HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2011 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2011
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 21, 2011 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Moore, and Woodrow. Also
present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, Assistant City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff.
Councilors Ralston and Wylie were absent (excused).
1. Fees and Charges.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report. on this item. Each year, Council and staff
reviewed existing, fees and charges for appropriateness of rates for meeting cost recovery targets as
well as reviewing for areas where new or additional fees should be considered. This year, with a
slower than expected economic recovery in the public sector, it was especially important to look at
service areas where increased or additional fees would be considered appropriate. It was planned to
continue this review over two work sessions as the City Manager prepared a proposed budget for
review by the Budget Committee in late April. This was the first work session on this topic for this
year. A second work session was scheduled for April 11, and a public hearing for May 2, 2011.
Tonight, staff was looking for direction on how to proceed for the next work session.
Mr. Duey said they would be discussing existing fees, and proposed fees. Existing fees were adjusted
on a more regular basis based on cost of service. The last three years had been tough on the City and
the budget. He described the decrease in revenue due to those economic downturns.* In looking to
balance the budget, cuts had been made in both personnel and materials and services. Layoffs had
occurred and more would be expected. He noted other factors that had affected the drop in revenue,
including rising costs in the City's Retirement Plan and the recommendation by the Budget Committee
to not increase property taxes at all this year. The new fees were being proposed to address services
the City was currently providing, not to add new services. Decisions needed to be made regarding
whether or not the City could continue to subsidize all of those services or if some of them needed to
be funded by the user.
Mr. Duey spoke regarding pages 2 through 4, Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. It was being
recommended that most fees be increased, with the exception of two telecommunications fees. The
reductions in those two fees were due to efficiencies and processing times that had been reduced. He
noted that the Hazardous Materials Fee at the bottom of page 3 of Attachment 1 had been left blank.
The current fee was $325, with a proposed fee of $375.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the sign permit banners were those that hung across the street. Yes. She
asked about the increase in that fee.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 21, 2011
Page_ 2
Mr. Duey said it was very labor intensive to hang the banners and take them down. The current fee did
not cover those costs.
Councilor Woodrow asked about the Fire Non-Resident Ambulance Transport Fee, and how they
could shrink the exempt area.
Mr. Duey said the fee was for those outside a certain area. He explained. Decreasing the area would
bring the boundary for the outside area closer to town. Some who were currently within the service
area would now be outside of the service area. He discussed the fee.
Mr. Gerard said they were shrinking it from the full Ambulance Service Area (ASA) that was,set by
the County, to the Metro Fire Department area.
Mr. Towery said it would also include the fire districts that had contracts for service with the City of
Springfield or the City of Eugene.
Councilor Pishioneri said he saw this as a marketing opportunity for Fire Med. He asked if they would
provide notice to all residents affected by the change in the area.
Mr. Grimaldi said the best way to provide that notice was through display advertising and newspaper
as opposed to a direct mail, which was very expensive.
Mr. Duey said there would be a public hearing notice, but they could go beyond that, too.
Councilor Pishioneri suggested putting something on the website to allow people to put in their
address to determine if they were within the area. He didn't want people surprised by that fee.
Councilor Moore asked about the Telecommunications Placement Plan Review Fee.
Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin said a person that used a public right-of-way for
telecommunications needed to pay a fee. They could do that on an individual basis or through a
comprehensive plan. The right-of-way included streets, easements, etc. The comprehensive plan
included all locations for their equipment and required only one review.
Mayor Lundberg spoke regarding the Non-Resident service area. She asked if everyone affected by the
new rate would be eligible for FireMed. Yes. She agreed with Councilor Pishioneri that this could be
used as part of the FireMed campaign. They needed a way to let people know.
Mr. Grimaldi said FireMed members were covered even when they were outside their service area
Councilor VanGordon said most of the fees looked like they had an increase of about 7-15%.
Mr. Duey said the Public Works fees hadn't changed in three years and the HazMat fee .hadn't
changed in five years.
Mr. Duey spoke regarding the new fees. Staff looked at cost recovery for services currently provided,
and if there was a connection between who was receiving the benefit and how they could pay for the
benefit. He spoke first of the Fire and Life Safety Fees, Motor Vehicle First Response, and explained
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 21, 2011
Page 3
that service. Some jurisdictions had begun charging this fee. The fee of $400 would be billed to the
insurance company. These fees would be General Fund revenue.
Councilor Pishioneri said Chief Murphy spoke about this fee about seven years ago. He was unclear
how it would be determined if someone was charged if an ambulance was summoned, but not needed
once they arrived. He wanted more information.
Mr. Gerard said when a paramedic `laid hands' on the victim of an accident, contact had been
established and that was used to determine if a patient care report was needed. If the citizen was then
found to be fine it would be considered an Aid Call. If it was a car wreck and the ambulance turned
around before arriving on the scene, there would be no charge. The intention was to charge when
physical work needed to be done to extricate a patient or provide care. They wouldn't charge if the
patient denied care.
Councilor Pishioneri said he still wanted more information. He asked staff to get information from
other communities that charged this fee.
Councilor Moore asked if there had been no charge for things like jaws-of-life in the past. That was
correct. She asked if $450 covered the cost.
Mr. Duey said it was a flat fee and not likely to cover the cost of service.
Councilor Moore asked if the fee could be adjusted for different events or services.
Mayor Lundberg asked staff to bring back more information on this fee to address all concerns.
Councilor Pishioneri said there could be a level one, two or three response with different fees. He
wanted information on who would be billed.
Councilor VanGordon said he would like to hear from other communities on how they did on
collecting this fee. He asked about the projected revenue.
Mr. Gerard said they did an analysis by looking at last year's information and making an estimate.
Mr. Duey said the fee could also be set at $300.
Councilor VanGordon said if they were going to this, he would want to know if other communities
charged a flat rate or a multi-tiered fee. He felt a multi-tiered fee could be confusing.
Councilor Woodrow said multi-tiered also meant less recovery because of the time spent on
administration. She felt the simpler the better. She noted that they were only talking about non-local
people in our area.
Mr. Grimaldi said that was correct. Local residents didn't have to pay.
Mr. Duey noted that the City of Eugene was looking at the same fee. If both cities implemented this
fee, they would not charge for each other's residents.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 21, 2011
Page 4
Mr. Duey spoke regarding the License Facility Inspection Fee. He described. The proposal was to
charge for those inspections required by the State.
Councilor Woodrow asked how. long it took to do an inspection.
Mr. Gerard said it depended on the size of the facility. He provided some examples.
Councilor Woodrow said schools were not included.
Mr. Gerard said the facilities listed were required by the State to be licensed and inspections were
required to get a license. Schools did not require a license.. It was up to individual jurisdictions to
determine how often schools were inspected. Springfield had set schools on an annual inspection.
Councilor Moore said she was concerned about licensed daycares and group homes being charged the
same fee as McKenzie Willamette or PeaceHealth. She asked if the fee could be based on the number
of residents or by square footage.
Mr. Gerard said residential day cares were not required to be inspected; only commercial daycares.
Councilor Woodrow suggested a sliding scale with a maximum.
Councilor Pishioneri said he agreed it should be a sliding scale. He also noted that he couldn't support
Fire and Life Safety charging the Police' Department for inspecting the Jail. He felt this fee should
exclude all City facilities.
Mayor Lundberg suggested talking more briefly about each fee to get through the list.
Mr. Duey referred to page 5 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, which included fees related to
Public Works. The first item, System Development Charges (SDC) Credit Certificate Fees, was to
address an ordinance already in place. This fee would help recover the City's cost in managing the
credit program.
Mr. Duey said three of the new fees were tied together and would help with the Street Fund. He
discussed the loss -in revenue over the last several years that had caused the shortage. The Garbage
Hauling Fee, the Internal Service Fee for Right-of-Way, and the Street Preservation Fee were related
and could accomplish the same thing. Only one of the three would be needed to address the issue.
Staff had talked to, Sanipac about the Garbage Hauling Fee. The Internal Service Charge for Right-of-
Way would be included with the storm and wastewater fees, and could be absorbed in the current
increase in those fees. The City would have more control over billing of this fee. The Street
Preservation Fee tied best to the use of the fee, although was difficult for businesses and citizens to
understand the connection. There was also an issue with collecting this fee through Springfield Utility
Board. There was an option staff was pursuing to collect the fee internally. The first $150,000 of the
fee chosen would go into the General Fund to repay the subsidy, with the remainder going to the Street
Fund.
Councilor VanGordon said his least preferred option was the Garbage Hauling Fee. He would like to
look for a longer term solutions, such as the Right-of-Way fees. His preference was the Street
Preservation Fee. as it seemed to be a better link of what people were paying for and what they were
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 21, 2011
Page 5
getting. If they chose the Right-of-Way fee, he wanted to make sure people knew what they were
being charged for..
Councilor Moore said if the fee for the Right-of-Way fee for wastewater and stormwater would not
increase the fee that was already set to take place, that would be her preference. She felt the Street
Preservation Fee was a hidden tax and she was not supportive. She was also concerned about the
Garbage Hauling Fee. She preferred the General Obligation (GO) Bond.
Councilor Woodrow asked if citizens already expected that funds for the streets were coming from
somewhere else. She was concerned about their reaction.
Mr. Duey said the City had cut back almost all of the maintenance funding in the Street Fund, so we
were,no longer providing the level of service we should. During our last community survey, the
condition of our streets was shown as deteriorating. .
Councilor Woodrow asked if citizens were normally acceptable for funding for streets.
Mr. Duey said the City had fairly good support in the past on street fund issues until the gas tax. It was
difficult to predict their support at this time.
Councilor Woodrow said her preference was either the Street Preservation Fee or the Right-of-Way
Fee. She was not supportive of the Garbage Hauling Fee.
Councilor Pishioneri said he could see both sides of the Garbage Hauling Fee. Collection of the Street
Preservation Fee was key, and he didn't want SUB to do the collection. He felt the people should be
telling the City what to do and the GO Bond would require a vote. Springfield citizens voted for what
was needed. He didn't want to force fees on people.
Mayor Lundberg said the Right-of-Way Fee was something that would show up on the SUB bill, as
would the Street Preservation Fee.
Mr. Duey said the Right-of-Way Fee could be part of the stormwater/sanitary sewer fees, and would
not show up on the bill as a separate fee.
Mayor Lundberg said it. would still be billed through SUB, and she was not in favor of that method.
More information would be needed regarding a Bond. A Bond measure may not have opposition, but
they would need to sell the concept to the public. She was interested in the GO Bond.
Councilor Woodrow said the GO Bond would also be her preference.
Mr. Duey said the Bond issue was a very viable way to improve the streets through capital
improvements, but could not replace the need for operating funds to get the Street Fund healthy again.
The GO Bond would not address the operating costs, so would not address the full problem.
Mr. Goodwin said the department had eliminated 171/2 positions, about 8 of which were in the Street
Fund.
Mr. Grimaldi said the goal was not to recover those positions, but to retain current positions. That
couldn't be done with a capital bond.
City of Springfield .
Council Work Session Minutes
March 21, 2011
Page 6
Mr. Goodwin said if the $150,000 of General Fund that was subsidizing the Street Fund were cut, they
would likely lose an additional two maintenance positions.
Mayor Lundberg said the Bond could only be used for some things. The Right-of-Way Fee was an
anticipated increase that was already planned.
Mr. Goodwin said that was correct. He noted that some of the positions cut because of decreased
funding were sewer and stormwater positions. Room was unintentionally left in the rate structure to
absorb that increase.
Mr. Duey said he would bring information back on the Street Preservation Fee, the Right-of-Way Fee,
and the GO Bond to the next meeting. He would not bring back information on the Garbage Hauling
Fee.
Mr. Duey spoke regarding a fee in the Development Services Department (DSD) Housing Code.
Currently; the City had the obligation to make sure that housing met all the standards of the Housing
Code. It was now complaint driven, and about 5-6 abodes were referred to the DSD per week for
inspection or review. Some were single family, others were multi-family. Currently, there was no fee
for inspecting housing based on enforcement of the Housing Code. There was a business license
required for four-plexes and above of $10.50 annually. The Housing Code inspections were being
done for single, duplex, and triplexes without a fee attached. An annual permit fee of $10.50 could be
added for rental units at whatever level Council chose, or the business license could be expanded to
include the number of units at either one, two or three.
Councilor Moore asked if a property owner could request an inspection.
Assistant Community Services Manager Dave Puent said they could.
Mr. Duey said this would also allow the City to know how many rental units were in the City.
Councilor Moore said $10.50 would not cover the cost of the inspection.
Mr. Duey said the $10.50 over the entire housing stock would pay for the number of inspections done.
each year.
Councilor Pishioneri said the fee wasn't exorbitant, but to get a commercial loan you needed to have a
four-plex. He felt the same cost per building didn't seem fair.
Mr. Puent said they would be charged $10.50 per unit, so a four-plex would be charged $42.00.
Councilor Pishioneri said it could be a great tool for inventory, and there was nothing wrong with
holding the owner responsible. He asked if there would be enforcement.
Mr. Puent described the process once a complaint was received. Those mechanisms were already in
place.
Councilor Pishioneri said if it was an unfounded complaint, there should be a recovery fee for the
property owner.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 21, 2011
Page 7
Mayor Lundberg said more information was needed on this item.
Mr. Duey said this would not change the current program, but just the types of rentals charged.
Mr. Duey referred to the last item regarding alarm systems.
Councilor Woodrow said it was a good one to look at further.
Mr. Duey said it was already in the Code, but had not been enforced.
Councilor Woodrow spoke regarding the animal licensing fee. She asked if they could increase the
license fee, and provide a credit for micro chips. She discussed the benefits of the micro chip.
Mr. Duey said he would ask Police Chief Smith to include information for the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:01 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
e?
Amy So
City Recorder
b