HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/2011 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MAY 23, 2011
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 23, 2011 at 5:45 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, and
Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Matthew Cox, Administrative Specialist James Larson, and members,of the staff.,
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 the rates for meeting cost recovery targets as
well as reviewing for areas where new or additional fees should be considered. Council met in work
session on March 21 to discuss all possible changes for fee & charges changes this spring. A second
work session was held on April 18 for further discussion on selected fees from the March 21 work
session. This final work session was to discuss the remaining fees from March 21. A public hearing
was scheduled for June 20 for any final action to be taken by the Council for fees & charge changes
for this spring.
Mr. Duey noted that the first reading of the ordinance for the Right-of-Way fee for local wastewater
and stormwater would also be scheduled for June 20.
Mr. Duey discussed why fees and charges were needed to provide City services. When looking at the
matrix of fees and charges, the Council could look at who was benefiting and whether or not the full
citizenry should pay for that service or only the population receiving the benefit. They could also look
at full or partial recovery on the different fees and charges. He provided an example. Another thing to
look at was the ability to pay by the public.
Mr. Duey said the following four fees would be discussed during this evening: 1) Out of area
ambulance fees (an existing fee with changes); 2) Motor vehicle accident fee (a new fee); 3) Licensed
facilities inspection fees (a new fee); and 4) Business license charge for rental property less than four-
plexes (an expansion of an existing fee).
Mr. Duey discussed the out-of-area ambulance fee. The ambulance system had not been as self-
sufficient as it was in the past due in part to Medicare reimbursements being reduced. With the current
system, local residents were subsidizing the ambulance system with their property taxes. Because the
City was serving a population that was not a taxpayer with taxpayer funds, they were looking to
charge a fee for those people. This proposed fee would change the out=of--area fee from $100 to $200,
and the boundaries would be redefined to include only those supporting the local system, such as
Springfield residents or members of the contract service areas. City of Eugene residents would also be
included through our reciprocal agreement. This fee would raise approximately $34,600 per year to
help support the ambulance system.
Councilor Woodrow asked if they decided on the fee based on comparables for the west coast
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 2
Mr. Duey said the comparison was with other Oregon cities and was noted on Attachment 2, page 2 of
the agenda packet.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how Goshen supported the system.
Mr. Duey said Goshen did not support the system in any way. People that resided in the southern part
of the County that were not part of one of the contract districts would pay this fee.
Fire Marshal Al Gerard said Glenwood, Willakenzie and Rainbow were the three districts with
contracts and would be included in our area and not charged the fee. Goshen was outside our area.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how Rainbow supported the service.
Mr. Duey said we had a fire service contract with Rainbow. City of Springfield Fire and Life Safety
supplied them with fire service and first response service in the contract. Rainbow's contract was over
$IM. Glenwood Water District's contract was just under $200,000 and Willakenzie's was just over
$200,000.
Councilor Moore asked if anyone in Lane County could buy FireMed. Yes. She asked if they would be
charged the fee if they had FireMed.
Mr. Duey said if the City had a reciprocal agreement with the agency that sold them FireMed, they
would not need to pay.
Mr. Grimaldi said that went beyond Lane County. There were a number of areas across the State that
had FireMed reciprocal agreements.
Councilor Moore said that would be good advertising for FireMed. She asked if these funds were
going to the General Fund.
Mr. Duey said they would go to the ambulance fund as ambulance revenue. By increasing the
ambulance fund, the City could decrease the subsidy that went to that fund through the General Fund.
Mayor Lundberg asked Mr. Duey what direction staff needed from the Council.
Mr. Duey said he would like to know if there was enough support for these fees to bring them forward
to the public hearing on June 20 for public comment and possible adoption.
Mr. Duey discussed the first response fee for motor vehicle accidents. This fee was new to the City of
Springfield, but was implemented in other cities throughout Oregon. During past work sessions,
discussions had been held regarding charging this fee to everyone, including local residents, to only
charging those outside the service area. Based on input from the Council on those options, staff was
recommending only charging those outside the service area. Staff would like to implement this in the
simplest way possible without looking at sliding scales and number of hours, but rather determining
the cost of sending a fire truck with appropriate personnel out on a call. If the fire truck responded, but
provided no service, there would be no charge. If they provided service to an individual, there would
be a charge. Staff was recommending a charge of $450 no matter how long the service was provided.
This would only affect people outside the service area, and not those with reciprocal agreements with
the City. People with FireMed would also be excluded from this fee:
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 3
Councilor Pishioneri said his concern was that if someone was in an accident, it was often a witness
that called 9-1-1, not the person in the accident. He asked if those responding to an accident would
notify the victim that if they received any assistance at all (including providing bandaids), they would
be charged this fee. He was uncomfortable with this fee. When Police were called and responded with
action, there was no charge.
Mr. Gerard said generally speaking, firefighter/paramedics could charge for making initial contact and
the victim had the right to refuse assistance. When there was a hands-on situation and the responder
started doing an evaluation and patient care report, that would indicate contact. The
firefighter/paramedics were aware of the fee and not in favor of charging the fee, so would be reluctant
to force themselves on the situation. FireMed covered this cost, which was another benefit to joining
FireMed.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there would be notice provided to victims of accidents about the charge.
Mr. Gerard said there was no policy regarding that situation.
Councilor Pishioneri asked Mr. Cox if it was required.
Mr. Cox said he didn't believe it was a requirement. He would look into it further.
Mr. Grimaldi said while out with firefighters, he had never heard them notify the person they would be
charged for the ambulance ride.
Mr. Gerard said it was usually pretty straight forward whether or not it was an emergency.
Mr. Cox said he would send an email to Councilor Pishioneri about any requirements.
Councilor Pishioneri said to his knowledge it wasn't a standard of the industry. He asked if -we had an
obligation to let the person know about the charge.
Mr: Cox said if the person asked, the firefighters would have to inform them.
Councilor Wylie said she was concerned with how many insurance companies would actually pay the
$450, and if Medicare or Medicaid would pay. That was a lot of money to most people. She would like
more information about whether or not insurance or Medicare would pay. She worried that it would-
hurt people financially.
Mr. Duey said they had received mixed results of insurance companies, paying.
Fire Administrative Services. Manager Brian Evanoff said the automobile insurance carriers would pay
this, not Medicare. If a Medicare patient was in a motor vehicle accident, their automobile insurance
would be primary anyway.
Councilor Moore clarified that this was for the fire truck response. She *asked if the ambulance would
also be responding at that time.
Mr. Duey said most likely.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 4
Councilor Moore asked if they would also be charged for the ambulance fee.
Mr. Duey said if they were transported.
Councilor Moore said if transported they would pay the $200 transport fee, plus the additional $450
first responder fee. She asked if a fire truck was normally sent out with an ambulance.
Mr. Gerard said only in emergency situations. If out of district, they would rely on the host fire
department.
Councilor Moore said it was confusing to her because of the two fees, which could be charged at the
same incident. She confirmed that this was only related to motor vehicle accidents. If a fire engine
went with the ambulance to an ambulance call, the person would not be charged the fee.
Mr. Duey said that was correct. This charge was only for accidents involving people that were not .
from the Springfield service area.
Councilor Wylie said the $200 was above and beyond the usual cost for the ambulance, which was
$1600.
Councilor Moore said people need to sign up for FireMed.
Councilor Ralston said he felt the person should be notified of the extra charge at the time of response.
If they needed medical treatment, they needed to receive that. He liked the idea, but some things
would need to be clarified. People from outside Oregon may not have FireMed.
Councilor Woodrow said she would like to know what the other cities that had implemented this fee
encountered with auto insurance. There was coverage in most policies for ambulance fees, but she
would like to know the amount.
Councilor Moore asked what was meant by utilizing the State Conflagration Schedule
Mr. Gerard said it was a schedule put out by the State Fire Marshal for use for fire apparatus. It was
basically a rental fee for the apparatus and personnel. The cost was approximately $430-$440 per hour.
Mr. Evanoff said it could actually be higher because it went on actual wages. The $450 was based on
approximately one hour for the staffing. If they were out there for more than one hour, the
conflagration would cover more of that.
Councilor Moore asked why Springfield didn't consider using the State Conflagration Schedule.
Mr. Duey said for simplicity. With minimal staffing and resources, a single fee would be more
efficient.
Councilor Moore said she would not think about getting charged for being in an accident in Portland.
She asked if the agencies listed in Attachment 3 of the agenda packet were the only cities in Oregon
charging this fee.
Mr. Evanoff said there were many other cities besides those listed
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 5
Councilor Pishioneri said he would like to see three or four scenarios of out-of-state drivers in an
accident, with multiple cars, etc.
Councilor VanGordon said he would also like to hear the scenarios. He asked if the incidents used for
the estimated revenue was based on incidents involving out-of-state people.
Mr. Evanoff said it was incidents involving people from out-of-state who were not FireMed members.
Councilor VanGordon asked if an ambulance ride was involved in those incidents. Yes, all of them. It
sounded like in the incidents used for the estimate, both the out-of-state ambulance fee and first
responder fee would be charged. Yes.
Councilor Wylie asked how Chief Groves felt about this fee.
Mr. Grimaldi said he supported the fee. Eugene was considering it for implementation.
Mr. Duey said this would work best if it was in place in both Eugene and Springfield.
Councilor Pishioneri asked what Springfield would do if Eugene didn't pass this fee.
Mr. Duey said they didn't have that answer. Either way, there would be an agreement with Eugene for
their residents.
Mr. Grimaldi said staff would give this more thought. The difference between the system in Eugene
and in Springfield was that the Eugene City Manager established their fees.
Mayor Lundberg said there were a lot of questions and concerns regarding this fee. She noted that if
Springfield residents were out of town in any of the other cities that charge this fee, they were subject
to be charged.
Mr. Duey said he would put this on the agenda for the public hearing, but would include scenarios and
more background information in the agenda packet for that meeting.
Mr. Duey said the third fee was the Licensed Facility Inspection Fee, which was also a Fire and Life
Safety fee. This was a service the Springfield Fire Marshal's office was currently providing for sixty-
one businesses in the area that were required by the State to have an annual or bi-annual inspection
certificate in order to operate. The inspection usually took about 2 hours for average facilities. Staff
looked at implementing a fee that would not be too much for smaller businesses, but would help
capture some of the additional costs for the more complex facilities. There were a couple of options
presented to Council: 1) Initial $375 fee for everyone for first two hours, plus overtime fee for
anything over two hours: and 2) Set a lower fee of $175 for partial recovery, with overtime for
anything over two hours.
Councilor Woodrow said she didn't have a problem with this fee. She asked which option staff felt
was better.
Mr. Duey said both accomplished the same thing, although $375 provided more cost recovery.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was not supportive of charging this fee for City owned properties. He
asked what the Adult Training Businesses included.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 6
Mr. Gerard said they were typically job training centers, tattoo schools, etc.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how many of those were in Springfield.
Mr. Gerard said according to their records, there were four that required licensed inspections.
Applications were received by the State Fire Marshal's office of facilities that were required to have
the inspection within six months of obtaining their license.
Councilor Pishioneri spoke regarding business licensing for the City and felt it would be beneficial to
the City to have licensing in place for a small fee.
Councilor Wylie said there was some inequity in the list. Many of the group homes and residential
board care were non-profits with very little money. Same with many of the day care facilities. There
needed to be a way to be more fair in the fee. She was concerned for those businesses that were barely
hanging on and what this fee would do to their costs..
Mr. Gerard said his deputies went out to these businesses to determine how the fee structure could be
set up. They felt the smaller businesses should be charged a smaller fee, which was why they included
the option of $175. Foster care homes were not regulated by the Fire Marshal's office, nor were group
homes. Brethren Housing would likely be charged the $175 fee.
Councilor Wylie said they needed to be careful how it was written up.
Councilor Moore spoke regarding the tattoo school and the fees they already had to pay. She was
concerned that even $175 was a large fee for businesses who were struggling. The City was paid by
taxes to carry on the business of the City. She liked the lower fee, but was still concerned it might be
too high for some businesses.
Councilor Ralston said the inspections were required to prove the business's safety in order to provide
their services. The City was inspecting their businesses and needed to have cost recovery for that
service.
Councilor VanGordon said the City was only trying to get some cost recovery, not to make any
money. The City needed to continue to look at opportunities to try to protect those that needed
protected, but also to try to recover the cost to provide the service. He was surprised that the
inspections had been done without a fee to this point.
Councilor Moore asked if Eugene also provided this service and charged a fee.
Mr. Gerard said the $175 matched the current Eugene fee, which had been in place for about 5 years.
Councilor Pishioneri asked where Eugene generated their list of businesses from.
Mr. Gerard said they waited for the applications to come in, then responded to those applications. The
application came in every year, two years or three years.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the businesses had to re-apply to the State Fire Marshal. Yes.
Councilor Wylie explained further.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 7
Councilor Moore asked about health inspections for restaurants and if those were provided by the
County. Yes.
Mr. Duey said he would bring the Inspection Fee to the public hearing as well as the first two.
Mayor Lundberg said the consistency in the discussion tonight was trying to decide between services
everyone was paying taxes for and would use, versus finding some cost recovery for services that were
required for certain things. It was legitimate to look at these fees.
Mr. Duey said the fourth fee was a change in the fee for rental housing. This started out as a discussion
around the calls for violations of the housing code, and how to address this issue. Rather than change
the housing code, staff looked at changing the licensing to expand rentals that included single, duplex,
and triplex. Currently, the business license fee for a four-plex was $10.00 annually. By having the
rental properties register as a business with the $10 fee, the City has a better list of rentals in the City.
There wasn't good data on when and how many calls, were made for inspections. with the current
system. They hoped this would help with that. The inspections could be a one-time visit, or require
some follow-up action to bring things into compliance. The fee would be a $10 per unit annual fee.
Councilor Pishioneri said in general he supported the program, but felt there needed to be some equity.
He didn't want to have the same program as Eugene. He felt it was fair for rental properties to be
required to stay within State statute and City code. He agreed $10 a year was reasonable, but had some
concerns about the same cost for every facility. He felt the fee should be higher for larger facilities.
It was clarified that it was $10 per unit, so an 8-plex would pay $80.
Ms. Murdoch said hotels and motels were also being charged.
Councilor Pishioneri supported the fee.
Councilor Moore said she would like to see the minimum standards list and what would be inspected.
She asked who did the inspection..
Mr. Duey said it would not increase the number of inspections, as they would still be on a complaint
basis. It would help the department to keep better records of facilities throughout the City. This was a
license fee, not a fee for inspection.
The fee was not to pay for the inspection, but was a license fee.
Mr. Duey said from the fee, staff would be better able to respond to the complaint. The concept of this
license was the data they could create from the license. He would bring this to the public hearing on
June 20, along with the other regular fees.
2. Strategic Plan and Council Goal Revisions.
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery presented the staff report on this item. From the Goal Setting
meetings staff heard Council express the desire to analyze the possibility and. effectiveness of,
0 Reflecting the City's work in sustainability, and
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 8
• Focusing on and measuring how we increased our use of technological innovations as well as
partnerships.
Staff reviewed the current, adopted, Council Goals paying mind to the comments expressed by
Council in the Goal Setting meeting and crafted revision options attempting to encompass as many of
these comments as possible. These same comments and themes were used to assist staff in revising
the Strategic Plan measurements. In addition to the Council comments, staff s modifications and
projected updates to the Strategic Plan were based on the examination of department specific key
processes and how those processes were effectively reflected within City work plans and whether the
process targets were realistically set. Staff anticipated completion of strategic plan revisions and
target updates by early July.
Mr. Towery noted that there were a number of items that generated a lot of interest and support from
the Council that didn't fit into the goals or strategic plan. Attachment 3 of the agenda packet was an
overview of those and an interpretation by staff of what they heard.., Staff was asking Council to let
them know how well staff captured the issues and comments from Council.
Mr. Towery referred to Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, which listed the goals with the revisions
based on past goal setting session comments. The goal on diversity didn't show any changes, but staff
recommended the following change:
• Eff-ee well Gfeate a Pesi v_e Foster An Environment that Values Diversity and Encourages
Inclusion
Staff didn't believe it diluted the sentiment of Council. Council could choose to change any of the
goals to best fit their intent. He asked. for questions and comments from the Council.
Councilor Ralston said there were a couple of changes that he liked, but he preferred the first goal
remain how it was originally as he like the word `stable'. `Innovative' sounded great, but he preferred
`stable' because it meant stable services year after year. He didn't like the word `sustainability' on the
last goal.
Councilor Woodrow said she felt the word `responsible' also meant `stable'.
Councilor Wylie said unfortunately, the City's finances were not stable. She liked the term
`innovative' in that goal because the City needed to be innovative in order to maintain financial
responsibility. She liked the emphasis on trying new things in order to be financially responsible. She
didn't like taking out the term `environmental' from the last goal. The City needed to continue to work
on preserving our resources and having clean water and air. She didn't know if `sustainability' meant
the same thing.
Mr. Towery asked for more feedback before he responded to that question.
Councilor Moore said she was interested in the word `innovative' in the first goal because they talked
a lot about technology and expanding on that. She didn't see anything about being responsive or
getting citizens involved in the process. She didn't know where that would fit in the goals.
Councilor Woodrow said it may be addressed in the goal about to Encourage Community
Partnerships, Economic Development, and Revitalization.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 9
Councilor Moore said she wanted to make sure it was clear to the public that those partnerships
included the citizens.
Councilor Woodrow said she had the same initial concern.
Councilor Moore asked if it could be clarified in the goal. Citizen involvement was something she
wanted to see, plus the City's ability to be responsive to them. She discussed the word sustainability
and the University of Oregon's Sustainability Cities Initiative.
Councilor Woodrow said the word `sustainability' had a narrow meaning when it first came out, but
the meaning had broadened. Mr. Towery had a good explanation of the meaning when she talked with
him.
Councilor VanGordon said he liked the word `innovative'. If the City didn't start becoming
innovative, we wouldn't be able to have financially stable government services. He liked the number
of times `partnerships' was in the goals because that was the City's theme. He liked the term
`environmental quality' better than `sustainability'. Environmental quality focused more on what the
community's goal should be.
Councilor Pishioneri said he liked `innovative government services'. He understood Councilor
Ralston's thoughts on the word `stable'. Innovation told people we were willing to look outside the
box for ways to provide the stable government. The word `innovative' seemed more like a verb. He
referred to the goal of "Encouraging Community Partnerships" and felt that originally that was all
inclusive for one person or the entire community. He liked the changes on the diversity goal. He
referred to the fourth goal and felt that it could fit with Fire and Life Safety, but not Police. There were
already partnerships that were leveraged and shared resources. He asked Police Chief Smith for his
thoughts.
Chief Smith referred to those partnerships and agreements. Beyond that, looking at money savings, the
department was looking at consolidating on an informal basis.
Councilor Pishioneri said 'he wasn't against the change in the goal, just wanted to point that out. He
referred to the term `sustainability' and that sustainable practices made sense. He wanted to hear Mr.
Towery's explanation of the term sustainable. He suggested changing it from `sustainability' to
`sustainable practices'.
Mayor Lundberg said she liked the term `innovative'. The only change she would like to see was how
to encourage community involvement. Partnerships seemed to indicate groups. She liked the changes
to the diversity goal. She said the goal regarding public safety showed that the City was always
looking for ways to pool our resources together better for more leveraging. She stumbled over the
word `sustainability' because it was rather ambiguous, but did like environmental quality. Springfield
had so many environmental resources.
Mr. Towery addressed Councilor Ralston's comment regarding `stable' in the first goal. One of the
overarching approaches to the goals was not to have anything that was too long. When looking at this
goal, staff noted that a number of staffing reductions had been made over the last couple of years and
more could be in the future. The phrase `stable service' implied that nothing would be reduced or go
away.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 10
Councilor Ralston said he liked all the words and would suggest "Financially Responsible, Innovative
and Stable Government Services". They knew it wouldn't stay static forever; but people could count
on our core services.
Councilor Woodrow said her thought regarding stability was that the City had to function within a
balanced budget every year.
Mr. Towery said they were Council goals and staff would draft them accordingly. He spoke regarding
sustainability. He thought the Council's vision for the community was a great way to describe what
sustainable meant for the City of Springfield. They wanted Springfield to be a great place to live, work
and play. Staff wanted Council to be comfortable with their goals and the outcomes. They wanted to
use language that was both current and contemporary, and also reflected what Council told staff. The
State of Oregon had a definition of sustainability: "Sustainability means using, developing and
protecting resources at a rate and in a manner that enables people to meet their current needs and also
provides the future generations their needs". The kinds of activities that often fell under the umbrella
of sustainability were things that had been fully embraced by this community for a long time, but had
not been called sustainable. Things like the Groundwater Guardians Award,. the Spring Cleanup, and
the partnerships through TEAM Springfield. The State had established sustainability goals that had
been in place for more than a decade. Also, with Council's approval, the City applied to be the
Sustainable City for the Sustainable City Year and was successful in that application. Staff used pre-
existing ideas, goals and projects to create the application. Springfield already did many things that
were sustainable without using the terminology.
Councilor Moore said sustainability and environmental quality were two different things.
Mr. Towery asked for clarification around the change from environmental quality to sustainability.
Library Director Rob Everett said staff was looking at a way to focus the goal. He spoke regarding
innovation and stability as written in the first goal. The budget compelled innovation which had
improved services.
Councilor Moore asked if sustainable practices would be more acceptable than the word sustainability.
To her sustainable fit the State definition of maintaining the .environmental quality for future, as, well
as now. The recent discussion on scenario planning included sustainable practices.
Mr. Towery said the term sustainability had come into the language of what government and
businesses did.
Councilor Woodrow said she felt sustainability included environmental quality. She proposed the.goal
to read, "To enhance our hometown feel and sustainability, focusing on, livability and environmental
quality". She felt sustainability'encompassed it all. She explained.
Councilor Ralston said `sustainability' had a negative connotation to many people. He felt that goal
spoke regarding our hometown feel and preserving our livability in our neighborhoods.. Environmental
quality did talk about our environment, so he didn't feel adding sustainable practices was necessary
either. He wanted something that spoke about the neighborhoods and neighbors.
Councilor Wylie agreed. She felt environmental quality was a stronger phrase than sustainability,
which did tend to be a buzz word. She felt environmental quality included sustainability and
sustainable practices.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 11
Councilor Pishioneri agreed with Councilor Ralston about promoting the hometown feel.
Environmental quality was something Springfield had been doing for many years. The word
sustainability was a buzz word, and Springfield was an old fashioned community and he wasn't sure
the community was ready to embrace that word. Sustainable practices were something we had been
doing for many years.
Councilor Ralston suggested, "Promote and enhance our hometown feel, focusing on livability and
quality of life".
Councilor Woodrow said she agreed they should stay with `environmental quality'. Springfield had a
beautiful environment. P
Councilor VanGordon said there was still room within this goal for sustainability and livability. When
he thinks of environmental quality, he thinks of the rivers and streams.
Mayor Lundberg said going into the Sustainable Cities program, the definition of sustainability would
become more clear for Springfield.
Mr. Towery said staff could have a more refined draft next time they came back to Council. He spoke
regarding responsiveness and citizen engagement brought forward by Councilor Moore. Staff knew
that was important, but didn't know how to work it into all six goals. The goals were what they wanted
to accomplish, and getting citizen involvement was more of a way to get to their goals. Staff was
giving thought in how to incorporate that into the document.
Discussion was held regarding where this could fit in the goals.
Councilor Pishioneri said the strategic plan was how they could reach their goals, and could include
citizen involvement.
3. Lane Livability Consortium Memorandum of Understanding.
Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the 'staff report on this item. The region applied for this grant
last summer and it was awarded in October. The purpose of this grant was to make sustainability an
enduring element of our policy development and decision-making processes. The grant included the
creation of a consortium of the partner agencies/governments who would provide a regional forum to
assist in the development of sustainability strategies that would address the integration of community
planning with economic development, transportation choices and affordable housing; long term
investment strategies for sustainable infrastructure planning; development of an equitable public
participation process; and the inclusion of public health and climate change as integral components of
sustainable public policy development. Detail on the grant's purpose and description was provided in
Attachments 1 and 2 of the agenda packet.
There were nine major tasks identified in the grant work program. While Springfield staff would
participate in each of these tasks, the degree of participation would vary, depending upon the direct
relevance of the task to an existing city program or responsibility. In consideration for our in-kind
contribution to this project, Springfield would receive $45,000 in cash reimbursements throughout the
course of the 3-year grant. Work tasks and agency participation was detailed in Attachment 3 of the
agenda packet.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 12
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attachment 4 of the agenda packet) included provisions
for project management and organization, partner roles, project deliverables, financial considerations,
modifications of provisions, dispute resolution, withdrawal of parties, and severability.
Final consideration of the MOU by Council would be scheduled for an available date in June.
Mr. Mott said the Lane County Board of Commissioners had some questions recently regarding the
provisions of the MOU which Lane County staff addressed last week. The Board requested discussion
with the other elected officials during the May 26 Joint Elected Officials (JEO) meeting. One of the
objectives of tonight's meeting was to find out where the Council stood on some of the elements of the
MOU, the degree of participation by the City of Springfield, and how City of Springfield resources
would be applied and the expectation of the grant being a benefit to the City in the things we were
currently working on. Coincidentally, the things the City was working on now were Scenario Planning
for the Transportation Plan, Consolidated Housing Plan, and Residential Land Use Policies as a
response to HB3337. As staff was developing the inventory for residential, they were also doing the
same thing for commercial and industrial. There was an economic development component to the
grant which fit in with those studies. Staff was looking for Council input on those things, and in
particular the relationship between the City of Springfield and Lane Livability Consortium or the other
partners in the grant.
Mr. Grimaldi said he had some concerns about the governance in the MOU and the creation of the
consortium that was inserted into other processes that were already underway. It would be another
organization that things would need to be filtered through, or that would send things down to the City
that the City may not agree with or fit into our work plan. He saw another layer that caused some
concern that could be addressed by changing the MOU.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to Attachment 4, page 21, 12.2 - Withdrawal of Parties. It was written as
if the City didn't have any control, but was just along for the ride. This section sounded like it
inhibited the ability to withdraw. It reminded him of the Region 2050 plan, which he had been
opposed to as another layer of government and regulation. The intent was worthy, but the language in
the MOU regarding the City's relationship with the consortium needed to be addressed. It also looked
like the City would be performing a lot of work in order to receive the $45,000. He was concerned
because of the limited number of staff available.
Councilor Ralston asked if all agencies had to agree on the same transportation plan. Section 10
addressed how they would handle disputes.
Mr. Mott said Springfield was working on its own Local Transportation System Plan (TSP) and
working in partnership with the Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO) on a Regional
Transportation Plan as well as creating a new Regional State Transportation Plan, which included City
of Springfield, City of Eugene, City of Coburg, Lane County and Lane Transit District (LTD). That
work began a couple of years ago. During that legislative session, two bills passed. The first focused
on Portland Metro preparing Scenario Planning, and the other was for the other MPOs to prepare
Scenario Planning. The law did say the MPO needed to prepare at least; two scenario plans and
Springfield, Eugene, Coburg, and Lane County needed to agree with one another. He spoke regarding
two elements of the law. The first was that until the MPO received the funding for Scenario Planning,
we weren't obligated to do the Scenario Planning; however, on or after January 1, 2012. this area was
obligated to select a Scenario Plan. The second was that even if we selected a scenario, we weren't
required by the law to adopt and implement. Right now, Springfield was progressing on the TSP as if
complying with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) in the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR). In
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 13
the event the funding was received for the Scenario Planning and a -model was created, the principle
driver in reducing the greenhouse gases was light duty vehicles. He provided some examples.
Councilor Ralston asked if a plan needed to be developed for each topic (transportation, housing,
economic development).
Andrea Riner, Program Manager for the Central Lane MPO, said those were all plans that were
already done and would not be changed. What they were trying to do was to look at the overlaps of
those extensive planning efforts to see if efficiencies could be created through collaboration, and to
use the limited Federal or State resources we were anticipating. Those that looked at this grant saw the
increased expectations for public agencies from customers and the regulatory agencies, and decreased
resources. The grant was an opportunity to help take on that challenge in the areas of redevelopment,
development, job creation, and transportation systems. It was taking a higher look at the regionally
significant issues, projects and challenges that were difficult for a single agency or area to try to take
on alone.
Councilor Ralston said it seemed the objective was an overall plan. He felt there were a number of
things in this that could never be resolved.
Ms. Riner said there was a regional economic prosperity strategy that had been signed by the County
and two cities. This was one way the agency could look at taking work they were already doing and
finding ways different projects in the Regional Transportation Plan could better support that. She
provided further examples. The proposal did not look at applying additional requirements or review,
but provided a way to present work that could be agreed on, to be in a better position to take advantage
of several funding sources.
Mr. Mott said whatever initiatives and policies the Council had adopted as part of their Economic
Opportunities Analysis that were part of the Springfield 2030 Plan, would not have to go through
another filter. If their objective was to maximize their plan, this would not diminish or threaten that in
any way. Springfield's focus was on Council preference and land use law to satisfy Goal 9, Economy
of the State. If they wanted to bring something else to the table, that was their option.
Councilor VanGordon asked why they needed to communicate and promote this separately if it
included things we were already doing.
Ms. Riner said they were trying to find a way to reach a broad stakeholder group to let them know
what the consortium was all about, and not rely on putting that pressure on the local jurisdictions to do
that work. The partnership provided the ability to bring together people they wouldn't normally have
the opportunity to work with and take advantage of their different skills and perspectives.
Councilor VanGordon said it looked like they were taking the grant and building more administrative
infrastructure. It would seem to make more sense to take the grant money to help fund the
administration of things already in place. He asked what happened at the end of the three years.
Ms. Riner said that would be the decision of the community. Their goal was to make this something of
value and a helpful resource to the community. This was a three year grant to provide a set of
products. It could be something each local jurisdiction could take as their own.
Councilor VanGordon asked where the new work was if we were already doing this work.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 14
Ms. Riner said it was an interagency and interdisciplinary collaboration. We did a good job of regional
transportation planning, but didn't have time to look at all of the components that were included in this
grant to see how they could partner and pool resources. It allowed them to have multiple perspectives
within these discussions.
Councilor VanGordon said he was worried that they were creating more bureaucracy. He asked Mr.
Grimaldi if he saw more than $45,000 of cost for the City over the next three years.
Mr. Grimaldi said it could be over that amount, but he had no data to support that. Staff was struggling
with the same things Council was struggling with regarding the outcome and ongoing funding.
Councilor VanGordon asked if Livability Lane Consortium would create the work product and give it
to the jurisdictions, with the jurisdictions under no obligation to implement that work product.
Ms. Riner said the obligation was due consideration. The Consortium would work very hard and
involve the jurisdictions to make sure the work plan was responsive to their needs and goals. They
wanted to create something that was of value to the jurisdiction. The Consortium would work with the
jurisdiction to make it what they wanted.
Mr. Grimaldi said the core of his concern was having an outside group creating something for the
City. It was valuable if the City wanted to create something and could tap the resources of the group
that would be put together.
Councilor VanGordon asked if they had considered how to mesh the different goals and outcomes of
each jurisdiction.
Ms. Riner said they were trying to focus on what the cities and county did have in common, and what
goals they had. The City's goals were core to what this was trying to accomplish. There were many
ways to do that. They wanted to make sure what they were working on were places they could all
come together to agree on a priority or focus. Things or projects would be brought to the group, the
group would not scrutinize what each jurisdiction was doing. It was about the things we already
shared, such as the Consolidated Housing Plan, Regional Transportation Plan, and Regional Economic
Plan. They would look at the ways they could work together to make those things happen more
strategically with more success at the funding level that they might not be able to get individually.
Councilor Pishioneri said it looked like the money coming in was enough funding for five FTE for
three years ($1.4M). He didn't see five people working on this full time. He was wondering where the
money would be used, how it would be billed out, LCOG's role, and what was in it for Springfield. It
didn't make sense for the City to agree to do what the group asked them to do. It was like giving up
what we already did well. There was a long list of tasks, but he didn't feel they told him much about
the outcome. He knew we were partnered together with the grant.
Councilor Woodrow said she would like some clarification on this issue. She wasn't sure what the
outcome was intended to be.
Councilor Wylie said it was difficult to understand because it was in planning language and people
wanted to know what it would do. She asked what the overreaching goal was and how things would be
different. She wanted to know what unique work products would- come out of this, such as the
TransPlan. She also wanted to know if the product would be useful to get more money and more
grants. If the end product was a great plan that could leverage more funds, it would be worthwhile.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 15.
Ms. Riner said that was one of the outcomes. The federal government preferred to work with regions
that had plans that showed what their priorities were, and that the region had done that work at that
level so that the federal government wasn't making the local decisions about the priorities. They also
looked at not providing stand-alone funding, but rather ways they could put their dollars together for
multi-objective projects, such as the Franklin Boulevard project. This was an initial effort by the
federal government to look at how this sort of regional consortium might work and how they could
pattern their funding applications. Initial drafts of transportation authorization showed targeted funds
for livability programs. She believed the federal government would create a category for jurisdictions
that had gone through this process. Funding would be more competitive at the smaller community
level and the mega-communities of I million or more would have an edge in putting packages together
for funding opportunities.
Councilor Wylie said our community was fortunate to have this grant that could be used to put
together some model plans that would illustrate: a) how well we worked together; b) understood what
we needed to do for good future living; and c) were willing to work together to get more money to
build housing, hospitals, highways, etc. because we had -shown our mutual cooperation and future
thinking. We were already doing that in some ways.
Ms. Riner said that was correct. There was a sense that it would be beneficial if we could put together
this work and include not only government agencies, but private and non-profit as well. This was
trying to take the partnerships and make it something the federal government could support.
Councilor Wylie said this could work if the majority of people involved understood that we were
trying to build a model plan that could be used for future development.
Ms. Riner said they wanted to engage with the jurisdictions to determine what they wanted to see as
the ultimate outcome. It was their goal to maximize the opportunities to do the things the City wanted
to do. The group would be accountable to the jurisdictions and were open to what they would look
like. They developed this language with HUD in mind and didn't see the flags that would come up for
the cities and county. They were invested in creating the best case scenario and avoiding the worst
case scenario.
Councilor Wylie said it was a way to dream together and envision a community of the future that
would benefit our whole area. This would produce a plan, or vision.
Councilor Ralston said he didn't feel they could get everyone to agree on anything.
Councilor Moore said it would be nice if the governments in this area were like TEAM Springfield
with one goal in mind. Unfortunately, there was a little bit of competition in this area, which was a
concern. She thought that LCOG was a place we could agree and that provided communication
between all the jurisdictions.
Ms. Riner said that was core to a Council of Governments and was an opportunity. It was still up to
the individual jurisdictions..
Councilor Moore said EWEB'was signed on with this, but not SUB.
Ms. Riner said SUB was participating and had attended the meetings, but were not yet ready to sign on
with the group.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 23, 2011
Page 16
Councilor Moore said this could get so big. She referred to `outreach to underrepresented populations',
which specifically mentioned St. Vincent DePaul. She noted that there were many other non-profit
groups that provided services, so she asked why it was the only one included. She also referred to the
Hispanic community and said she also knew a number of people who were members of the black
community that were not being mentioned. She wanted to know how they would be reaching out to the
different groups and how those groups would feel they had participated. She understood they needed
to approach the federal government as a region, but there was competition in areas such as high speed
rail.
Ms. Riner.said she understood, but the first step would be to get high speed-rail to our region. When
they got down to the details, there were differences. If they looked at the need for jobs, they could
come up with common ways to bring them to our region. Competition at the federal level was with
other large cities.
Mayor Lundberg said Council would continue this discussion in the joint meeting on May 26. She
understood LCOG's role was to figure out ways to accomplish things. She did, however, see this as a
planning to plan effort. Region 2050 was also idealistic and came down to what they could agree on.
That group realized the jurisdictions needed to individually make decisions. She didn't feel we had
lost anything with Region 2050 going away, so wasn't supportive of another consortium. She would
be interested to hear what the other partners had to say about the expectations. She would also like to
see what type of agreement they would sign if they got to that point. She knew this would be discussed
further. She appreciated Ms. Riner's time and information.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:20 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Christine L.. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
0AW,
Amy So
City Recorder