HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 05 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/19/2012
Meeting Type:Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa/CMO
Staff Phone No: 726-3700
Estimated Time: Consent Calendar
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL MINUTES
ACTION
REQUESTED:
By motion, approval of the attached minutes.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes:
a) February 21, 2012 – Work Session
b) February 21, 2012 – Regular Meeting
c) February 23, 2012 – Joint Elected Officials Meeting
d) February 27, 2012 – Work Session
e) March 5, 2012 – Work Session
f) March 5, 2012 – Regular Meeting
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Moore, and Woodrow. Also
present were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder
Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilors Wylie and Ralston were absent (excused).
1. Sign Code Revisions.
Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery introduced David Bowlsby and noted Mr. Bowlsby’s work on the
Sign Code.
Building Permit Technician David Bowlsby presented the staff report on this item. The purpose of this
update was primarily to address housekeeping of the current code, to make necessary changes to
update code references and provide adjustments to and clarification for use of this code. This update
also had the goal of addressing possible modifications to Temporary Sign permit requirements to
accommodate businesses during the current economic state.
In light of recent conversations and complaints regarding temporary sign permits, Council may want
to discuss options to accommodate businesses by waiving or suspending temporary permit fees for a
defined period. Discussions to provide this relief should include method(s) of adoption (ordinance,
etc.) and sun setting of the decision to be reviewed at a later predetermined date.
Councilor Woodrow said she received a phone call today regarding the Sign Code. The owner of Vino
and Vango was not allowed to have anything on her window per NEDCO. She had asked if she could
use a sandwich board when she had classes to let people know where she was located. If not a
sandwich board, she had asked if there was something else she could use.
Mr. Bowlsby said that was an obstacle for many businesses. He was charged with dealing specifically
with what Council had adopted in the past. With the current code, she would need to get a temporary
sign permit for the sandwich board. Currently, there was not an exemption for that.
Councilor Woodrow said she would like to see this addressed to allow sandwich boards more often.
Mr. Bowlsby said that was a request he received often. A change to the current code (Attachment 2 of
the agenda packet) grouped all temporary signage into one category. The length of time temporary
signs were allowed was specific in the Code. By combining the temporary signage, they could use the
signs four times a year rather than only two times. During a study of revenues and temporary sign
permits, he found that many businesses would take advantage of the extra days allowed with the
temporary signs combined.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 2
Mayor Lundberg said the reason they wanted the Sign Code discussion now was to look at suspending
those regulations through the end of the year and then see if those changes should remain.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was interested in promoting business, becoming more business friendly
and removing some barriers. He wanted to allow two sandwich boards per business for an unlimited
number of times per year with no permits. He didn’t see that in the amendments.
Mr. Bowlsby said he had outlined three options. One of those options was to allow people to have one
portable sign or banner, year-round with no permits required. Additional signs would require a permit.
Another option was to look at the housekeeping changes in the Sign Code, but also to look at how to
work with the businesses by setting aside the fees and enforcement of temporary signs to a date
certain. He noted section 8.218(3) (page 27 of Attachment 2 of the agenda packet) which reworded the
section regarding temporary signs. Two signs could be allowed if that was Council’s direction.
Ms. Murdoch said they could suspend those regulations through a resolution or in the Sign Code.
Mayor Lundberg said they had all received calls about signage and the regulations of temporary signs
and sandwich boards. She had suggested a moratorium, or suspension of certain signs for a specific
amount of time through the end of the year. Councilor Pishioneri had suggested parameters such as
two sandwich boards per business. During that period of suspension, the City would ask for feedback
from businesses and the community. They could then look at the Sign Code in a broader way near the
end of the year to look at making specific amendments.
Councilor Pishioneri felt it was wise to go through the permitting process without the fees so the City
would know where the signs were located. The business community needed to know about the
suspension for specific signs. He didn’t want to make it cumbersome for staff. The suspension could
be for two sandwich boards per business of a specific size, through the end of the year.
Mr. Bowlsby said he agreed with that and felt it would accommodate the businesses. He was
concerned, however, about the right-of-way issues on the sidewalk, especially in downtown. There
could still be some code enforcement issues regarding right-of-way and accessibility issues. He
supported not charging, but felt a balance was needed. Some standards needed to be set regarding size
of the signs and placement on the sidewalk. There would still be some oversight, but those details
could be worked out.
Councilor Moore asked if all Sign Codes were so long. It was noted that many were even longer. She
would like to see a simplified pamphlet that could be provided to business owners.
Mr. Bowlsby said he had put together a pamphlet similar to what she was suggesting at the direction
of the Mayor. Mr. Laudati had worked on that pamphlet as well. It had been out for distribution and
staff had received positive feedback.
Councilor Moore asked about section 8.128(1) regarding “complete set of plans” and “engineering
calculations”. She asked if those were by a certified engineer.
Mr. Bowlsby said in circumstances where engineering was required, it needed to be done by a licensed
practicing engineer. That would include signs greater than 20 feet tall or with other circumstances
governed by the Building Code or Structural Specialty Code.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 3
Councilor Moore said if the setback section of code was maintained, it already prohibited signs in the
public utility right-of-way. She spoke about the setback and asked how sandwich boards could be
allowed with the setback.
Mr. Bowlsby said it would depend on the location. Some properties were large enough for the sign to
sit within the setback area. Downtown there was very little area, so there was not a means for them to
meet this guideline to set the sign back from the property line. If they had an inset, they could, through
an amendment to the Sign Code, place the sign in that location.
Councilor Moore asked if Councilor Pishioneri was thinking of placing the signs in the right-of-way
on the sidewalk.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was looking at doing this globally throughout the City. There were other
businesses outside of downtown that had the same issue. Downtown businesses were crucial and he
felt if the sidewalk was 10 feet wide, the signs could fit in that area while still being ADA compliant.
He wanted to find out how we could make it work whenever possible. When it couldn’t work, that was
understandable. This would need to be looked at case by case.
Mr. Bowlsby said Section 2.201 provided authority to staff to address the situations and gave staff the
tools for reasonable application. That language was in all other sections of Code he administered. He
felt that section could be used to work with businesses to try to find a solution.
Councilor Woodrow said this should be presented to businesses that the City was willing to suspend
the regulation and allow it until the end of the year as a trial. It would be a benefit to businesses if they
would show responsibility and be a partner in this trial. If it worked well, this could be something that
could continue. Many businesses would like to put out sandwich boards and would want to know the
requirements so they could continue.
Councilor VanGordon spoke regarding the language regarding temporary signs. Some people would
like to have something long-term. He asked if it was possible to simplify the entire Sign Code
document.
Mr. Bowlsby said it was possible, but would take a considerable amount of time.
Councilor VanGordon said he would like to be able to shorten it to make it easier for businesses. He
agreed that we should provide this trial period with the sandwich boards. He understood the
compliance issue with right-of-way use, etc. and suggested staff provide photos of how to place the
signs for more challenging properties.
Mr. Bowlsby said there were a couple of options to consider, such as an annual permit for temporary
signs. There were some jurisdictions that did that, some with fees and some without. Although perhaps
premature, he had also suggested a general business license. Part of the benefit of the general business
license could include an allowance to have a temporary or portable sign as part of the permit. That
provided another tool for code enforcement. Part of a business license needed to be a benefit and more
opportunity to advertise their business. This was just one option.
Councilor VanGordon said consistent enforcement was difficult. He asked about the security deposit
on signs and what percentage of those were generally refunded.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 4
Mr. Bowlsby said they refunded the majority of the deposits, although some people got their permit
without their deposit. Some people forfeited their deposit if they forgot to remove their signs.
Councilor VanGordon asked if the security deposit helped or hindered in code enforcement.
Ms. Murdoch said it was a helpful tool for code enforcement as it kept the businesses mindful of the
time limit for their signs in order to get their deposit back.
Councilor VanGordon said he supported the trial period. One concern he had was that a business
might invest in signs during this specific time period that would no longer be allowed at the end of the
trial period.
Councilor Woodrow said sandwich signs were not expensive. Even if they went back to permitting,
that business could use their sign with a permit. She asked if the Code started out large or had grown.
Mr. Murdoch said it had started out small, but had grown due to things that had come up over years.
Councilor Moore asked about the cost of a permit. She noted a penalty fee and asked what those cost.
Mr. Bowlsby said currently the fee for banners and portable signs was $225. Of that amount, the
deposit was $100. If the business followed the rules and removed the signs at or before 30 days, they
would get $100 back leaving a net cost of $125. If the City sent a warning citation to a business that
did not have a permit but displayed signs, the business had the opportunity to obtain a permit in one of
two ways: 1) satisfy code enforcement with a single fee of $115 with no deposit and remove the signs;
or 2) the business could come in and purchase the permit for $225 allowing them to have the
remainder of the 30 days (starting from the date of the warning letter). If they removed the sign after
that 30 day period, they would get the $100 deposit back.
Councilor Moore said the letter was not actually a warning, but was a penalty.
Mr. Bowlsby said the warning was that if they did not come in to obtain a permit within a specified
number of days, they would be fined per day.
Ms. Murdoch said some businesses in the past used to get a warning, take down their signs, and then
put them back up shortly after. They continued that pattern without having to pay.
Councilor Moore said if they were a first time offender and received a letter, it was more like a penalty
fee. She understood charging a fee to someone who repeatedly violated the code.
Mr. Bowlsby said he understood. Some people had asked for a new business packet for new
businesses. The City didn’t currently have the benefit of that first point of contact because we had no
general business license. Without that tool, staff needed to rely on business owners to be truthful.
Councilor Moore said she could understand the charge if it was their second warning. She felt the first
warning should just be a warning.
Mayor Lundberg said the purpose of tonight’s discussion was to look at suspending the sandwich
board regulation during a period of time, then take a closer and more deliberate look at the rest of the
Sign Code.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 5
Ms. Murdoch said it was so helpful to get Council’s feedback. Often times, they did forgive the first
warning, and they did try to get this resolved. They tried to be careful in how they worked with
businesses. They would like to talk to Public Works about placement of sandwich boards on the
sidewalks.
Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin said the right-of-way issue should not affect the
Council’s decision tonight. Many cities allowed sandwich boards along their sidewalks. One of the
challenges of the Main Street sidewalk was that it was the Oregon Department of Transportation’s
(ODOT) right-of-way.
Ms. Murdoch reminded the Council that the City had to be content neutral about what the signs had on
them. She noted that the City was currently taking in about $11,000 per year for temporary signs.
Councilor VanGordon asked if the suspension was strictly on sandwich board signs. Yes. He felt as
more feedback was received, they could look into a guide for new businesses similar to what Mr.
Bowlsby had created. The information could be put on the website.
Mr. Bowlsby said customers were more receptive knowing what they could do within the guidelines.
If the Council authorized the suspension, word of mouth among businesses would get that information
to the public. Staff would be receiving a lot of phone calls and customer contact. They needed to
determine where and what size for the parameters. Once that was determined, he felt it would be
received positively by the business community.
Councilor Pishioneri would still like staff to come up with a business package for those that got a
business license or paid an annual fee. The package would be a welcome to Springfield with
information on what the business could do with the license/permit and who to contact. He would like
this type of package in place sometime before the end of the year. Businesses that did not buy the
package would not be able to continue doing the same things regarding signs after the suspension was
over.
Mr. Towery reviewed Council direction regarding tonight’s topic. He confirmed that Council was fine
with staff bringing forward the ordinance with the housekeeping amendments in the Sign Code to a
public hearing and subsequent action. Yes. In addition, the Council would like to allow “x” number of
sandwich board signs for the balance of the calendar year without permit or fee required. He asked
how many sandwich boards the Council would like to allow.
After some discussion, Council said two sandwich boards per business. Staff would determine a
‘standard’ size to be allowed.
Mr. Towery said staff would come back to Council near the end of the year with input from the
temporary suspension for sandwich boards. They would also do a more in-depth review, specifically
of the temporary sign portion of the code, but possibly a deeper review. He wasn’t sure what Council
wanted them to review more closely.
Councilor Moore said she wanted the Code to be simplified.
Councilor Woodrow said it was important that when looking to simplify the Code, they didn’t lose
things that had been added to resolve specific issues. Some of the language could be simplified, but
some of the other areas may not be able to be reduced.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 6
Councilor VanGordon agreed. He wanted a conversation about how they could simplify the Sign Code
and have some brainstorming. If the Code was a simple as they could get it, he was fine with that, but
if it could be simplified more, he would support that.
Councilor Moore appreciated that staff had prepared a pamphlet for businesses.
Mr. Bowlsby said that was the Mayor’s idea and was a great idea.
Councilor Pishioneri said in addition to looking at the suspension at the end of the year, he would also
like to have a plan in place of where to go next to address business and City needs. He would like to
see some type of package that could continue the benefit of the steps they were taking now.
Mr. Towery suggested they separate that issue from the Sign Code because that topic was much
broader in terms of the different areas of the organization that would be involved.
Councilor Pishioneri felt this was a good opportunity to bring forward that discussion.
Mr. Towery said this issue was in front of Council due to the temporary signs. If there were other parts
of the Code Council had concerns about, he encouraged the Council to let staff know so they could
provide information on why certain sections were included in the Code. He also asked them to let staff
know of calls from citizens about the signs.
Councilor Woodrow said she would like to know that businesses would be told that this suspension
was to take us to the end of the year for re-evaluation, but was also to look ahead at long-range
planning.
Mayor Lundberg said the City recently simplified SDCs for a period of time and was now adding this
to help businesses. Signs allowed businesses to advertise themselves. The City managed to allow
tables on the sidewalk, so she knew we could do this as well. She was very optimistic that at the end of
the year they would have good direction from this experience. She appreciated all of the work done by
staff.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 7:06 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie (by conference
phone), Moore, and Woodrow. Also present were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Ralston was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
a. Approval of the January 2012, Disbursements for Approval.
2. Minutes
a. February 6, 2012 – Work Session
b. February 6, 2012 – Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Approval of the Liquor License Endorsement for Harley’s and Horses, located at 2816
Main Street, Springfield, OR 97478.
b. Approval of the Liquor License Endorsement for Buy 2 020, located at 5737 Main Street,
Springfield, OR 97478.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE CHECK TO UPS
OF THE JANUARY 2012 DISBURSEMENTS REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – RALSTON).
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 2
ITEMS REMOVED
1. Check #112003 to United Parcel Service (UPS) of the January 2012 Disbursements.
Councilor VanGordon declared a conflict of interest as this payment was made to his employer
United Parcel Service (UPS). He abstained from voting.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CHECK TO UPS OF THE JANUARY 2012
DISBURSEMENTS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0
AGAINST (1 ABSENT – RALSTON, AND 1 ABSTENTION – VANGORDON).
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. Sanipac Rates.
RESOLUTION NO. 12-03 – A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING THE MASTER SCHEDULE OF RATES,
PERMITS, LICENSES, AND OTHER CHARGES AS ESTABLISHED BY THE
SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO AMEND GARBAGE AND REFUSE
RATES AND AUTHORIZE THE VOLUNTARY COLLECTION OF SEPARATED FOOD
WASTE.
Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. Sanipac,
the City’s franchise hauler for solid waste, requested an increase of 6.95 percent for residential
and 7.95 percent for commercial hauling rates and to add a voluntary Food Waste diversion
program for commercial customers. As part of the proposal, Sanipac had added a 21 gallon Every
Other Week service and a Recycling only service. Rates for other cities were shown in the
Council Briefing Memorandum included in the agenda packet. Council reviewed this request at a
work session on February 13, 2012. Staff recommended that the increase be effective March 1,
2012. With the proposed increase, Sanipac would have approximately a 7% return on their assets,
slightly below the 10% of most jurisdictions in Oregon.
Sanipac proposed to institute a food waste diversion program as a service to its commercial
accounts. This program would allow Sanipac to divert food waste away from the land fill and
allow participants to reduce the size of their trash containers. The rate for commercial food waste
containers would be 20% less than a comparable trash container. This program could allow a
business to cut costs by reducing the size of the trash container as a result of adding a food waste
container.
Mr. Goodwin said Sanipac would likely be back in less than four years, which was typically how
long between rate increases. He noted some of the factors that Sanipac took into consideration
when proposing the increase.
Mayor Lundberg said she wanted to make sure everyone would be notified of the new services
Sanipac would be providing. She asked when those new services would be available.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 3
Scott Johnson, General Manager of Sanipac, said they could start the new services and notify
customers by the first of March.
Councilor Moore thanked Sanipac for hearing the Council’s concerns and bringing back a
reasonable proposal.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 12-03. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – RALSTON).
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Charlotte Behm, Springfield, OR. Ms. Behm said she was last before Council regarding the
naming of the new bridge over the Willamette River. There would be a signing ceremony for
that bridge with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).
Tonight, Ms. Behm said she was here to talk about the Community Veterinary Center, a non-
profit that recently opened on Highway 99 in Eugene. They located in Eugene because St.
Vincent DePaul gave them a piece of property on Highway 99. In the last three years, they
had raised $150,000 and now owned the building. The center provided basic veterinary
services for low-income people. The cost was $15 for an exam and the medications were just
over their costs. They provided terrific services and would like to serve the citizens in
Springfield.
Councilor Woodrow asked if they provided surgery.
Ms. Behm said they currently did not, but hoped to start doing surgeries this summer.
Mayor Lundberg said she appreciated that they got this started. This was an issue that the
City continued to work on. She asked Ms. Behm to keep in contact with the City Manager’s
Office so the City and the Center could work together
Councilor Woodrow asked what type of verification people needed to qualify for services.
Ms. Behm said they needed to provide a paycheck for one month for the whole household, or
Social Security information. They were currently open Mondays from 3-7pm, but were
hoping to open on Wednesdays in a couple of weeks. They were operating with an all-
volunteer staff.
Councilor Woodrow also thanked Ms. Behm and the Center.
2. Irene Alltucker, Relief Nursery, Springfield, OR. Ms. Alltucker distributed cookies to the
Mayor and Council. She wanted to report on the process for the Relief Nursery. Due to the
economy, it had taken them much longer, but they continued to move forward in a positive
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 4
direction. They had broken $2.3M for the building and would break ground at $2.9M which
they hoped would occur this spring. They started a “Put Your Best Square Foot Forward”
program for people to sponsor a square foot of the building which had received positive
response. This helped to get widespread community support. They continued to hear from
neighbors and families how much they wanted this service. They were collaborating with
Head Start for parenting classes in the evenings. They were working in the community to do
all they could with their limited space. The final response to the building permit was being
submitted tomorrow.
Councilor Moore asked how much per square foot.
Ms. Alltucker said it was $167 per square foot. She had forms available.
Councilor Moore asked if this building would qualify for the SDC fee reductions in place
now.
Mr. Goodwin said that was difficult to answer. There would be circumstances where people
applied for permits and missed the period of the reduction. If they had already submitted their
permit, and they wanted to take advantage of the SDC reduction, they would need to remove
their building permit and resubmit it for review. Staff could discuss this with them.
Mayor Lundberg encouraged staff to meet with the Relief Nursery to see what their options
were and how those would work out.
3. Mia Nelson, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Eugene, OR Ms. Nelson spoke regarding the motion
later in the agenda about new testimony for the Metro Plan. She distributed a map showing
the area under consideration. She noted the importance of this change in the Metro Plan
boundary which involved 8000 acres. The Springfield City Council had control of land
between the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB) and the Metro Plan Boundary. This plan
took that away. The County had said the reason they wanted to do this was because they were
frustrated with the City’s ability to override their decisions. The County called this a problem
of jurisdictional authority. She understood why they wanted the City to waive involvement
with the subject property, but the City had the right to say no to that request. If the City gave
up that land, they would never get it back. Most cities were not fortunate enough to have
something like this and had no control beyond their UGB. This area was close to thousands
of Springfield citizens, but was also land the City was looking at for UGB expansion. If the
City went along with this plan, they would have no authority regarding plan amendments in
that area. Currently, they had a great level of control that she encouraged the City to maintain.
She asked staff to look at the proposal from the perspective of what was in it for Springfield.
She said she would be testifying at the joint elected officials (JEO) meeting (March 13).
Mayor Lundberg noted that the Council was scheduling a work session to look at this closely.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
ORDINANCES
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 5
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Pishioneri updated Council on the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) regulation changes for the McKenzie River. Council submitted a
letter supporting a citizen’s proposal to oppose the proposed closure. The timetable
had moved back so that letter was now moot as no proposal had been submitted
yet. Staff from ODFW was to close all consumptive fishing from Hendricks Bridge
to the confluence of the last rivers. The hearing on that was to be held May 14,
2012. He explained the process. Following the hearing in May, recommendations
would go to the ODFW Commission. He would be testifying to the Commission.
He noted that he was discouraged by his discussions with ODFW staff.
Mayor Lundberg agreed they needed to watch this carefully as the McKenzie River
was one of Springfield’s borders.
2. Councilor Moore said she and Councilor Woodrow attended the presentation on
Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Councilor Moore also attended the
Connecting Communities event. It had all been very interesting.
Councilor Moore also reported that she had been invited to attend a ShelterCare
consumers committee meeting. They would be looking at issues regarding the
Police Department and how they could better understand needs. She agreed to
serve on the committee to help with communications between ShelterCare and the
Police Department.
b. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Motion to Allow New Testimony at the Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing on the
Proposed Metro Plan Boundary Change East of I-5.
Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. The Planning
Commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County had concluded joint public hearings on a
county-initiated Metro Plan amendment that would make the plan’s boundary east of Interstate 5
coterminous with the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. The Metro Plan and Springfield Code
required the joint elected officials hearing to be “on the record” of the Planning Commissions’
hearing unless the amendment was government-initiated and a different process, time line, or
both were established by the governing bodies.
This proposed Metro Plan amendment had received a good deal of testimony at separate
continued joint public hearings of the three Planning Commissions. Lane County staff was
requesting that the public hearing of the joint elected officials be “de novo” — a format that
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 6
allowed new evidence into the record. The Metro Plan and the codes of all three jurisdictions
allowed the change in format. The Lane County Board of Commissioners (on February 8, 2012)
and Eugene City Council (on February 13, 2012) both unanimously approved motions to allow
new testimony at the hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPRINGFIELD CODE 5.14-155, MOVE
THAT THE MARCH 13, 2012 PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JOINT ELECTED
OFFICIALS REGARDING THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES OF THE METRO
PLAN ALLOW NEW TESTIMONY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO THE RECORD OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – RALSTON).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:30 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
City Recorder
MINUTES OF THE
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL,
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL,
AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2012
A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County was
held in the Springfield Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Thursday,
February 23, 2012 at 12:00pm with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Lundberg welcomed everyone to Springfield City Hall and opened the meeting of the
Springfield City Council.
Mayor Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council.
Commissioner Leiken opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors Moore, Ralston, Woodrow,
and Pishioneri. Councilors Wylie and VanGordon were absent (excused). Springfield City Manager
Gino Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present.
Present from Eugene were Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilors Ortiz, Clark, Poling, Brown, Taylor,
Farr, Zelenka, and Pryor. Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz and other Eugene staff were also present.
Present from Lane County were Board Chair Leiken and Commissioners Bozievich, Handy, and
Sorenson. Commissioner Stewart was absent (excused). Lane County Administrator Liane Richardson
and other Lane County staff were also present.
I. Adjustments to Agenda
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
II. Lane Community College Conceptual Master Plan.
Tony McCown, Lane Community College (LCC) Board member introduced this item. He said they
were here to talk about LCC’s future for the 21st century at the Russell Creek Basin location and the
process developed over the last couple of years to develop a master plan for all of LCC’s properties.
Mr. McCown noted that there were three initiatives. The first initiative was the long-range master plan
for the main campus. The goals of the initiative were to increase the availability of educational
opportunities to a wide spectrum of people, to produce new income streams to offset the reduction of
state funds for operating expenses, to explore private/public partnerships to provide on the job work
experience for students to offer traditional and non-traditional settings for educating students, and to
provide living and learning opportunities for staff and students. Many of the goals were embodied in
the downtown campus. There were many opportunities to work with their partners to provide an
economic impetus. He noted the economic growth in downtown following LCC’s announcement to
open their downtown campus.
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 2 of 8
Mr. McCown introduced Mark Gillem and Barry Gordon from the University of Oregon. They had
worked with LCC through a number of workshops with campus staff and students to develop
alternatives for what LCC could do, what the facilities could look like, how they could use their
properties, and how they could partner with those around them to increase their capabilities.
Mr. McCown said the second initiative was to look at the Russell Creek basin. They looked at how it
could develop and who the property owners were. They intended to initiate conversations with
surrounding property owners about participating in the vision of a long-term plan. The third initiative
was connecting with the larger community. LCC represented the entire county and had partnerships in
both small and large cities they would like to undertake.
Mr. Gillem presented a power point. He said he taught at the University of Oregon and ran the Urban
Design Lab. Their lab provided pro bono design services at cost to public agencies around the state.
One of the projects they had been fortunate to work on was the Lane Community College Master Plan.
This project was similar to the Sustainable City Initiative project, but rather than looking at an entire
city, they looked at individual projects and brought students into those projects.
Mr. Gillem said they looked at where LCC could go in the future regarding their property. It provided
opportunities to look at how to improve the job base and housing base in an environmentally sensitive
manner. Sustainability included social sustainability, cultural sustainability, and economic
sustainability. When LCC first started, sustainability was not considered. It was partly a result of how
different property decisions were made and politics, resulting in a location between jurisdictions with
the only access by vehicle. There was now some transit, but it mainly operated during the typical
working day and was primarily a learning campus. The community wanted LCC to be a learning
campus, but also a living campus, a place that had 24/7 activity. They had been working towards a
planning vision and looking at where LCC would like to go in terms of community and sustainability,
but this could also be an economic development opportunity for the entire region. The idea of creating
a sustainable financial base for the college was also very important.
Mr. Gillem said the Lane Community College Master Plan vision was “To create a campus that has
appropriate infrastructure that fosters educational excellence through sustainable building and
landscape practices organized around equitable accessibility contributing to a complete community”.
LCC was doing a great job during this process looking at durable buildings within an area that was
accessible to everyone. He referred to some drawings from his students that portrayed some of the
vision for LCC. In the vision, they were looking at opportunities not only for education, but also
housing. LCC was exploring housing in their downtown project and also looking at this opportunity at
their main campus. Housing could be for students, faculty and staff who were interested in living
much closer to the college. Another part of the vision included market places, fitness and recreation
centers, dining, and places to play.
Mr. Gillem said the downtown campus was now under construction and it already incorporated many
of the opportunities in the vision. It included housing, market area, fitness, food, play and education in
an integrated setting. That opportunity also presented itself at the main campus.
Mr. Gillem spoke regarding what LCC already had. At this time, they had some very nice classroom
buildings, many that were energy efficient. Most of the classrooms were surrounded by parking
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 3 of 8
because it was situated where most people going there had to drive. He asked Mr. Gordon to explain
the process they were going through for their Master Plan.
Mr. Gordon said there were three stages of planning: vision planning; jurisdictional planning; and
implementation. So far, they had just gotten through the first stage of planning. Participation included
27 workshops and 15 reviews over the last two and a half years. Phase 1 included a visioning
workshop at LCC with open houses for the community. One open house had an attendance of over 500
people. Phase 2 included the conceptual vision documentation process where they held meetings to
socialize the idea with community members. There were hundreds of LCC faculty, staff and students
involved in the events, as well as many community members. They also met with many community
officials. There were three design studios: two architecture and landscape architecture studios; and a
third architecture and planning studio. Over 40 University of Oregon students participated in those
studios. A survey was sent out to over 14,000 faculty staff and students at LCC with a response of just
over 10% (1454). One of the questions on the survey was “Would you consider living on or near
campus?”. Forty-seven percent of faculty, forty-two percent of staff, and sixty-one percent of students
said they would be willing to live on or near campus. The result of this survey caused them to look at
how they could plan for housing needs.
Mr. Gordon said LCC was located outside Eugene and Springfield urban growth boundaries (UGB),
and inside the Metro Plan boundary. He noted 5 parcels owned by LCC that were depicted on a map in
the power point. He described each parcel. He also noted the land surrounding LCC and who owned
those parcels. With the unique location of the properties, they were looking at regional connections
with a path. He referred to the overall illustrative in the power point. Some students had stayed on as
interns to continue to work through this process.
Mr. Gillem spoke regarding the overall illustrative, which illustrated one way the campus could grow
to achieve its longer term vision. As Eugene and Springfield both looked at what to do about urban
growth boundaries, this was one opportunity. Currently, this was one area that had a lot of jobs, but
not housing. They needed to try to find a way to find that balance. They had thought about this in
districts, each with an area development plan (ADP).
Mr. Gillem referred to a picture of a campus core in the power point. The basic idea with this drawing
was to look at an infill strategy, using utility infrastructure already in place and developing around the
perimeter with potential student housing in a mixed-use format, with additional campus buildings. It
would be more like an actual campus with quads and buildings adjacent to those quads creating
definable and usable open spaces. There would still be a need for parking, so that would still be part
of the plan. On the north side ADP, they looked at possible development of residential for staff or
faculty, taking advantage of the prime wetlands. This was how both historic Springfield and Eugene
were built by creating a framework that allowed for flexible growth. There would be a dedicated open
space that would connect to the wetland areas. He noted the regulating plan, which was a code that
sustainably regulated an effective environmental form. He explained. He referred to a drawing of the
front yard ADP which would serve as a recreation space for LCC and the larger community. The
eastside ADP included land not currently owned by LCC. They had been talking with the adjacent
partners about how they could be part of this process, with the campus extending into these sites. The
south east ADP included the forest area and would be minimally developed. It offered outdoor
classroom potential.
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 4 of 8
Mr. Gillem said the plan envisioned anywhere from 3,031,243 to 4,600,492 square feet of buildings,
and a minimum of 168 housing units. This was a flexible master plan looking out about 30-40 years.
Some of the benefits could include 3,414,400 vehicles miles saved per year by having approximately
2,134 people living near campus. That translated to about 3,755,840 pounds of carbon. The average
green Leeds certified building saved about 100,000 pounds of carbon a year, but reducing vehicle
miles travelled reduced carbons at a higher rate. It was important to build green buildings in the
context of an economically, environmentally sustainable plan. There was a per person savings of
$203.20 which was calculated assuming that those living near campus were walking rather than
driving to work or school. They were still early in the process and were looking at continued outreach
and the jurisdictional planning that needed to occur.
Mr. Ruiz asked how many acres there were in the developed portion of the southeast area.
Mr. Gillem said it was about 10 acres.
Eugene Mayor Piercy asked about the mix of housing.
Mr. Gillem said the mix of housing would include small bungalows, townhouses, and living/learning
facilities with classrooms below and dormitories above. They would be looking at affordable models.
There was currently a plan to develop an adjacent area with larger homes, but that was not the intent of
this plan.
Eugene Councilor Taylor asked if those living in the housing would still have cars.
Mr. Gillem said they would still have cars, but people that lived in communities with a density of
about 20 acres and served by transit drove 50 percent less. This type of planning would allow people
the choice of when and how much they drove.
Eugene Councilor Taylor said they would still need as much or more parking.
Mr. Gillem noted there were still a large number of parking spaces.
Eugene Councilor Taylor asked who would provide the utilities.
Mr. Gillem said that was currently done on site, but they were looking at a long-term sustainable
utility system. If they looked at a model that required sewer lines from Springfield or Eugene, there
could be political barriers. There were many new models of taking care of sewer onsite. They had been
looking at options to be net zero for water. The only thing they may need to bring in would be
electricity and that was already serviced within the electrical grid, so would not be an issue.
Lane County Commissioner Sorenson asked if part of the plan considered the affect of this
development on the surrounding properties. While serving on the LCC Board in the past, the
relationship between LCC and Lane Transit District (LTD) to reduce the number of car trips had
served them well. He was impressed with the plan, but wanted to know if part of the analysis included
the affect on surrounding areas.
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Gillem said it was a ripple effect. The first ring included people living right around the campus
and it had been very important to reach out to those residents. They were very happy with the idea of
medium density housing and were in support. The second ring was more public and they had been
working with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) regarding the future interchange
expansion. Currently, ODOT did not have the funding for that expansion, but the plan accounted for
the fact that at some point that expansion could occur. The third ring included Glenwood, Springfield
and Eugene and how this development could help to accommodate some of the growth for the region.
People wanted to move to this area and housing choices needed to be provided. This could be a
positive impact on the local economy. They would continue to reach out to the different groups and
appreciated hearing any ideas of others they should contact.
Eugene Councilor Brown asked if the housing would only be for LCC staff or students.
Mr. Gillem said to make it marketable, they would be open to anyone. There would be specific student
housing, but other types of housing could be open to others. More housing was needed in the region,
but there was the issue of the UGB. Currently LCC could build a large part of their campus without a
change to the UGB because it supported the academic mission of LCC. If they wanted to build
housing for outside use, they couldn’t do it because of the location of the UGB. They were served by
the Metro Plan boundary, which accommodated LCC. There would be challenges.
Eugene Councilor Brown asked about high rises on the north parcel. They could fit into the
neighborhood.
Mr. Gillem said students had modeled bigger and taller buildings in that location, but it was not
received by participants. They looked at a multi-way boulevard similar to that being considered for
Franklin Boulevard. They could accommodate a lot of growth in the type of development that was
well received.
Eugene Councilor Brown asked about outdoor instructional areas in the southern parcel.
Mr. Gillem said they had biology and ecology classes that currently went out and hiked through that
area looking for plant materials, wetlands and preservation issues. Not everyone wanted to see
development, but the idea that LCC had a vision gave them direction.
Eugene Councilor Zelenka asked what the enrollment was at LCC.
Mr. McCown said there were about 14,000. That figure would stay about the same over the next five
years. The numbers had increased over the last few years due to people attending school while out of
work during this economy. They were projecting a 1 percent increase in the next year.
Eugene Councilor Zelenka asked about the capacity.
Mr. McCown said all of the space was being used. Classes were still traditionally during day hours
between 10am-3pm. They had grown in enrollment with program additions.
Mr. Gillem said some of the ideas for the buildings could be facilities such as health care and dining,
where students could get training. The target of number of students had been about 15,000.
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 6 of 8
Lane County Commissioner Leiken noted that Mr. McCown, who was an LCC Board Member was
also a Lane County Planning Commissioner and understood Metro Plan boundaries which was a
benefit. LCC was in the Metro Plan Boundary, but not within the UGB, which was a challenge. They
would need to look at the possibility of being taken into one city’s UGB or ask to have the Metro Plan
boundary moved to the UGB. In their current situation, they would be challenged in regards to their
development. That was part of the long-range vision they needed to consider.
McCown said this was a 30-40 year plan. If LCC initiated this it would look different. A good portion
of this proposed development was within the core where they had development rights.
Mr. Gillem said the next phase was jurisdictional planning.
Lane County Commissioner Handy asked Mr. Ruiz if this was part of Eugene’s vision for housing or
land, or if it was a separate process.
Mr. Ruiz said that basin had been part of their UGB discussion, although they hadn’t narrowed down
areas of expansion if that was what they chose. They hadn’t talked about LCC specifically, but the
basin had been part of their conversation regarding lands for industrial or housing.
Springfield Councilor Moore asked about the McVay Highway transportation planning with LTD that
was occurring in relationship to LCC. She felt it would make sense to look at the potential for that
connection from McVay to LCC for bike lanes and transit. She asked about the distance.
Springfield Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said it was about 2 ½ miles.
Mr. Gillem said the main campus would remain the main campus. He noted that LCC had not updated
their Master Plan since 1965. They hoped this new plan would provide a campus for both learning and
living that was appropriate for both Springfield and Eugene.
County Commissioner Bozievich said one of the concerns of LTD about the EmX corridor study to
LCC was that it was only a Monday through Friday, 9-5 demand load. This plan could provide the
24/7 demand and would actually make more sense for EmX. The need for housing on campus was
great, as well as other services. Having a hotel close by could assist with the culinary arts program and
hospitality program. He, too, had once served on the LCC Board and was happy to see them moving
ahead with the vision.
Power point handouts were distributed to the elected officials.
Mayor Lundberg thanked the presenters for the information and presentation.
III. Metro Planning Update.
Lane County Planner Kent Howe, Eugene Planning Director Lisa Gardner, and Springfield Planning
Supervisor Linda Pauly were present for this item. Eugene and Springfield had been working
extensively to implement HB3337, legislation that required two separate UGBs. Both cities had
presented to their respective city councils and planning commissions on their progress, as well as to
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 7 of 8
their neighboring jurisdiction and Lane County. In addition, Lane County had been working through
regional issues that were of importance to the county. It was extremely hard to project when these
respective projects would be complete, adopted and acknowledged since the initiatives were staggered
in their timing. Consequently, it was difficult to anticipate what a revised Metro Plan or regional
planning framework would look like and when it would be developed/finalized. The jurisdictions had
purposefully refrained from addressing any inconsistencies (often called housekeeping amendments)
in the Metro Plan or refinement plans such as the Public Facilities and Services Plan until these
aforementioned projects were complete. Regional framework/revised Metro Plan and housekeeping
amendments would be completed at the same time and post-completion of Envision Eugene,
Springfield 2030 and Lane County regional issues so that they could be done once rather than a more
resource-intensive multiple times. Jurisdiction-specific information provided below:
Springfield 2030: Springfield was currently gathering more information about the UGB
expansion areas reviewed and recommended by the Springfield and Lane County planning
commissions before scheduling with the Council and Board. Springfield was also reviewing
proposed code language that would implement new policies of Springfield 2030 for compliance
with statutory requirements for clear and object standards. Springfield was preparing an
amendment to Metro Plan Chapter IV clarifying and re-describing the classification of Metro Plan
amendments; which of the governing bodies participated; and a new conflict resolution process. It
was our position that this project addressed the conflict resolution process difficulties raised by
Lane County several years ago; was responsive to the new requirements of ORS 197.304
(HB3337) regarding separate UGBs; and completed some housekeeping matters involving the
triggers or metrics of regional impact. Staff would like to get these amendments to the joint
elected officials before the Springfield UGB expansion was considered so that the purpose of ORS
197.304 was observed consistently throughout the establishment and adoption of Springfield’s
UGB.
Envision Eugene: Eugene continued to refine land need numbers for industrial, commercial, and
residential land, in preparation for a UGB proposal to be presented by the City Manager to the
City Council in March. Six community forums were in the planning stages for March and April,
and Council would hold a public hearing in April as well. In May, the Council would have the
opportunity to act on the recommended UGB, along with implementation strategies. The formal
adoption process would begin following detailed capacity analysis and potential master planning
of UGB expansion areas.
Lane County: In addition to working with the City of Springfield on the Springfield UGB
expansion areas and the Metro Plan Chapter IV amendments, Lane County was processing a
Metro Plan amendment to make the Metro Plan Boundary co-terminus with the Metro UGB. Since
Springfield had already adopted a parcel specific UGB, Lane County was approaching this work
in two phases. The first phase was on the Springfield side of I-5. Phase two would come later
when Eugene was further along in its process. Currently, a Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing
was scheduled for March 13 to address this County-initiated Metro Plan amendment that would
reduce the total land area within the Metro Plan East of I-5 and adopt a new Metro Plan Boundary
that was co-terminus with the City of Springfield's parcel specific UGB. On Oct. 25, 2011, the
Joint Eugene/Springfield/Lane County Planning Commissions deliberated and made their
respective recommendations.
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 8 of 8
County Commissioner Handy referred to Springfield 2030 as noted in the memo, and Springfield’s
plan to amend the Metro Plan Chapter 4. He asked what Springfield was looking at changing.
Springfield City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said for the past few months, Springfield had been
working with Lane County and Eugene staff. Chapter 4 of the Metro Plan was the part that talked
about plan amendments. They were looking to make Chapter 4 consistent with House Bill 3337 which
related to each city establishing their own UGB and inventories. They had suggestions about
reclassifying how a Metro Plan amendment was described, and how many governing bodies needed to
approve those amendments. The language was just being finalized. They planned to present that
language to the stakeholders and then come to the elected officials
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 12:52pm.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene City Council at 12:52pm.
Commissioner Leiken adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 12:52pm.
Minutes Recorder
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 27, 2012 at 5:48 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also
present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary
Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilors Wylie and Pishioneri were absent (excused).
1. Lane Council of Librarians – Inter-Library Reciprocal Lending Agreement.
Library Director Rob Everett distributed information about the Book Sale coming to the Springfield
Lobby on March 9 and 10, 2012. He also distributed information on downloading eBooks and a
brochure about the Big Read event.
Mr. Everett presented the staff report on this item. Seven of the eight public libraries in Lane Country
used the automated SIRSI/Dynix integrated library system (ILS). This system was hosted by
Springfield Public Library. In addition to Springfield, the other participating libraries were Fern Ridge
Library District (Veneta), Junction City Public Library, Cottage Grove Public Library, Lane Library
District (Creswell), Oakridge Public Library, and Siuslaw Library District (Florence/Mapleton).
Springfield administered the annual service contract and provided initial on-call help and trouble
shooting. This consortium was established through a series of intergovernmental agreements that had
been in place for the past 12 years with the exception of Creswell which came on board in 2002 with
the creation of the Lane Library District.
Because these libraries shared the same automated system, library staff and patrons were able to see
and request items from all 7 library collections. Currently, the item was then requested via the
interlibrary loan module. This process must be mediated by a staff member. No participating library
charges its patrons to borrow materials from one of our shared system libraries. In the interest of
improving service to all of our patrons and in eliminating unnecessary staff labor staff was proposing
to move from requesting materials via interlibrary loan; a practice more appropriate when requesting
materials outside of our system, to establishing a reciprocal lending agreement that would allow any
patron from any participating library to borrow materials directly from any library. The libraries would
develop procedures and protocols to administer this agreement prior to implementation. The result
should be a more customer friendly and cost-effective library service.
The Library was seeking Council direction to proceed with testing and implementation of reciprocal
lending among participating Lane Council of Librarians (LCOL) libraries. This service enhancement
would increase access to library materials for the patrons of all participating libraries while reducing
the labor costs currently incurred providing inter-library loan among the same group of libraries. Staff
believed this proposal was revenue neutral.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 27, 2012
Page 2
Mr. Everett explained the proposal. They wanted to develop procedures and protocols to make sure the
owning Library had protection. The first phase would require patrons to go to the other libraries to
check out books and would not impact staffing. The second phase would require more thought and
would need to be mindful of the affect on the libraries’ inventory. All directors had worked together
for a number of years and were all looking to make a better system without hurting the other libraries.
This agreement would also benefit the Springfield Library. They would need to make sure to prioritize
by library members (Springfield for Springfield, etc.)
Mr. Everett said they would not do a courier system, but would piggyback on the Educational Services
District (ESD) courier service which was already done. During the summer break, librarians could
take care of transferring books personally. One consideration was in regards to those patrons that were
not in good standing. Through the Syris system, all libraries could see the status of each member so
could deny interlibrary lending until that patron had their account in order. Other libraries had been
doing this for years very successfully and patrons loved it.
Mr. Everett said the libraries already had the agreement with Syris and could incorporate this as an
amendment to that agreement, or draft up separate agreements. He would like Council direction on
whether or not they wanted them to move forward.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the other libraries from the Lane Council of Libraries were on board with
this proposal.
Mr. Everett said they were ready and waiting.
Councilor Woodrow asked about books that libraries didn’t have. She asked if this new agreement
would change out the prioritizing if a book was not available at the local library.
Mr. Everett said if patrons of the library with the book were on a waiting list for that particular book,
they would have priority over a patron from another library.
Councilor Woodrow asked if a patron could call ahead once they found a book at another location to
make sure it was held for them. This would be in Phase 1.
Mr. Everett said they currently did place holds on books for a set amount of time and would include
something like that in this agreement.
Councilor Woodrow said she saw this as a way to take advantage of current technology and make use
of it. Going from the first phase to the second would use this technology even more.
Councilor Moore asked if we had a similar agreement with the City of Eugene Library.
Mr. Everett they were part of the LCOL and had been asked to participate in this agreement, but had
chosen not to join at this time. They were concerned that their books would be over used by nearby
smaller libraries. They were also in a separate system.
Councilor Moore asked about the University of Oregon Library.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 27, 2012
Page 3
Mr. Everett said the University of Oregon Library was open to all citizens of Oregon. Patrons just
needed to present identification showing they were an Oregon residence. There was no reciprocal
lending between the cities and the University of Oregon. They had different missions.
Councilor Moore asked about Marcola residents.
Mr. Everett said library services were for people paying taxes to support a library.
Councilor Moore asked if there was a way to reach people outside city limits. She asked if people
willing to pay a fee could access the other libraries.
Mr. Everett said that would be a choice of the Council to extend services.
Councilor Ralston said it was a good idea. He asked who would pay for shipping for books to people
from other areas.
Mr. Everett said the LCOL already paid ESD as part of current services.
Councilor Ralston asked about the cost to mail.
Mr. Everett said Springfield Library paid the postage, which was a small amount of money.
Councilor Ralston said at some point we may need to charge for postage. He noted Eugene’s concern
that smaller libraries would overload their system. He had the same concern for Springfield. He
wanted to make sure records were kept to protect Springfield’s inventory.
Mr. Everett said Springfield had the largest library collection, but not the largest budget. Springfield
didn’t often get new books or CDs. It was a comparable group of libraries in the LCOL. In other areas
that were using this type of reciprocal lending agreement, it seemed to even out. He would not put the
Springfield Library at risk.
Councilor VanGordon asked if there was an opportunity for a more strategic use of the book budget.
Mr. Everett said it could if the LCOL members were strategic in regards to their inventories and how
they spent their book budget. They could coordinate the number of copies of books and some libraries
could specialize in specific areas.
Councilor VanGordon asked if this was worth getting access to more material. Yes. He asked if this
was revenue neutral or if it could be a bigger cost in the future if the service grew.
Mr. Everett said all the libraries were limited by resources, so it couldn’t grow in that regard. It made
sense to cooperate in this way to get the most out of the resources they had. There would be no
requirement to put more resources into the program, but there was potential to make this more robust.
Councilor VanGordon said this was a way to expand services without increasing resources. He would
like to see a check-in point to make sure it was cost neutral. He would still be comfortable with this
program as long as we protected access for our citizens. He suggested looking at the option of sending
books directly to the patron’s house rather than to the library. That could save some time for staff. He
felt this was a great opportunity and he hoped Eugene could find an advantage and join at some point.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 27, 2012
Page 4
Mr. Everett said there was anticipation, but other groups of libraries that had this type of agreement
didn’t seem to have a problem.
Councilor VanGordon said once Eugene saw it working, they might be less anxious.
Mr. Everett said all of the libraries in Colorado had been doing this for many years. They had no
problems of one library being adversely affected.
Councilor Woodrow said an added benefit was that it would bring people into those cities who would
likely stay long enough to buy something to eat or visit another establishment.
Mayor Lundberg asked whose rules the borrower would need to abide by regarding the number of
books to check out and length of time they could be kept.
Mr. Everett said they would be bound by the library that lent out the book.
Councilor Woodrow asked about the maximum number of books per library and if someone could
take advantage of that and accumulate a large number of books.
Mr. Everett said although that was allowed in other lending agreements, it had not been an issue.
Councilor Moore said she would be more than happy to pay postage if she found a book in Florence
that she wanted. She asked Mr. Everett to look into charging postage to help with those costs. She also
agreed that mailing the books to the patron’s home was a great idea.
Mayor Lundberg said it would be good to try this out for a specific amount of time such as one year.
Mr. Everett said he could report back in six months.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 5, 2012 at 6:02 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. 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.
Councilors Wylie and Pishioneri were absent (excused).
1. Police Planning Task Force Application Review.
Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. The Police Planning Task Force had
one At-Large position available from the resignation of Stacey Doll. One other At-Large position was
open with an eligible reappointment candidate, and the School District was naming a new
representative.
Pat Mahoney had applied for re-appointment to the Task Force and was eligible for a second term.
James Crist had resigned from his position as the School District representative and would be replaced
by Chris Reiersgaard.
The Task Force received two applications for the remaining At-Large position. One of the applicants
did not live within the City Limits and was therefore not eligible. The remaining applicant was Fred
Simmons, who had served on the Task Force previously as the Council Liaison and as an At-Large
member. A subcommittee consisting of Councilor Marilee Woodrow, Dave Jacobson, Wendy Polen
and Jack Martin recommended the appointments of Pat Mahoney (for a second term) and Fred
Simmons to At-Large positions, and Chris Reiersgaard as the School District Representative.
Chief Smith said this was an important committee for the Police Department.
2. 2013-2017 Capital Improvement Program, A Community Reinvestment Plan.
Civil Engineer Jeff Paschall and City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item.
The City of Springfield’s 2013-2017 CIP – A Community Reinvestment Plan had been drafted by
staff, reviewed by the Planning Commission (February 7 and February 22, 2012), and was now being
forwarded to the City Council for review and comment prior to a Public Hearing at the March 19,
2012 regular session.
The draft City of Springfield 2013-2017 CIP, A Community Reinvestment Plan, was reviewed at the
Planning Commission’s February 7, 2011 work session meeting. The Commission voted to
recommend Council approval of the plan at their February 22, 2012 meeting.
The CIP attempted to balance the use of scarce capital construction funds with the long list of
infrastructure needs for our community. It was not a document with budget authority, but served as a
guide for programming funds and planning the annual workload of capital projects staff.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 5, 2012
Page 2
There were a few new projects proposed in the next five years of programmed funding. Staff
continued to make significant headway on several projects from previous year’s capital plans and had
also completed several projects in the past cycle. These items were detailed in the Council Briefing
Memorandum included in the agenda packet.
Staff presented a power point presentation.
Mr. Vogeney discussed the four criteria for considering projects to include in the CIP: 1) project
addresses State or Federal laws or regulations; 2) project maintains existing assets, extends useful life
of assets, or improves or expands infrastructure; 3) projects respond to requests from citizens,
neighborhood groups, advisory committees, or government bodies; and 4) project is included in local
and/or regional infrastructure plans. The majority of projects come from the City’s infrastructure plan.
Requests from citizens are rarely included in the CIP, but were handled as citizen service requests
handled by current ongoing programs.
Mr. Vogeney listed the tools used to identify capital needs; 1) Hansen Asset Management System; 2)
Facilities Plans; 3) Urban Renewal Plans; 4) Land Use Plans; 5) Refinement Plans; 6) Citizen/Public
Request; and 7) Council Goals and Priorities. The CIP was updated annually, but was a five-year
forecast tool for capital funding. The budget was one year and the CIP was five years. He reviewed the
timeline for the CIP process. The CIP was scheduled for a public hearing before the Council on March
19, 2012. He noted that the Planning Commission had asked for more discussion regarding
prioritizing.
Mr. Paschall said the CIP had grown over the last few years, much of it because of the Wastewater and
Stormwater Master Plans and the update of the TransPlan. Internally, staff developed a matrix which
was used to rate projects. Projects were then prioritized using the matrix to help identify which
funding could be used for which projects. There were similar matrixes for transportation, wastewater,
and buildings and properties. All four matrixes were included in the draft CIP.
Mr. Paschall identified some of the recently completed projects from previous CIPs. Those included
Gateway/Beltline Phase 1 Construction ($10M), several EECBG projects, ($500,000), the
Thurston/Lively Park pedestrian crossing ($35,000), City Hall and Depot painting ($164,000), City
Hall fascia ($130,000), completed pedestrian enhancements at the MLK roundabout ($200,000),
17,700 of 30,500 feet of sanitary sewer pipe rehabilitation in Basin 22 ($1.76M), and slurry seal of
local streets ($60,000). He noted that the City had completed a large amount of the sewer
rehabilitation project. The rest would be completed by the end of this next construction season.
Mr. Paschall also identified construction projects schedule for 2012/2013. Those included Jasper trunk
sewer, 10th and N Street Sewer/Basin 22, 58th Street Sewer, Mill Race, A Street/Thurston Road, 59th
and Aster, and Island Park. He noted some of the funding sources for these projects. There were also a
number of projects scheduled for design in 2012. Those included Franklin sewer expansion, Jasper
trunk sewer, pump stations, Mill Race, 10th & N Phase 2, Island Park, and the over/under channel.
These projects were in the current CIP budget. He referred to a slide showing the over/under channel
working properly when there was an overflow.
There were also several planning projects for 2012 including Franklin Boulevard NEPA, downtown
access/circulation, 2030 urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion, and the Transportation System
Plan (TSP).
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 5, 2012
Page 3
Mr. Paschall noted that as part of the CIP, there were some new high-priority, unfunded projects.
Those included S and T Streets drainage, Irving slough, downtown lighting, ADA transition project,
street preservation and reconstruction, wire theft remediation, and light pole testing.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the S and T Street project was part of Channel 6.
Mr. Vogeney said Channel 6 was a separate project. This piece was upstream from Channel 6. S Street
currently didn’t have a drainage system between 10th and 15th. That piece would connect into Channel
6 at 10th Street. Staff was evaluating whether or not to move the S and T Street work to Channel 6.
Mr. Paschall noted several new projects identified in the 2013-2017 CIP. Those included Glenwood
Boulevard bridge improvements, ADA transition projects, signal modernization, East 17th Avenue
pavement preservation, 19th Street sewer upgrade, and sewer extension in East 17th Avenue and
Marcola Road. All but the sewer projects had some funding. For the Glenwood Boulevard bridge and
East 17th Avenue pavement preservation projects, the City had an intergovernmental agreement (IGA)
with Lane County to have those projects done as part of allowing the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) to use Glenwood Boulevard for the bridge project. East 17th Avenue had been
one of the highest priorities for overlay for a long time.
Councilor Moore asked where the preservation would be done on East 17th Avenue.
Mr. Vogeney explained.
Mr. Paschall spoke regarding the sewer projects and explained each. He referred to a chart showing
overall need for projects by category and which were funded. Many of the stormwater and wastewater
projects that were unfunded were expansion projects and could be paid for by development. The
Franklin Boulevard construction was still in the CIP and accounted for much of the funding need in
the Transportation category. The Buildings and Property category included future projects such as a
new Library and new Fire Station.
Mr. Paschall said in looking forward, sewer rate payer revenues were stable. Through the CIP, the City
had identified funding to accomplish all of the preservation and rehabilitation projects for sewer
projects, reducing the number of sewer projects in the current CIP. Any sewer projects left on the CIP
were for future development. The need for future bond issuance had been extended an additional one
to two years. SDC revenues continued to decline and missed projections and the City needed to
identify stable funding source for street projects.
Councilor Moore asked about recent SDC suspension and if that would have a long-term affect.
Mr. Paschall said the revenues had been down prior to action taken by Council. It could have a long-
term affect, but was not immediate.
Mr. Vogeney noted that on the stormwater matrix, they rated each project on each of the five drivers,
assigned it a priority of one, two or three, and then took an average. They then applied the available
funding to the highest average score projects first to see how they could get to meet some of the
ongoing projects. There were a few that were difficult to prioritize. Some set aside funds were
available for some of the sewer projects.
Councilor Woodrow asked how long they had used the matrix and if it was working.
Mr. Vogeney said this was the second year.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 5, 2012
Page 4
Mr. Paschall said they found that projects came out in about the same order using the matrix as they
had before. This was, however, a way to document better. Some projects didn’t meet the criteria.
Mr. Grimaldi referred to the unfunded projects. These were examples or projects unfunded through the
priority process. Citizens or businesses may put some projects as a higher priority than shown on the
chart. Council had the option to add new projects and remove other projects.
Councilor Moore asked if there was a way to make changes once the CIP was approved.
Mr. Paschall said the CIP was a guide for staff to prepare the capital budget. It was a tool to prioritize
funding, but was very fluid. Some projects had been advanced in the past that were not originally in
the CIP because their priority had changed. Some of the street projects had federal funding for part of
the project, but not full funding. Staff was trying to look at revenue sources for the projects.
Mayor Lundberg said the graph showing funded and unfunded amounts was pretty dismal. She
understood that some of those projects were new projects and some were current. She asked if before
they got to the budget discussion they could have the projects broken down in a way to identify which
were current projects and which were new. She asked if it would help if Council prioritized from that
list.
Mr. Paschall said every project in the CIP had been prioritized, but staff could come back with specific
projects for further discussion. He could break down the chart to show which unfunded projects were
new or future projects versus preservation or rehabilitation projects.
Councilor Woodrow said it would also help to indicate what projects were almost completed or out
five years.
Mr. Paschall said he could break it out by year.
Councilor Woodrow said that would make it more visual.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said when looking at unfunded projects, it made sense to look at
them in the context of what was funded, what was partially funded, and what was not funded.
Councilor VanGordon asked if the matrix scores were in the report.
Mr. Paschall said they were not in the report, but were used internally. Because of the size of the
spreadsheet, he hadn’t found a way to incorporate the data into the CIP document.
Councilor VanGordon said it would be helpful to have the information on how each item was
prioritized when reading the report. It could be in the format of a one-page document explaining how
to decode the criteria. He was most interested in the projects that were in design or ready to start
design as those would be at the decision point.
Mayor Lundberg said it would be helpful to have a map or description to help further identify each
project by location.
Mr. Vogeney said they used to include a vicinity map for each project, but had not been able to do that
as the list expanded.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 5, 2012
Page 5
Mayor Lundberg said even a written description to help identify the location would be helpful.
Management Analyst Rhonda Rice explained how each project was bookmarked in the CIP, with the
maps following. Each overview sheet had the code and the project.
Mayor Lundberg said it would still be helpful to have printed maps to refer to from the overview page.
She commended staff for a good job on this project. It was a lot of work.
Mr. Vogeney said this was scheduled for a public hearing on March 19. For that public hearing, staff
could provide charts showing the breakdown between expansion projects and other projects. They may
not be able to provide additional maps, but could make note to include those next year. He asked if
there was anything else Council wanted for the public hearing.
Councilor Moore asked about stabilizing funding and when they would have that discussion.
Mr. Grimaldi said Council recently discussed road funding and the communication plan to the public.
Staff would bring back feedback from that plan in early September.
Councilor Moore asked if they would then discuss what was possible.
Mr. Grimaldi said there were some options that appeared to need more public input which would take
some time. The public needed to be engaged on the street fund topic as well as the police levy. Mr.
Grimaldi said the CIP was an excellent opportunity to inform the public of the needs, what was funded
and what was not.
Councilor Ralston said the reality was we didn’t have funding.
Councilor Moore said it could be a point of discussion to look at bond measures or other options for
the future. She felt something could be added to the public hearing to explain stabilizing funding
during the public hearing.
Mayor Lundberg said it was legitimate to identify that we needed to do the projects in the CIP, but it
was not the document for an action plan. The City first needed to talk to the public. The action plan
would be a way to stabilize funding, much of which would involve voter approval. She felt that
discussion needed to wait.
Councilor VanGordon referred to the matrix. He asked if there was more information on SW5 projects
in the 2 and 3 categories. He asked what kind of payback would be on those types of projects.
Mr. Paschall said as this had developed they had used more of a rule of thumb rather than a criteria
that was specific to cost. Some of the other efficiencies were not on paper.
Mr. Vogeney said that was correct. Part of this plan included projects in areas that currently needed
ongoing maintenance that would no longer need that additional maintenance once the project was
completed. They hadn’t yet developed rules to measure a payback or savings.
Mr. Paschall said some of it was based on maintenance costs, but there was no solid data on the cost
savings.
Councilor VanGordon said that might be something to look at long-term. When looking at projects
that had a return or cost benefit, they could move them up on the matrix.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 5, 2012
Page 6
Mr. Paschall said they could work on that as they moved forward. It was more difficult to find solid
data on projects such as sewer systems, but transportation projects were more specific.
Mr. VanGordon said perhaps staff could start with transportation since there was better data, and then
move into other areas.
Mr. Grimaldi said it could help more in terms of holding down operating costs. The dollars wouldn’t
be significant enough to affect capital improvements, although they were important savings.
Mr. Paschall said the majority of sewer projects didn’t fit the driver. He explained how he had applied
those projects to the matrix. Staff could certainly look at doing something.
Mr. VanGordon said he realized there would be a number of projects that wouldn’t fit that category.
Mr. Boyatt said that was a discussion that could also be applied to other lines, such as preservation.
The Environmental Services Department (ESD) had gone through lawsuits regarding water quality to
those costs were responsive to the regulations. There were many factors that affected costs and
knowing that may not differentiate much in how they get prioritized.
Councilor VanGordon said this could provide better standard for the criteria.
Councilor Woodrow said maybe at the five year mark staff could have more detail of what Councilor
VanGordon was looking for since this was a five year plan.
Councilor Ralston said it might help to color code the matrix over time and plot where projects fit on
the matrix. It would help to identify where things didn’t fit and could be a visual way to prioritize. He
wanted to minimize their work.
Mayor Lundberg thanked staff for their work and the presentation.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 5, 2012 at 7:02 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. 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.
Councilors Wylie and Pishioneri were absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. February 13, 2012 – Work Session
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Authorize City Manager to Renew a Three-year Contract with Beecher Carlson Insurance
Brokerage for Risk Management Brokerage Services.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – WYLIE AND PISHIONERI).
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.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 5, 2012
Page 2
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Mary Klages, Turner, Oregon Regarding a Speaker, Gabrielle Ford, Coming
to the Eugene Area to Speak on Bullying.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – WYLIE AND
PISHIONERI).
BIDS
ORDINANCES
1. Designation of Precincts in City Wards.
ORDINANCE NO. 6275 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING WARDS WITHIN THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD, DESIGNATING THE PRECINCTS THEREIN, AMENDING SECTION 2.005,
TERRITORY-WARDS, OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
City Attorney Joe Leahy presented the staff report on this item. On January 9, 2012 Council
established adjustments to the ward boundaries. Tonight’s action was a follow-up by assigning and
recognizing the State precincts that were selected by Lane County Elections to the wards established
by Council.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6275. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – WYLIE AND PISHIONERI).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Police Planning Task Force Appointment.
Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. A subcommittee of the Police
Planning Task Force (PPTF) recommended the reappointment of Pat Mahoney and the
appointment of Fred Simmons for the At-Large position and Chris Reiersgaard as the School
District representative for the other At-Large position to the PPTF.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO RE-APPOINT PAT MAHONEY TO THE POLICE PLANNING TASK
FORCE FOR A TERM EXPIRING MARCH 31, 2016. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – WYLIE AND PISHIONERI).
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPOINT FRED SIMMONS AND CHRIS REIERSGAARD TO THE
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 5, 2012
Page 3
POLICE PLANNING TASK FORCE FOR A TERM EXPIRING MARCH 31, 2016. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – RALSTON
AND PISHIONERI).
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor VanGordon reported on the recent Lane Council of Governments (LCOG)
Economic Development meeting. Glenda Poling, the Economic Development Director
from Lane County spoke regarding Goshen redevelopment. Evidently, Goshen was
working to get redevelopment going by 2017, which could mean more jobs for Lane
County.
b. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Critical Care Ambulance Transports.
Deputy Chief Mark Walker presented the staff report on this item. An RFP to subcontract critical care
ground ambulance transport (CCT) services was published in January 2012; Life Flight Network, LLC
was the sole responder to the RFP. The RFP was evaluated by staff and determined to meet all the
criteria specified. This contract would allow SFLS to subcontract critical care ground ambulance calls
originating at the hospitals in ASA#5 to Life Flight Network. This would preserve the availability of
SFLS ambulances for emergency scene calls as well as provide the best quality patient care available.
Quality patient care was Fire and Life Safety’s highest priority. Air medical was the preferred method
to transport critical care patients whose conditions required specialized treatment and were time
sensitive. Occasionally, due to weather, mechanical breakdowns, or other unforeseen circumstances,
the air medical resources in our area may be unavailable. In that case, due to the timely nature of the
transport, the option was to send these patients by ground ambulance. This contract sought to address
those few occasions each year when this situation occurred. The projected number of critical care
ground ambulance inter-facility transports was approximately 15-20 per year.
Critical care patients required specialized medical care beyond the scope of SFLS Paramedics.
Therefore, to complete a critical care, ground transport, specially trained nurses were required to
accompany the medic unit crew and provide care to the patient during transfer. This put a burden on
the hospital staff, as well as taking one SFLS medic unit out-of-service for ASA#5 calls. Inter-facility
transports were generally to the Portland metro area, requiring approximately 5-6 hours round trip.
Life Flight Network had a critical care team assigned to the Eugene area, and provided 23/7/365
coverage out of their base at 2nd and Chambers. These highly trained people were skilled in delivery of
critical care, and ideally suited to the transport of such patients. Life Flight would subcontract the
actual ambulance and qualified driver from a local resource, and ensure quality care was provided.
SFLS Transport volumes continued to hold steady for FY12, and contracting these critical care
transports would help ensure SFLS was available for emergency calls as call volume increases. There
was no cost to the City as the patient would be billed.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 5, 2012
Page 4
Councilor VanGordon asked who Life Flight subcontracted with. It was Rural Metro Ambulance.
Councilor VanGordon asked if under the contract, the City could validate that agreement.
Mr. Walker said the City could validate that and if they changed it, the City would validate that as
well. The contract and the proposal had specific requirements regarding the quality of vehicle,
equipment on the vehicle, mileage and maintenance records, etc. They could bring in their own
ambulance if they chose. Also, if the City and Rural Metro no longer had an agreement, Life Flight
could subcontract with someone else, but the requirements for quality would remain as part of the
contract.
Councilor VanGordon confirmed that the City controlled and validated the quality control.
Mr. Walker said that was correct. The City also had the ability to pull the contract.
Councilor Woodrow said she understood this would avoid the six hour trips the ambulances would
have to make to and from Portland. She asked about the decision making process.
Mr. Walker said under the current system the hospital called dispatch and dispatch relayed the
information to the battalion chief who did the initial screening to determine the level of care required.
If it became a critical care transport, Life Flight would be contacted and they would contact the
hospital to make detailed arrangements. Springfield determined which cases were critical care.
Eventually, they would like to get to the point where the battalion chief was not the one making that
decision as there were times when the battalion chief was on a fire call or unavailable for other reasons
which caused delays.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH LIFE
FLIGHT NETWORK, LLC TO PROVIDE INTER-FACILITY CRITICAL CARE
AMBULANCE TRANSPORT SERVICES FROM THE SPRINGFIELD AMBULANCE
SERVICE AREA (ASA#5) TO OTHER LOCATIONS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (2 ABSENT – WYLIE AND PISHIONERI).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:13 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
City Recorder