..supported.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCaOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCaOR
LUNDBERG TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 19, 2010. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - LUNDBERG).
The public hearing would remain open.
2. Public Hearing for Project P21032 - South 38th Street and Cherokee Drive and Vicinity.
ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE REPORT OF THE CITY
ENGINEER FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON SOUTH 38TH STREET AND CHEROKEE
DRIVE AND VICINITY (P21 032) (FIRST READING)
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 3
City Engineer Ken V ogeney presented the staff report on this item. Mr. V ogeney noted that
additional comments had been received by the City Manager's Office after the packets were
prepared. Those documents had been distributed to the Mayor and Council by the City Recorder.
In July, 2009, more than fifty percent (50%) of the property owners on South 38th Street, between
South Redwood Drive and Cherokee Drive, and on Cherokee Drive, between South 34th Place
and South 38th Street, submitted a petition to the Council to initiate a public wastewater
improvement project in their neighborhood. On November 2,2009, Council reviewed the
petition at a public hearing and adopted Resolution 09-47, declaring its intent to initiate
construction of the defmed project, and its intent to recover cost through assessment of the
properties benefitted by the project through Local Improvement District proceedings. Since
adoption of the Resolution, staff prepared engineered plan drawings; held a neighborhood
meeting with residents in the district to review the plans and financial aspects of the project, and
prepared the City Engineer's Report (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet). If Council authorized
the project to proceed to construction, public wastewater service would be provided to 45
individual lots and 48 residences in the district.
The neighborhood meeting occurred at 7:00 pm, Thursday, February 18,2010 at Agnes Stewart
Middle School. A majority of the owners in the district were in attendance, and several expressed
concerns regarding project costs and looming increases in local wastewater Systems
Development Charges (SDC's). To ease some of these concerns, Council provided direction to
staff that each property would be assessed at the same rate, and that the maximum assessment a
property shall incur due to construction of the public portion of this project would not exceed
$7,500. These Council directions were incorporated into the City Engineer's Report.
The current total cost estimate for the project was $330,000. The costs, less the City's un-
assessable share as identified in the City Engineer's Report would be borne by the adjacent and
benefitted property owners in the district. Based upon the total cost estimate for the proj ect, the
estimated assessment was $6,742 per benefitted property.
Notice of this public hearing was published in the newspaper and mailed to the owner of each
benefitted property. Staff requested that Council conduct a fIrst reading. and public hearing of the
Ordinance approving the City Engineer's Report.
Mr. Vogeney referred to several sections of Attachment 1, City Engineer's Report: Section 2.50
noted staff's recommendation regarding assessment for each property; Section 2.60 noted staff's
recommendations regarding financing based on Council's past direction; and Section 2.70 noted
staff's recommendation that the City would pay for the three street intersections within the LID
boundary. The City would also pay the total cost difference between the total assessed amount
and the assessment per lot. Staff's final recommendation was that a maximum assessment of
$7500 per lot be guaranteed.
Mr~ V ogeney noted an error on page 4 of Attachment 1, Section 6.00, which read "Maximum
Assessment ?NONE". It should read "$7500 per benefited lot". The tentative schedule for the
project if Council adopted the proposed ordinance on April 19 would be to advertise.for bids in
late April, award a contract in May, start construction in July with a completion date the end of
August.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
AprilS, 201&
Page 4
Mayor Leiken asked the Council to hold off on questions until after the public hearing
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
....-
I.. Mr. R. F. Peterson. 3624 Cherokee Drive. Springfield. OR. Mr. Peterson thanked the Council
for their forbearance concerning his letters and notes. The bottom line was that the cost was
still where it was over a year ago - approximately $7500 per owner, and $5700 for hook up.
This was a terrible burden to 45 taxpayers. He discussed the economy, the loss of hours, loss
of employment and foreclosures exceeding last year's figures. The recession was the worse
time his wife of 42 years, who was in real estate, had ever seen. There had been $10,000 to
$20,000 in loss of property values. These economic times tested local governments to do no
harm to the citizens. It was hard for those in LID to comprehend the priorities of the City
such as $5M for the Mill Race, $3M for pedestrian bike lanes, etc. He asked if the City could
offset the resident's expense from $100,000 to $200,000 and stop the bureaucratic procedures
and get the project done. Governments were to be flexible. Perhaps a 30-60 day moratorium
would allow the needed time to get some better ideas.
2. Rob Thomas. 3810 Cherokee. Springfield. OR. Mr. Thomas said his property was where this
began. He was still in support of the project. He had a lot (of money) into this already and
whatever the City could do to help would be appreciated.
3. Lisa Thomas. 3810 Cherokee. Springfield. OR. Ms. Thomas said she and her husband (Rob
Thomas) had been with this from the beginning. They were the fIrst to find out the law when
their septic system failed. They wanted to fix their septic system when it failed and learned
that the laws had changed and they would be forced to go into the City sewer. If people had
to do this on their own, and not with Council's help, it would be much more expensive and
difficult. She thanked the Council for their time.
4. John Ellington. 3585 Cherokee Drive. Springfield. OR. Mr. Ellington said as they were
coming to the end of this process and moving forward with the project, it was apparent that
their neighborhood needed the sewer. It would not only prevent any future failures, but would
also insure there would be no groundwater contamination to Springfield's drinking water.
Many suggested that septic tanks would last forever. He did know that drainfields didn't last
forever, typically 30-50 years, and many homes used drainfields. He asked the City Council
to move forward and allow this project to go through. He noted that the financial burden for
those living within 300 feet of the sewer would be unbearable to do on their own, nearly
$80,000. If they had a septic failure and the LID did not go through, he could lose his home.
He understood it was a burden now to come up with $7500, but it was much cheaper than the
$80,000 they could be forced to pay if they had failure. He hoped Council would adopt this
ordinance.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Mayor Leiken welcomed the members of Boy Scout Troop 171, who were attending to receive
their citizenship badges.
Councilor Wylie said it concerned her that some people would be impacted financially. She
understood how badly this community needed the sewer. She asked if the City had explored every
aspect of financial aid.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 5
Mr. V ogeney said there was one additional piece of research staff was doing based on
information Councilor Lundberg had on some possible funding through the State. Staff had been
unable to contact the local representative for information on any possible funding. Staff
understood that the State may have some funds available similar to CDBG funds and they were
trying to fmd out about that possibility. He could share that information with the Council and also
with the property owners during the April 19 public hearing once contact was made.
Councilor Wylie said it was vital that the City made every attempt to see what type of assistance
could be provided. She asked how the 3.5% interest rate was determined.
Mr. Vogeney said 3.5% was recommended by the Finance Director. It was based on the rate of
return on the Treasury bill which averaged about 3.5%. This was presented to Council at a work
session and Council concurred with that rate.
Mayor Leiken suggested contacting Representative Beyer to ask if she could assist in making
contact with the State on the possible funding options so we could get a response by April 19.
Councilor Simmons asked if the City had contacted the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) through Public Works or the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC) to see if there was an opportunity for emergency loan dollars.
Mr. V ogeney said his understanding was that the loan for emergency purposes may not be
applicable for this project. State revolving funds were already committed. They had done further
research on funds from DEQ and had found nothing.
Councilor Simmons asked if the Thomas' (initiators of the petition) would have to pay additional
dollars on top of what they had already committed for the sewer connection. He thought there
was a clause in their connection about paying additional costs.
Mr. V ogeney said the Thomas' property was considered one of the benefited properties in the
LID. The reason for their share of the cost was to extend,the sewer across the frontage of their
property so it would be available to the next property. Each individual property owner was
responsible to make sure improvements were completed across the frontage of their property.
Councilor Simmons referred to a County rule about replacing septic systems. He asked if there
was any opportunity within that rule to propose alternatives or exceptions, or alternative systems.
Mr. V ogeney said Lane County had authority through DEQ and the rules were from Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR). Lane County Sanitarian's Office was constrained by those rules.
Within the OAR, there was a requirement that if property was on a septic system~ that system
failed, and they were within 300 feet of a public wastewater system, they must connect to that
system. The flexibility Lane County Sanitarian had was that if someone was not within the 300
feet and their septic system failed, there were other types of onsite treatment systems that could
be installed rather than a septic system.
Councilor Simmons said some properties were more than 300 feet from existing system. He
asked if those alternatives had been explored prior to forming the LID.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 6
Mr. V ogeney said the City learned fIrst that the Thomas's had a septic failure, so the City worked
with them to make an emergency hookup. For the remaining properties in the proposed district, a
petition was broughtJor the City to provide public sewer. As part of the fIrst work session with
Council, they did look at the lots that lay outside 300 feet of any public sewer lines. The design
prepared for this project was the most efficient design to put the least amount of pipe in the
ground to reach the residents. There were other alternatives to provide sewer to the residents, but
they would cost more. He explained those alternate routes. Less than half of the lots in the
proposed LID were outside of 300 feet from the sewer. During an earlier work session, staff
brought an option to Council for a smaller LID area. At that time, Council directed staff to move
forward with the full sized LID.
Councilor Simmons asked if the property owners outside the 300 feet had been provided
opportunity to participate in an alternative that may have been more cost effective. There were
many different types 9f systems that could be less costly and effective.
Mr. V ogeney said staff did not look at each individual property and discuss alternative means for
onsite treatment. Part of the reason was that as the sewer got extended to each property, it would
get closer to the next property, putting it within 300 feet. Because of that, they did not discuss
those alternatives.
Councilor Ralston asked how many properties would benefit from CDBG funding.
Mr. V ogeney said in order for CDBG funds to be used, there were two different programs. The
first program was that if the neighborhood qualified as a whole as a low income neighborhood,
CDBG funds could help cut the public costs. The second program was available for individual
property owners who qualified as low income. That program provided zero interest loans to help
the property owner with their private costs. Both could not be used at the same time. Staff sent
out a survey to the neighborhood and didn't receive an adequate response back to show that more
than fifty percent of the property owners had an income in the qualifying range. That removed the
funding for the public portion option from the table, but allowed the private funding.
Councilor Ralston asked how many property owners would qualify.
Mr. Vogeney said they did not know because not all of the property owners sent back the survey.
Councilor Ralston said it bothered him that the cost was so high. He believed that everyone in
that neighborhood needed to be on the sewer system. If they didn't get on the sewer system, and
their sewer failed in the future, it would cost them much more to connect. He would like to see as
many people qualify as possible. He asked if CDBG funds received by those that qualified could
be disbursed throughout the neighborhood. He believed the interest rate should be no more than
1 %, the maximum assessment should be $1000 less, and the maximum for private hookup should
be $5000. He would like to give the neighbors as much of a break as possible and wanted to look
at all options before making a decision.
Mayor Leiken said this ordinance was not an emergency. He asked if this item could be moved
past April 19 if Council could not decide by that date. Yes.
Councilor Leezer said she wanted to wait until all options were known.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010J
Page 7
Councilor Wylie asked if individual assistance was still available through CDBG . Yes. She asked
if property owners would need to qualify based on income levels.
Mr. Vogeney said that was correct. Each property owner would meet with the City's housing staff
to fill out an application to see if they qualified.
Councilor Wylie said she would like to have the City help the neighborhood try to qualify as a
whole for public funds.
Kevin Ko,Housing Manager, said federal regulations required that at least 51 % of the affected
service area needed to qualify at or below 80% of the median income. When the City did the
original survey, they only received about half of them back. Of those, about half of them
qualified. Typically, those that didn't return the survey didn't qualify. Staff could redo the survey,
but it may turn out that the neighborhood didn't qualify.
Councilor Wylie said sometimes people might not fill out the forms if they were elderly or ill.
She said if they sent out a new survey, some. of the-neighbors might assist their neighbors in order
to get an accurate count. She wanted the City to make every effort to assist the neighbors. She
asked if the loan could be set at 3.5%, but with a lower rate of 1 % or 2% for those that met certain
criteria.
Mr. Leahy said he would need to look into that and talk with Mr. Duey. In fixing the interest rate,
the City had some flexibility in terms of an incentive to make the program work. He would get
back to the Council by April 19 with that information. He would recommend using fmancial
guidelines that already existed.
Councilor Wylie would like to do another survey if Council agreed.
Mayor Leiken said they could go forward with Council consensus. Council agreed.
,
Mr. Ko noted that if the area qualified, a public process would need to be followed. Council
would have to have an emergency session for CDBG funding or go through the annual public
hearing. Either way, an amendment to the Consolidated Plan would need to be made.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if a sub-district could be created that was smaller in order to qualify
for CDBG funding. He explained.
Mr. Ko said the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HOD) didn't like projects
carved out for the purpose of qualifying. He would proceed with caution.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was fine putting this off until they had all the information.
Mayor Leiken said the City needed to adhere to the legal issues. The City was obligated by
mandates, especially federal when it came to HUD issues. He agreed as much information as
possible needed to be gathered, but he didn't want to get everyone's hopes up. .
Mr. Vogeney said if the neighborhood qualified ofCDBG funding for the public portion of the
project, each property owner within the district would be required to connect to the sewer as soon
as the project was complete. With the prior discussions with the neighborhood, people would only
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 8
need to hook up when they were ready, giving them a longer timeframe to deal with their onsite
septic issues.
Mr. Leahy referred to Councilor Pishioneri's question regarding a sub-section. He said he didn't
think changing the boundaries would work. It would cause inequities and disparity throughout the
area. He explained. They would not proceed with that option. '
Councilor Wylie said she wanted a list of all possible assistance that would be available and how
much it would be. She wanted to know how the costs would change if assistance was received
and also if we charged a lower interest rate.
Mayor Leiken said the City had been fortunate to have Mr. Ko working with HUD, but the
Federal government did not always come through with funding. The City was trying to
accommodate those living in the neighborhood, but the longer it was extended the more costly it
would be to the public. They were willing to explore all options, within the legal guidelines the
City must follow.
Councilor Ralston said there was one property already failing. He asked if there was a time limit
to get this done.
Mr. Vogeney said at this point, the property that had septic failure was connected to the public
system. No other property owners had said their system was failing.
Mayor Leiken said this was only a fIrst reading so Council would not be taking any action on this.
Staff would be gathering additional information to bring back to Council on April 19 or a later
date.
Mr. Leahy noted that Council had expressed that one of their goals was to reduce the $7500
maximum and lower the interest rate.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if $7500 was the cost for the full project.
Mr. Vogeney said $7500 was the maximum cost of the public portion. The private costs from the
street to the homes would be separate. Those costs were based on the current project estimate.
Councilor Pishioneri asked for the amount of the private costs.
Mr. Vogeney said they estimated about $5000 to $5500 per lot.
Mayor Leiken reiterated Council wanted to look at how they could lower the $7500 maximum
and lower the interest rate. He reminded staff to contact Representative Beyer to help out with the
State agency.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 9
3. Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan 2010: A Five Year Strategic Plan for Housing and
Community Developme~t.
City Planner Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. The Cities of Eugene and
Springfield were required to submit a new five-year Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) no later than May 15,2010. This Public Hearing was
one of several opportunities for advisory committees, agencies, and the public to comment on the
Draft Plan before it was submitted to HUD for approval.
I
The Consolidated Plan was a HUD requirement and must be updated every five years by
communities that receive formula allocations of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds, HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds, and other HUD funds. The City
of Springfield received CDBG funds as a HUD entitlement community and HOME funds as part
of a HUD consortium with the City of Eugene. As such, the two Cities completed a joint
Consolidated Plan. Both Cities also collaborated with Lane County in developing the Plan
because they administered funding related to basic social services and homelessness. While the
Consolidated Plan was a requirement of HUD, the Plan primarily served as a tool to guide the use
of federal HUD funds in the most effective and coordinated manner possible.
In early 2009, staff from the City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County Human Services
Commission, and Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County commenced
preparation of the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan. The Draft Plan, which was developed through ,
an extensive process, including data analysis and community input and consultation, identified
housing, homelessness, and community development needs and resources, and established
priorities, strategies, and target performance goals to address these needs using HUD funds.
The public comment period for the Draft Plan ended on April 13, 2010. At that time, staff would
address all feedback received on the Draft Plan and prepare a Final Plan to bring before Council
on April 19th for final adoption. The adopted plan would be submit to HUD by May 15,2010.
Once approved by HUD, the new Consolidated Plan would be in effect from July 1, 2010 through
June 30, 2015.
Ms. Markarian noted there would be three public hearings. One occurred at noon today at the
Housing Policy Board, the one tonight before Council, and one would be held before Eugene's
Community Block Grant Advisory Committee on April 13.
Ms. Markarian said a large portion of the plan was a needs assessment. Since 2005, there were
decreased economic opportunities and significant increases in the number of households that
could not afford basic needs. They had seen a growing population of seniors, persons.with
disabilities, and people unable to work. The Executive Summary in the plan provided a snapshot
of the data trends for the community. She referred to page 39 of the draft plan, a map of the
census block groups, where over half of the households were low and moderate income. She
referred to the HUD Tables 2A and 2B which outlined the priority needs identified. She explained
how those needs were determined and how they could be addressed. She referred to the five-year
strategic plan for housing and community development on pages 113 and 114. That plan outlined
the object strategies and proposed outcomes for use of Springfield CDBG and HOME funds for
the next five years. Following the public hearings, staffwould address any public comments and
bring the fmal draft of the plan to Council for adoption on April 19, 2010.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 10
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
No action was required at this time.
4. FireMed Rate Increase.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING THE AMOUNT OF FIREMED MEMBERSHIP
FEES.
Councilor Simmons said he received his renewal from FireMed that showed the renewal amount
as $62 per year due for next year. He had given a copy to the City Recorder to put in the public
record. The bill was received on April 2, 2010, and Council was reviewing this fee this evening.
Springfield Fire Chief Dennis Murphy presented the staff report on this item. He acknowledged
the disparity and noted a process issue. In late March, when the three partners were processing the
rate increase for consideration by the three partners, they realized Springfield was the only
agency that approved rate increases through resolution. At that time, they could have either
cancelled the April mailer for all agencies or go ahead with the mailing. Springfield had not
implemented the rate increase so this resolution could be heard tonight. If Council did not
approve the rate increase, Springfield would refund any funds that came in that were greater than
the rate they approved. Council did have the right to approve or not approve. As Chief, he took
responsibility. Staff would fix the problem if Council didn't approve the rate increase.
Chief Murphy said due to changes in federal reimbursement rates, increasing costs of operations,
and the economic downturn, current ambulance fund revenues were not sufficient to cover the
costs of operation of ambulance services in Springfield.
In 2009, the Joint Elected Officials Ambulance Task Force recommended that increased
marketing and promotion of the FireMed program was an essential step to increase revenues and
improve the ambulance fund financial picture in both Eugene and Springfield. The last FireMed
rate increase was in March 2006, and a rate increase at this time was requested to improve overall
net revenue from the FireMed program. He noted that the Medicare reimbursement was the
problem as they did not reimburse ambulance service based on fixed costs. Council authorized
the fIrst FireMed in 1986 which spread across the State. Staff felt the increase was reasonable and
noted discount programs for membership groups. They were trying to find creative ways for large
companies to pay less than the $1600 per ambulance ride and to generate support.
Options for the Council to consider included:
Option # 1 :
Adopt a FireMed membership rate increase, effective April 6, 2010, from $52 per household per
year, to $62 per household per year for regular memberships, and rate increase from $47 per
household per year, to $57 per household per year for JobCare memberships to raise additional
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 11
FireMed membership revenue of approximately $100,000 annually. This rate increase will not
fully fund the ambulance operations, but would allow the FireMed program to increase its net
contribution to the Ambulance Fund.
Option #2: Take no action. In FYI0, the Ambulance Fund was projected to lose $300,000 by
year-end. Without a FireMed rate increase, FireMed's additional contribution to the Ambulance
Fund would be limited.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Councilor Leezer said this was still the best deal in town; $62 per year compared to $1600 per
ambulance ride.
Councilor Wylie said she also supported this increase. It was one way to help bring in additional
revenues and was still a good bargain.
Councilor Simmons asked about the new senate bill Congressman DeFazio had been involved
with that included additional language regarding the rural bonus adjustment. He asked if that
applied to Springfield.
Chief Murphy said it did, and would provide about $26,000 for this year. He explained. There
was another portion beyond the means of Congress that could have provided better relief.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCaOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.1. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 4 FOR, 1 AGAINST (SIMMONS), AND 1 ABSENT (LUNDBERG).
Councilor Simmons said he was supportive of the program, but felt he should make a point.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Corkey Gourley. 1310 Market Street. State Farm Insurance. Springfield. OR. Mr. Gourley
was present with Vicki Schoenleber, Manager of Citizens Bank. He said they were
representing the Mohawk Business Neighbors (MBN). They were heading up their own
campaign to see that the Veteran's Administration (VA) clinic was located in the Mohawk
area. They had formed a grass roots program to do that and felt they had a good shot. The VA
would be making their choice in June or July so the MBN was getting the word out through a
variety of sources. They had received phone calls from veterans supporting this proposal.
Once the selection was chosen, they asked Council to wear t-shirts distributed by Ms.
Schoenleber. The proposed site was close to a hospital (McKenzie Willamette), was visible,
and on the transit system for Lane Transit District (LID). The clinic would bring about 175
new jobs and serve 35,000 veterans. It was Springfield's turn to get a shot at some federal
money. The Mohawk Business Group was doing their part to make that happen.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 12
Mr. Gourley referred to the Open Banner program and thanked the Council for their support
in getting that program going.
2. Robert Welch. Stables Bar and Grill. 414 Main Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. Welch said he
was following up from the July meeting. He noted many of the improvements made at his
establishment. He now controlled the area in front of the three establishments and he enforced
trespass in that area. Mr. Welch had met with Chief Smith and Captain Lewis and drafted a
letter acknowledging that trespass area. He had cleaned up the area where people were sitting
doing drugs, etc. During the July meeting, the Mayor noted that calls to Police had adversely
affected some of the businesses. Mr. Welch felt that was unfair. When he met with Jerry
Smith, he let him know that if he caught anyone doing drugs inside the building, he would
make a citizen's arrest. Now that he had cleaned up this area, it was cleaner than ever, but the
calls to Police were being used against him. He felt there needed to be a solution where local
business owners could call the Police without fear of it being used against them. He said he
was afraid to call the Police because the calls could be used against him. He said that
concerned him. He referred to letters he had received from other property owners who were
happy with what he was doing. He didn't know how to clean up downtown without making
Police calls. He had worked with Chief Smith since he started, and the Chief had been very
helpful. He had also met with Captain Rick Lewis and Captain Rich Harrison. There had
never been a problem with him working with law enforcement. Mr. Welch said his business
was next door to a problem business. He noted that he would be meeting with the Mayor later
this week.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
Councilor Pishioneri said he recalled saying during a work session that it needed to be determined
if calls were made by Police or by the business owner. He agreed that if a person was being
proactive, that information needed to be provided to OLCC. OLCC was an independent State
agency with their own hearings and decision making process. The Council was not a hearings
body to make that final decision. He was not opposed to asking for that information.
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from R.F. Peterson, Springfield, Oregon, Regarding the Cherokee Drive
LID.
2. Correspondence from Fred Simmons, Springfield, Oregon Regarding a Public Hearing on the
Stormwater System Development Charges (SDC).
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCaOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FaING. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - LUNDBERG).
BIDS
ORDINANCES
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 13
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Budget Committee Appointment.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. The Budget Committee
had a vacancy in Ward 1 due to the previous member moving from Springfield. Christine
Stole applied for the Ward 1 position and was interviewed during Council's work session
earlier this evening.
If appointed to this position, Ms. Stole would serve a one year term that would expire on
December 31,2010. She would then be eligible to re-apply for a three-year term beginning
January 2011.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCaOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO APPOINT CHRISTINE STOLE TO THE WARD 1 POSITION ON
THE BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR AN APPOINTMENT TO EXPIRE DECEMBER
31, 2010. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1
ABSENT - LUNDBERG).
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Simmons reported on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission (MWMC). The MWMC approved the contract with Eugene Water and
Electric Board (EWEB) for sale of power generated from the sewer plant. It would
net out about $84,000 per year to the MWMC budget. On Friday they would be
considering a 5% regional increase that would be brought to the Council for
affirmation. Construction on some of capital projects came in under budget.
2. Councilor Ralston said they met on the Hwy 126 Management Plan in response to
constituent's complaints. The issues would not be dropped. There were some
connectivity issues that sounded very fruitful, such as an underpass from one side of
Hwy 126 to the other side from A Street. That would relieve a lot of pressure from
Main Street.
Councilor Pishioneri said the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) sounded
like they were o.k. with that. They also talked about the negative impacts on
businesses, and the possibility of relocation of those businesses by ODOT.
3. Councilor Simmons said a meeting was held regarding the crossing at 51 st Street.
L TD agreed not to move the bus stop on the south side in front of the market. They
would propose to move the bus stop on the north side to the west, but not close the
west driveway to the Driftwood. He felt it was a reasonable compromise, and was
very pleased by the positive response. He had worked with City Engineer Richard
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 14
Perry and Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett. He was not sure if the owner of the
Driftwood was totally happy, but hoped he would fmd it agreeable.
4. Mayor Leiken referred to United Front and asked if the Hwy 126 project was moving
forward.
Mr. Grimaldi said it showed up on the Senate side, but not on the House side.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Approve a Contract Amendment for FireMed Program Marketing and Advertising.
Springfield Fire Chief Dennis Murphy presented the staff report on this item. He asked Bart
Noll to come forward as FireMed Director. He commended Mr. Noll for his work on the
FireMed program. The FireMed program was beginning the 2010 FireMed membership
campaign, April 1 - June 30, 2010. Eugene Fire & EMS and Lane Rural Fire/Rescue remained
as partners with Springfield Fire & Life Safety. Ad Group was the program's advertising
agency.
The FireMed partners selected Ad Group through an RFP process, as the marketing and
advertising agency for the 2008 campaign. This was the second of four annual renewals
allowed with the consent of the City Council.
In 2009, with total expenditures of $623,626, FireMed memberships increased 5.2%. Ad Group
accounted for $256,000 of this total expense. Springfield's share of that expense was $242,467
with membership revenue of$587,905. Last year total membership revenue for all three
FireMed partners was nearly $2.2 million.
For FY09/10, Ad Group's contract was amended to 'not to exceed' $300,000. For FY10111 the
proposed amendment is 'not to exceed' $379,000. This increase represented a modest increase
in local advertising expenses. Approximately $60,000 of the increase was due to increased
FireMed Enterprise client advertising, which was reimbursed by the clients.
FireMed accomplished its large marketing campaign by pooling resources from FireMed
agencies, clients, and LifeFlight. Springfield provided program administration and coordination
for the City of Eugene and Lane Rural Fire & Rescue.
Chief Murphy said the number one goal of the program was to educate citizens about the
program. Surveys showed they had been successful as most people knew about the program.
They would continue to educate the public.
Mr. Noll said FireMed was growing. Last year's growth was the biggest since 1993. They were
also adding clients, including three other FireMed programs. Clients were happy and FireMed
was covering their costs with projected revenue to Springfield this year. Overall the net revenue
of FireMed was improving. The bad news was that overall there was loss in the ambulance
fund. Costs were rising and revenue was an issue. He discussed the Medicare reimbursement.
Staff made a tour of FireMed's media partners in the Spring and discussed negotiations for
output on behalf of the program. During this year's campaign there would be a new message
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2010
Page 15
about saving lives. He explained the service FireMed provided and how they would provide
that message. They would meet with community groups with that message.
Mr. Noll said Ad Group was a great partner. A small part of the contractwas going to Ad
Group for services, but most of the amount was passed through their company to other media
partners. and service providers. A big part of the increase from last year was due to the increase
in FireMed clients. He explained.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if they were offering multi-year FireMed memberships.
Mr. Noll said they were not. That option had been discussed, but with so many other changes,
they had determined not to implement that at this time. It was something they could consider in
the future.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCaOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCaOR
PISmONERI TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH
AD GROUP (A DIVISION OF SHELTON TURNBULL) IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $379,000 FOR 2010 FIREMED ADVERTISING AND MARKETING
SERVICES. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1
ABSENT - LUNDBERG).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:31 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Attest:
Cit~