HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 09 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/7/2012
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) April 9, 2012 – Council Annual Planning Meeting
b) April 16, 2012 – Work Session
c) April 16, 2012 – Regular Meeting
d) April 23, 2012 – Work Session
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL PLANNING MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in an Annual Planning Meeting at Hole in the Wall Barbeque,
1807 Olympic Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 9, 2012 at 6:37 p.m., with Mayor
Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and
Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery,
Communications Manager Niel Laudati, City Recorder Amy Sowa and Stan Biles, the facilitator for
the meeting.
1. Council Annual Planning Meeting.
Mayor Lundberg said tonight was the Council’s annual meeting to look ahead to the coming year.
Facilitator Stan Biles said Council had traditionally held a Council Goal Setting Session. Perhaps a
more appropriate title for tonight’s meeting would be an Annual Planning Meeting. The three things
he would be asking the Council to discuss would be: 1) 2012 in Review; 2) Process Discussions; and
3) Issue Discussions.
Mr. Biles distributed 3 x 5 cards to the Mayor and Council. He asked them to write down something
on the cards about themselves that others didn’t know, but that they wanted them to know. The cards
were returned to Mr. Biles who then read from them while the others guessed who they were about.
Following the exercise, Mr. Biles noted how quickly the members had gotten to know each other over
the last year. Last year, they had indicated that they wanted to get to know each other on a personal
level. He pointed out that leadership was based on human interaction and relationships, and the
Council had formed those relationships.
Mr. Biles reminded the Council that when interviewed in 2011 for last year’s meeting, there was a lot
of tension among members with new people, veteran councilors, questions about protocol and other
issues. He asked the councilors to share their thoughts of the Council over the last year.
Some of the things the councilors mentioned that had occurred over the last year included:
• Maturing
• Settled into a groove
• Trust had grown
• Good Leadership (One Councilor noted that there had been a very difficult issue that had
come before Council and she had grown to respect Mayor Lundberg’s leadership on how she
dealt with the issue both among councilors and the community. )
• Focus on issue not personalities
• Everything goes forward
• Public well represented in council deliberations
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 9, 2012
Page 2
• “The Springfield Way” continues
• Stay positive instead of negative
• Focus on ‘how’ to make it work
• Respect staff – help councilors to be prepared for meetings
• Council trusts staff
• Council believes staff has well considered the issues
• Shared experiences lead to good relationships
• Community trusts the Council
• Treat each other with respect
• Some decisions may be moving Springfield away from traditional approaches/policies/etc
• Community hearing things different from perspective of staff
• Need staff attitudes to help citizens through the rules
Discussion was held regarding public perception when not allowed to do something or required to do
something. There were Federal and State laws that the City needed to follow and it was up to the staff
to interpret those to the citizens. How that was communicated to the public was important.
It was noted that during this recession and the down economy, the City was making changes to be
more efficient and do things differently to save resources. The rules from the Federal and State
governments impacted the decisions made.
Mr. Grimaldi said the discussion was looking at two different issues. The first was the relationship
with the community, especially the development community. That was fairly easy to measure and look
at ways to address. He reminded Council that staff would be bringing back the Developer Input
Process for discussion with Council during an upcoming work session. The second issue was related
to policy direction and that was more difficult to identify and change.
It was mentioned by a councilor that there needed to be better communication by staff. Some staff may
take ownership of an issue and that could cause problems. Another councilor cited the example of the
44th and Main Street pedestrian crossing as a good example of a positive process between staff and the
community that brought about a positive result.
The business community wanted jobs and wanted the City to support business. The City needed to be
welcoming, but councilors sometimes heard that Springfield’s fees were higher than other cities or that
the attitude of staff had been arrogant. It would behoove the Council to set policy direction saying we
wanted to be the community that welcomed business. Springfield needed to be competitive.
Discussion was held regarding the proposal to have business licenses or registers so that new
businesses could be provided with information on what they could or could not do in the City.
It was noted that many in the business community saw licensing as a negative, so that was one
example of things that could have the opposite effect as the original goal or intent.
The recent sign code exemption was a test and possible segway to look at whether or not a business
license or register could move forward.
Mr. Biles said there was an economic development discussion coming to Council in the near future
where this issue could be discussed further.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 9, 2012
Page 3
Mr. Biles said there was a different dynamic among the councilors than there was one year ago. The
newcomers were now part of the ‘family’. These were positive improvements and it brought the
internal function back to the place they wanted. That was rare and he commended them. The
Springfield Way was still alive and proud. He acknowledged that listening to the last few comments
there were still some issues that needed work. This was an opportunity for additional work or
discussion. Overall, the Council had built the foundation from where they were a year ago. The next
step was to decide what they were going to do from this point forward.
Mr. Grimaldi said a new department was being brought together from two departments and some of
the issues raised could be a result of the two departments not being in sync. He was not in denial about
the things Council brought up, but wanted to build on the good things. Roger White, a developer from
California, had testified during the April 2 public hearing and said that although the Glenwood
Refinement Plan was not perfect, he had grown to trust staff. We needed to build on that in the
community. He noted another example of an SDC issue that was recently resolved by staff.
Mayor Lundberg said how things got fixed was important. When they stopped singling out “The
Springfield Way”, it became the norm. They needed to make things right and turn over every rock to
look at ways to make things work. It was important to have an open door. There were good things
happening. For things that were negative, the source needed to be found.
Mr. Grimaldi said some of the issues were real, and some were spread by one person and became real
even when people hadn’t experienced them.
It was noted that staff needed to be recognized for their efforts so they were energized to do it again.
There currently wasn’t much happening in regards to development, but staff needed to be ready when
things started to move forward.
One councilor felt that Council was asking and getting appropriate response from staff when they were
presented with information.
Another councilor said there were some issues and felt it was a good time to check attitudes and make
sure people were on track. There was an opportunity to make positive changes.
Mr. Towery noted that some of the issues councilors had heard from citizens was indicative of tough
economic times. The City was in difficult budget times and we were a smaller organization than a year
or two ago. People with lots of experience and skills had left the City, many through retirement. Some
of the rules had not changed, but in stressful times became more prominent.
Mr. Biles reviewed some ideas offered by councilors during their one-on-one interviews with him.
These ideas were regarding process.
The first process discussion was “Raising Issues to the Council”.
It was noted that to bring an item forward to a Council meeting, there was a process that was outlined
in the Council Operating Policies and Procedures. That process could be changed if it was Council’s
desire.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 9, 2012
Page 4
A councilor asked about the best way to bring up new ideas. It was noted that the councilor could
discuss it with the City Manager or the Mayor or Council President. Councilors could also talk one-
on-one with each of the other councilors as long as they were not tracking votes or deliberating
towards a decision. Another avenue was to bring up an idea during Business from the Council during
the regular meeting. That provided the other councilors with the opportunity to offer support or
express concerns. Sometimes ideas may not receive support the first time presented, but could be
supported later when the timing was better. It was important not to take ownership of those ideas, but
to allow the process to work. If something was a good idea, it would resurface when the time was
right.
A councilor noted that they often sought out information before bringing something to the Council so
they had a good background in what they presented. It was suggested that they speak to Council
leadership before gathering too much information and spending too much time on researching a topic.
One of the main objectives was to avoid surprises.
The second process discussion was “Intergovernmental Assignments – Reports/Discussions”.
During the one-on-one interviews, one of the councilors had mentioned that they often felt rushed
when reporting on the committees they served on as Council liaison, and that they might like to have
more time. Part of the reason it felt rushed was because Business from the Council was near the end of
the meeting. The councilor wasn’t sure how much information should be shared and if a written report
would be beneficial.
Discussion was held regarding the amount of information to be shared and when to share. Experience
helped to distinguish information about the day-to-day meetings and issues that had a potential impact
on Springfield citizens. Information on something that could potentially have an impact on Springfield
citizens should be shared during that time on the agenda. Each councilor was selected to serve as
liaison to the boards, committees and commissions based on their skills so there was a lot of trust that
the councilor would report when something was significant. Not everything needed to be shared.
It was suggested that if a councilor was going to present something that was fairly substantative, it
might be helpful to let council leadership and staff know ahead of time. Also, if a councilor had an
interest in a board they did not serve on, they could ask the Council liaison to keep them informed of
activities of that board. Also if there was an issue on one of the boards that would affect the City or
councilors, that should be shared.
The third process discussion was “More Informal/Discussion Time”.
A councilor had noted that it would be nice to have more time to brainstorm and discuss items in an
informal way with the full Council.
It was noted that if the Council were to meet to discuss topics of interest, it would be a public meeting
which would need to be noticed. Having shorter staff presentations and more time for Council to
discuss those items could help provide the time requested. Council was good about reading their
packets prior to the meetings, so staff didn’t need to provide a lengthy report. This Council did like to
have good lively discussions.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 9, 2012
Page 5
A councilor asked about discussing an issue not on the agenda with councilors individually. That
could be done, but they needed to be cautious and not share others opinions or votes with the
councilors.
If a councilor had an item they wanted to discuss during a work session, they needed to go through the
process as noted earlier in the evening.
Discussion was held about holding meetings like the annual planning session more than once a year,
but it was noted that meeting offsite could give a perception of doing things behind closed doors.
Meeting regularly at City Hall showed they were being held accountable.
The following was determined regarding this process discussion: staff would shorten their
presentations in order to allow more time for deliberations; there was a mechanism for councilors to
bring an item to a work session; and one-on-one conversations were fine between councilors, but they
needed to comply with public meetings law and remain cautious of what was said, how, and that no
votes were being counted.
The final process discussion was regarding “More Council Legislative Involvement”.
It was mentioned that there were a lot of talented people on the Council with many resources. If there
were issues that were important to our City, we needed to have more legislative involvement including
contacting our representatives and testifying in Salem. Staff could not lobby, but the Council could
lobby and put forth ideas.
It was noted that the Council did have influence. It would be nice to have someone on the payroll that
could be in Salem, but the City couldn’t afford to pay anyone. They did need to make sure they only
testified or lobbied for City issues that the full Council agreed upon.
Discussion was held regarding the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) Legislative Committee and the
ability of the Council to use them, as well as staff such as Len Goodwin and Niel Laudati, as
resources. Although many of our local legislators lived in town and were aware of Springfield’s
issues, it was important for Council to support the legislators by going to Salem and testifying. All
agreed that Council should limit their support and/or testimony for issues that were of high importance
to the City. This provided a great opportunity.
Councilors Moore, Ralston and Wylie were interested in participating.
Mr. Biles spoke regarding the conditions for Council to participate. An issue needed the full Council
support; Council would establish highest priorities and go for those only; and there would be no
surprises. Any councilors planning to testify on a topic needed to let the other councilors know, such
as during a Council meeting.
Mr. Biles said the final agenda items were regarding issue discussions.
The first issue discussion was “Economic Development”
There was a need to stimulate the economy, but there was frustration because of limited resources.
They discussed the niche and role of the City Council in economic development.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 9, 2012
Page 6
Discussion was held regarding what the City could and could not do in terms of economic
development. The City could help promote business and provide some stimulus, but the City couldn’t
create jobs. The City needed to take care of City business.
Coordination with TEAM Springfield was important for economic development. The recent reduction
in SDC’s was an example. Working with all of the TEAM Springfield partners would make
Springfield as attractive as possible. Creating jobs was about creating community.
Councilor Woodrow said she wanted some way to ‘brand’ Springfield. She provided an example of
her hometown which revitalized its downtown by using a brand, or image of their city. Once that city
determined their image, they found businesses that wanted to invest in that downtown. Springfield had
a wonderful history, but needed to move forward. This concept may have been tried in the past, but
perhaps now was the right time.
Mr. Biles asked if Council wanted to discuss branding further in a work session. Some of this had
already been discussed.
Council continued their discussion on economic development and the staff’s role. Mr. Grimaldi and
Mr. Towery were commended, and were asked to challenge staff to ask how they might be able to help
the economy through their job. If there was latitude, they could look at where things could be changed.
There had been cases where staff had initiated improvements. There was a lot of talent among staff
members and if challenged, they could make some effective changes.
Mr. Grimaldi said Council was scheduled to have a work session to discuss economic development on
May 7. He appreciated the ideas discussed tonight.
Discussion was held regarding the annual meetings with TEAM Springfield. The City should come
with more of an agenda of what the City would like to see instead of something presented to them.
Councilor Moore agreed with the branding issue. The City was getting good press and we should
continue to raise the bar and tell people Springfield was a great place.
Mr. Laudati said they had found that branding was coming from the people that worked and lived in
Springfield on the downtown committees. They would start to see more of that coming out of those
committees. It needed to be real and coming from residents.
Councilor Woodrow agreed that would come out of those committees.
Mr. Biles reviewed the next steps: 1) Look at what staff could do, and what the City could do as the
leader for TEAM Springfield; and 2) Conduct a work session on May 7 to discuss economic
development further.
The second issue discussion was “City Finances”.
Discussion was held regarding ways the City could reduce costs. Staff had done a good job at looking
at ways to reduce costs in areas such as processes and health insurance. The City needed to continue to
reach out to staff for innovative ideas.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 9, 2012
Page 7
Councilor VanGordon asked if the City could look to see if there was an investment that could provide
a return that would help the City in the long-term.
Mr. Biles said there was potential for serious discussions about this issue as well as the next two,
“Innovations in City Operations” and “Setting a Few Top City Priorities for the Next 1-3 Years”,
which deserved more Council time.
Everyone agreed.
Mr. Biles said the City and Council had done some positive things in the last year. He encouraged the
Council to think about the lessons learned for the future. Tonight they had held good discussions and
provided clarification on how to raise issues to Council; when to report on their intergovernmental
assignments (when important to the City); their desire to see staff reports shortened to allow time for
more discussion by the Council; and when to go to Salem to testify on legislative issues (with support
from the full Council). They would discuss economic development further during their upcoming
work session. The other three items (City Finances, Innovations in City Operations, and Setting a Few
Topy City Priorities for the Next 1-3 Years) would be discussed at a later time.
Mayor Lundberg said they had come a long way and done a good job. She thanked Mr. Biles for
facilitating their discussion.
Councilor Pishioneri said it was nice to see people fitting in and getting into their groove. He had
noticed a change in how the councilors were carrying themselves over the last four to five months.
Staff and councilors seemed more comfortable and councilors were expressing their thoughts and
ideas.
Councilor Moore said she appreciated the expertise of each councilor. They all contributed.
Councilor Woodrow said they all appreciated that.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 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, APRIL 16, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 16, 2012 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President
Pishioneri presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present
were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Matthew Cox,
City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Mayor Lundberg was absent (excused). She was in Washington DC for the United Front trip as the
City’s representative.
1. Lane County District Attorney and Sheriff’s Office Update.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented the staff report on this item. The purpose of tonight’s work
session was to receive a briefing regarding the impact of pending budget reductions in the District
Attorney and Sheriff’s Office. Council would need to meet later to discuss how Springfield’s Police
Department would handle some of these reductions.
Mr. Grimaldi introduced Lane County District Attorney Alex Gardner.
Mr. Gardner said the upcoming budget reductions were slightly worse than they had anticipated. He
provided some statistics, first from the Sheriff’s Office. In 1979, there were 99 deputies on patrol. For
24/7 posts, that was about 16-18 people on the road at one time. Last year there were 16 deputies, this
year there were 14, and next year there would be 5. Lane County was 4600 square miles, about the
size of Connecticut. With only 5 deputies, there would not be enough deputies to staff one post 24/7.
Staffing needed to be arranged so there was some capacity for backup. He noted that the State Police
had also been reduced in size. In 1979, there were 800 sworn officers and there were 300 today so they
no longer had the reserve capacity to make up for the County’s deficiencies. In 1979, there were about
24-26 detectives in the Sheriff’s Office and there were now four. That meant that the citizens in rural
Lane County had learned over time not to report crime.
Mr. Gardner said the DA’s Office used to have 11 investigators and now had two in the criminal
division. Their support enforcement division had been protected as it was reimbursed for the most part
by the Federal Government because they had performed at a high level. The Medical Examiner’s
division of the DA’s Office did a lot of work. They normally had 1000 bodies in which they were
called in on during an average year. These were unattended deaths. He explained. The more
troublesome cases involved questionable deaths which needed experienced examiners to determine
cause of death. They should be staffed with 6-7 people, but they had done the work with only two
people for many years. This year, the Medical Examiner’s Office would be gone. They were trying to
find a way to respond to the large number of deceased. Of 400 they would normally take jurisdiction
of, they would perform about 200 autopsies. Because they did not have their own morgue, they had
been leasing space and some staff from Sacred Heart. The County was no longer able to pay for that
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 16, 2012
Page 2
service so had been doing what they could with part-time staff remaining. The budget for those things
would also be going away. This was not a service that could be provided by volunteers. The net
reduction in his office was 19 FTE this year. He would be able to mitigate some of the damage to the
employees, but not to the public. They could contract with the City of Eugene for some Municipal
Court prosecution and they hoped to receive a HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) grant
that would allow them to do some narcotics work.
Mr. Gardner said the way he had to prioritize the work was by the highest personal violence cases.
Those cases took a lot of time and experience so most senior DA’s worked those cases. They could
manage about fifty cases a year for those types of cases. The younger DA’s who worked on DUII’s
and other smaller crimes handled up to 700 cases a year. There were also middle of the road crimes
which included career forgers, residential burglaries, car thefts, etc. The DA’s that managed that case
load handled between 250-350 cases a year. The bulk of the cuts coming out of their criminal division
were coming out of drugs and felon prosecution of property offenses. Losing nine Deputy DA’s
meant there were about 2400-3000 cases that would not be getting prosecuted. When a police officer
made an arrest, if there was no DA to file the case, the person was released. People who were arrested
selling heroin in cities in Lane County had no consequences because in many ways the Sheriff’s cuts
were much deeper. The Sheriff’s Office was down to about 120 jail beds. Average towns in the USA
had about 69 beds for 1000 crimes reported. Oregon had less jail capacity than the national average at
about 62 beds per 1000 reported crimes. Several years ago, Lane County was down to 8 ½ beds per
1000 crimes reported. They were able to add some beds with some additional funding which brought
the figure up to about 14 beds per 1000 crimes reported. If things remained the same in Lane County’s
budget, they would have about 120 beds which averaged 5-9 beds per 1000 crimes reported. They had
as many as 32 offenders in custody at Lane County jail on homicide charges, so the remaining beds
were full of high-risk offenders. Many dangerous people were being released. At that capacity, Lane
County was not able to comply with Oregon law which required Measure 11 offenders to be held
unless they posted security or the judge found they were not a threat to the community.
Mr. Gardner said the loss of the Medical Examiner function was effective May 19, 2012. The DA’s
office was working with partner agencies to find some short-term way to deal with this. The challenge
was that someone had to notify next of kin and make a finding of cause of death. Today it was very
difficult to get family physicians to sign death certificates if they hadn’t seen the patient in several
years. Funeral homes couldn’t process people to funeral services, cremation or burial without the
necessary paperwork in place. This was an essential function of government that many people didn’t
consider. It was difficult to imagine that the community would tolerate this level of public safety
dysfunction. Lane County had been in crisis for 30 years, but this was now past profound. Springfield
Police Chief Smith could provide more detail on how these cuts would affect Springfield. He provided
an example of how the questionable deaths would be addressed. Someone would need to come in to
determine whether or not it was a homicide and that would be very expensive if brought in on a
contract basis. Ultimately, all citizens would pay more for the Medical Examiner service than if it was
funded through Lane County.
Councilor Moore asked if Lane County and City of Eugene elected officials had heard this
information.
Mr. Gardner said he had not presented to the City of Eugene, but had made it known through emails
and media. The people that would ultimately suffer would be the victims of violence.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 16, 2012
Page 3
Councilor Wylie noted a television show she had seen that showed a flash mob robbery. The
brazenness of lawlessness was scary and that frightened her. They had always had good law
enforcement, but as criminals found there was no consequence they would become brazen. It was
much harder to put the system back together again once they got to that point.
Mr. Gardner said the city police were great on high risk calls and assisting the County when they
could. People who were not involved in law enforcement had different ideas of how to manage crime.
There was an ebb and flow of different types of crime, and crime actually went up when the economy
improved. Many crime categories had dropped in part due to Springfield’s jail, and had dropped
significantly in Springfield because of the jail. When crime went down, people got complacent. Public
safety needed to remain solid. There was a lot of vigilante talk among rural residents due to the
frustration of no law enforcement response.
Councilor Pishioneri thanked Mr. Gardner for attending. He noted the Lane County Jail experienced
about 14,000 bookings per year and only had about 120 jail beds. He commended the District
Attorney’s crew for doing an excellent job with the tools they had, but they needed more tools. He
would do anything in his power to get the system back on track.
Councilor Ralston asked what it would take for a ballot measure specific for public safety.
Mr. Gardner said it would require funding, but it was less clear how that would be accomplished.
Personally, he felt the County should have a modest, focused, targeted measure. In the short term, they
would need a serial levy. A levy of $0.90/$1000 would cover the deficit of $15M and could show
citizens they were getting something for their money. A levy of $1.10/$1000 could show rural citizens
they were getting something for their money. One thought for better coverage in the rural areas was
that by having deputies living in outlying communities, they would have a better visible deputy
presence. It was important for citizens in rural Lane County to feel they had some law enforcement
presence. He would be inclined to go with the smaller figure. A measure could go on the ballot by
citizen signature or by having the Lane County Board of Commissioners put in on the ballot. He
would prefer that it came from citizens so the community had more of a sense of ownership. He felt
there was contempt of government, so he would be happy to have citizens step up and take the lead.
Councilor Woodrow said she had heard Mr. Gardner speak on this issue for many years. The general
public had so many things that had gone on over the last four or five years that they may not have
noticed the decline if they had not experienced it personally.
Mr. Gardner said in community meetings he attended, he heard from people that they were tired of
those in government asking for funding.
Councilor Woodrow asked what they could do to get people’s attention. These were core services and
were expected by the citizens. She asked how the councilors could help.
Mr. Gardner said he didn’t know how to get their attention, other than citizens experiencing the lack of
service as victims. He noted a horrific case in California that resulted in a great deal of funding
following a lot of sharing with the public. Unfortunately, that was the type of thing it took to get
people’s attention.
Councilor Woodrow said it seemed like we needed to hit bottom and hadn’t reached there yet.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 16, 2012
Page 4
Mr. Gardner said he and the sheriff hoped this was the bottom and that there wasn’t a step beyond.
They were both very concerned that if nothing was done they would see families get hurt.
Councilor Moore said she had heard of tiered funding for Deschutes County which meant people in
Bend were not paying as high of a rate for the County law enforcement. Some of the services now
being cut at Lane County would affect citizens in the cities more than in the past. She asked for Mr.
Gardner’s opinion on the tiered tax and if it could help pass a serial levy.
Mr. Gardner said it was narrowly successful in Deschutes County. He felt it made sense, but there
were a number of challenges including creation of a service district which would require the cities of
Eugene and Springfield to approve of an amendment to the Metro Plan. The last time they looked into
this type of district, Springfield was willing to participate, but Eugene was not. One reason they had
been opposed was that a tax district took priority over serial levies. They had tried to figure out how to
share the management of such a district with the cities. The biggest problem in the short-term was that
it took a very complicated legal arrangement to get everyone on the same page. He felt it could be
done with the current cuts. Another factor was how best to communicate that to the citizens so they
trusted it and thought it was sensible. The more complicated things were, the less trustworthy they
were to citizens. They were looking, instead to find a short-term bridge such as a serial levy, and then
communicate to the public that they would be le looking for a long-term solution for the citizens to
approve in several years.
Councilor Wylie said it was a hard sell to people because of the economy. People were looking at
where funds were going they were already paying. They felt their money was going into high salaries
and PERS retirements, and the people had no more money to give. They didn’t understand the cost of
doing business for the government was very expensive. Springfield had been fortunate to have voter
support both Police and Fire levies in the past. It had been on a good faith approach to the voters. The
concept of becoming a lawless community was scary. They needed to relate what that would cost to
the citizen.
Mr. Gardner said the amount of taxes that went to Lane County per household was relatively small,
just under $1.28/$1000. He noted many of the larger metro counties that had a higher tax rate. In
response to Councilor Wylie’s comment regarding PERS, he explained that personally, his wages had
doubled since 1998, but the PERS estimate was 35% less than in 1999.
Councilor Wylie understood but said many people didn’t have any retirement.
Councilor VanGordon said he appreciated their work. He liked the idea of focusing on a short-term
bridge and wished there were better solutions. He encouraged Mr. Gardner to come back to talk to the
Council more. He would be willing to talk to citizens about this issue and advocate that we needed
public safety. What happened at the County level affected the City.
The rest of the Council agreed that they would be willing to have those conversations.
Mr. Gardner said many times the people served by Lane County, in circumstances such as rescues
along the river and traffic accidents in rural areas, were city residents. They needed to look at law
enforcement as a region.
Councilor Moore said she would be willing to talk with citizens and to get signatures. She couldn’t
imagine there wouldn’t be other elected officials willing to do the same. She was convinced people
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 16, 2012
Page 5
were reasonable if they were spoken to reasonably. Many people worried about their own lives and
had trouble looking beyond.
Councilor VanGordon said this had been going on for 30 years. He asked if this was as bad as things
would get or if it would continue to get worse.
Mr. Gardner said this was the steepest drop, but things could get worse. One of the challenges was that
there was no more Federal funding.
Councilor Woodrow said the City had a Police levy coming up this Fall and she wanted to look at how
they could address both the City and County during public inforums. The difficult part was that
Springfield residents often had a disconnect with the County.
Chief Smith said in 2006 when the City went out for renewal, the County was also going out for a tax
measure. At every neighborhood group he talked to, he spoke about the importance of Lane County
and the City’s dependence on many of the programs provided by the County. During that election, the
County’s measure passed in the City of Springfield precincts, but not in other areas of Lane County.
Councilor Ralston said Springfield couldn’t solve the problem.
Councilor Pishioneri said the only border the DA’s office was concerned with was the County border.
Many of the crimes they prosecuted were within city limits. The DA’s office dealt with a larger
portion than the Sheriff’s office. Citizens in Springfield were paying more for parks than for core
services. He felt the citizens didn’t really understand the difference in the costs.
Mr. Gardner said the supervision piece was important for community safety and funding. Lane County
received about $9M in community corrections funding from the State of Oregon. That money was
apportioned based on Lane County’s proportion of the offender population. He provided an example
of how the funds were distributed using a percentage of number of offenders. Currently, Lane County
had about 3100 or 3200 on supervision. If the County couldn’t prosecute people, their share of the
State Corrections funding would be diminished. It would take four or five years to recover during
which they would be losing about $3-$4M per year. He had talked with the Governor’s office at the
State Police Headquarters. The State’s first response was that the County had to provide the Medical
Examiner function. Mr. Gardner said he understood the requirements, but with no funding was unable
to provide certain services. He said he was very grateful for the support from the Council.
Councilor Pishioneri said the Council was very supportive of the County’s work. He invited Mr.
Gardner to share any ideas with the Council at a time when they could assist further.
Mr. Gardner said he would wait to hear from Mr. Grimaldi.
Councilor Ralston said they needed to get the same level of support from Eugene.
Councilor Woodrow said the more information the Council had, the more they could share with the
citizens.
Mr. Gardner encouraged councilors to email him with questions or if they wanted more information.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 16, 2012
Page 6
Councilor Moore said it would be nice to have concise information, especially related to the Medical
Examiner, as well as the DA’s Office and the cuts they were facing.
Councilor Pishioneri asked Mr. Gardner to provide that to the City Manager who could share it with
councilors.
Councilor Wylie said she would also like to see a fact sheeting comparing staffing and population
today with 1979.
Councilor Ralston said he had an old flyer that listed all of the crimes that would not be prosecuted. It
was astounding.
Mr. Gardner said they would not be printing that type of list again because it had negative
consequences. That list would now be much longer. A meeting was scheduled with all of the Chiefs to
discuss how they could triage the services. They would be looking at law enforcement partners to
identify the people that represented the biggest risk.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 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, APRIL 16, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 16, 2012 at 7:03 p.m., with Council President Pishioneri
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present
were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Matthew Cox,
City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Mayor Lundberg was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council President Pishioneri.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Beta Sigma Phi 80th Anniversary Proclamation.
Councilor Pishioneri read from a proclamation acknowledging the 80th anniversary of Beta Sigma Phi.
In 1932, Walter W. Ross designated the organization Beta Sigma Phi, providing that each chapter
make its own rules and decisions and that the most important entity was the individual membership.
The badge of the organization signified Life, Learning and Friendship by its Greek symbols.
Membership in Beta Sigma Phi provided opportunities to contribute to the community, develop
lifelong friendships and polish leadership skills. Councilor President Pishioneri, on behalf of Mayor
Lundberg, proclaimed April 26, 2012, the date of their Founder’s Day Annual Banquet, as Beta Sigma
Phi Day in honor of the organization’s 80th anniversary.
Ms. Shirley Collingwood came forward to accept the proclamation.
2. Springfield Library, Estela and Raul Mora Award Presentation.
Library Director Rob Everett introduced this item. He introduced Hope Candrall, a retired school
librarian from Woodburn, Oregon and also a regionally and nationally known figure for her work in
youth literacy and with Oregon’s Latino community. Last year, Ms. Candrall was awarded the highest
honor of the Oregon Library Association’s Children’s Services Division, the Evelyn Sidley Lampman
award, for her service to the children and families in her community. Former Springfield Children’s
Librarian Judy Harold was also a past recipient of that award. Using her passions of children and
literacy, Ms. Candrall was instrumental in transforming her community by building her local El día de
los niños/El día de los libros (Children's Day/Book Day) from a small gathering into a collaborative
event attended by hundreds, sponsored by the school district and City of Woodburn, and many other
community agencies, a model Springfield’s Library under the guidance of Emily Ziglinski, was
starting to emulate. Ms. Candrall had served on the Estela and Raul Mora Award Committee for the
last two years and was active at the national level in bringing Dia celebrations to schools and libraries
across the country. She now lived in Eugene.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2012
Page 2
Ms. Crandall said Pat Mora was a prominent children’s author and had worked with the American
Library Association and Latino Library Association to advance literacy for children of all languages
and all cultures. To honor her parents, Pat Mora set up the Estela and Raul Mora Award which was
given nationally to a library (school or public) that was meeting the goals for Day of the Children/Day
of the Books (El día de los niños/El día de los libros). When serving on the committee that chose
Springfield for this award, she didn’t live in Lane County. She was thrilled to be here now to make the
presentation and to continue to be a part of the wonderful work the Springfield Library had started for
all of the children of the Springfield area. She asked Ms. Ziglinski to come forward.
Ms. Crandall read from the award: “The 2011 Estela and Raul Mora Award Presented by the Mora
Family to Springfield Public Library in Recognition of its Outstanding El día de los niños/El día de los
libros (Day of the child/Day of the books). This Award was coordinated by REFORMA, the National
Association to Promote Library and Information Services to Latinos and the Spanish Speaking”.
Ms. Ziglinski said the Springfield Library was thrilled to be recognized for the work they were doing
for all of the members of our community. She invited the Council to attend the Library’s Dia de los
Ninos event scheduled on April 28 from 1:00-4:00pm at City Hall. She provided flyers for this event.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
a. Approval of the March 2012, Disbursements for Approval.
2. Minutes
a. March 12, 2012 – Work Session
b. March 19, 2012 – Work Session
c. March 19, 2012 – Regular Meeting
d. March 26, 2012 – Work Session
e. April 2, 2012 – Work Session
f. April 2, 2012 – Joint Public Hearing
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Allow Construction Activities Outside the Hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. for the Oregon
Department of Transportation to Work on the Main Street Pedestrian Crossing Project in the
Vicinity of 44th Street.
b. Allow Construction Activities Outside of the Hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. with Conditions, as
Described in Attachment 1, for the 58th Street Flow Control Facility Project (P21046).
c. Authorize the City Manager to Sign First and Third Amendment(s) with the Firm of Leahy,
Van Vactor, Cox & Melendy LLC for General Counsel Services.
d. Approve the Proposed Designation Agreement Between the Governments of Lane County and
the Cities of Eugene and Springfield.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2012
Page 3
e. Approve the Extension of the Contract with Grove, Mueller & Swank, PC for Audit Services
for the City of Springfield, Springfield Economic Development Agency, Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission and Regional Fiber Consortium for the Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 2012.
f. Approve Purchase of Infor-Hansen Upgrade Software and Data Migration Services for the
Asset Management System Replacement Project from Infor Inc. for $211,348 and Authorize
and Direct the City Manager to Execute All Documents Required to Effect the Transaction.
g. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Heritage Family Restaurant, Located at 1414
Mohawk Blvd., Springfield, OR.
h. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Coburg Pizza Company, Family Style
Restaurant, Located at 1710 Centennial Boulevard, Springfield, OR.
i. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Eirinn’s Bistro, Located at 639 W. Centennial
Boulevard, Springfield, OR.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH CHECK # 113210 FROM
THE MARCH 2012 REIMBURSEMENTS REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
ITEMS REMOVED
1.a. Check #113210 from the March 2012 Disbursements.
Councilor VanGordon recused himself from this item as the check was made out to his employer
United Parcel Service (UPS).
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE CHECK # 113210 FROM THE MARCH 2012
REIMBURSEMENTS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST
(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. Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment
Partnerships Program (HOME) Recommended Funding Allocations.
Housing Manager Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield Community
Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) reviewed ten proposals and prepared CDBG and HOME
funding recommendations for the FY2012-2013 program year. The recommendations were being
forwarded to the City Council for consideration and approval. The CDAC’s funding
recommendations were consistent with Springfield’s local funding priorities and identified community
development needs as documented in the 2010 Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan.
The City of Springfield would be receiving $452,523 of CDBG funds and $297,642 of HOME
Investment Partnerships Program funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012 and ending June 30,
2013 (FY2012-13). Approximately $148,893 of previously unallocated funds was also being made
available. The Council Briefing Memo (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet) included details and
discussion regarding the CDBG and HOME programs allocation process and the funding reductions to
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2012
Page 4
CDBG and HOME programs. Complete CDBG and HOME applications were available for Council
review on request.
Mr. Ko noted that it had been a difficult year with reductions in funding from the Federal Government.
They had received a great list of projects, some from applicants who had never applied for CDBG or
HOME funds in the past. Some of the project allocations were reduced from the original requests due
to a difference of about $8000 between requests and amount of funding available. He noted where the
reductions were made and how the CDAC had determined the reduction amounts.
Councilor Pishioneri opened the public hearing.
1. Irene Alltucker, Eugene, OR. Ms. Alltucker said she was here representing the Relief
Nursery, but was speaking on behalf of the whole process. She complimented Kevin Ko and
his staff. They started the process by guiding applicants in how to structure their grants. The
non-profits understood the importance of everyone and the networking among them. They all
knew there were less funds available, so each agency was conscious of that and realized oth
needed funds. They had a wonderful goal and everyone was grateful for what they received.
Together they were a stronger community. She thanked the CDAC for the recommen
ers
dations.
2. Paul Lewis, 230 4th Street, Springfield, OR Mr. Lewis said he had been the coordinator of the
Lock-Out Crime Program since 1990. This program provided home security programs for
citizens of Springfield, especially those that had been victimized by crime. He noted the
number of people that had been helped since this program was started, many victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault. He thanked the Council for their continued support and
noted that without their generosity, the program wouldn’t be able to thrive as they had. As Ms.
Alltucker said, all who were looking for CDBG funds understood they couldn’t get the larger
amounts so found ways to make up the difference, such as more efficient ways to do business.
He thanked the Council in advance for their continued support. Together they were a stronger
community.
3. Claire Seguin, 212 Main Street, Springfield, OR Ms. Seguin served as the Executive Director
for Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO). She asked the Council for
consideration on their request. She knew the City and staff had worked hard to make the
CDBG funds go as far as possible. In their application, NEDCO had asked for a loan for
$58,000 for the SPROUT Market Program. They were now asking to make that a grant rather
than a loan so they could do a better job in the development of that program within their
current budget constraints. Their investment in NEDCO would provide a great return and she
hoped it was appropriate to come forward with this request.
Councilor Moore asked if it was possible to award this as a loan, and then change it to a grant
in three years with no payback.
Mr. Ko said that in the past the City had done forgivable loans. The policy issue was that the
applications were received in one form and decisions made on that information. The staff was
willing to go back to have discussions with NEDCO to reformat the loan and also protect the
City’s investments.
Councilor Ralston said it had been proposed one way and he wasn’t comfortable changing.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2012
Page 5
Mr. Ko said it was courageous for applicants to ask for loans. The CDBG funds could either
be awarded as grants or loans, and those requesting loans instead of grants should be
respected. He could discuss other alternatives with NEDCO.
Councilor VanGordon said right now staff could work with them on a better repayment
scheme.
Mr. Ko said that was correct and there were options. He explained. Staff could work to meet
NEDCO’s financial goals.
Councilor VanGordon asked if there was a difference from a program perspective.
Mr. Ko said there was no regulatory difference.
Councilor VanGordon said if this was left as a loan, he would like the staff to work with them
to have the dollars available to work on downtown this year. He wanted to help them protect
their programs.
Councilor Woodrow asked what constituted a loan compared to a grant.
Mr. Ko said in the past most CDBG funding had been provided as grants with certain outcome
requirements, but no repayment. With a loan, the perception was that it would be repaid,
although there were still performance requirements. It was left to the cities to determine how
best to work out those details. The loans were interest free loans.
Councilor Moore asked if the loan could be forgiven at some point in the future. Yes.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if someone had thought about an incentivized program with certain
criteria or benchmarks the applicant was required to meet in order to receive partial or full
forgiveness on the loan.
Mr. Ko said that was a possibility, but had not yet been considered. He would be happy to take
that into consideration.
Councilor Pishioneri said if the applicant showed results, the City could look at forgiving part
or the entire loan based on the level of outcome.
Councilor VanGordon said he agreed. He would like to see them work through the loan
conditions with NEDCO and use it for a future model for these loans.
Councilor Woodrow said she agreed. She wanted to maintain the relationship with NEDCO
and the downtown. This would be a great opportunity.
Councilor Ralston said he didn’t realize that many of the funds were already outright grants.
He was not completely opposed to them asking for a grant at this time.
Councilor VanGordon asked Ms. Seguin if the benchmark situation would work well.
Ms. Seguin said that would be great and they would be happy to meet that challenge.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2012
Page 6
Mr. Grimaldi reviewed Council direction on the loan options. Council wanted staff to look at
outlining performance incentives that would influence repayment of the loan and possibly
provide partial or full forgiveness of the loan. For the SPROUT Program, they could look at
ways to make it work for NEDCO.
Councilor Pishioneri closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW ADOPT THE FY2012-2013 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from R.F. Peterson, Springfield, Oregon Regarding Sewer Fees (see attached staff
response).
2. Correspondence from Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) Regarding Woodstove
Replacement Program.
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 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
b. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Ratification of IAFF Contract for 2011-2012.
Human Resources Director Greta Utecht presented the staff report on this item. The City and IAFF
#1395 had reached agreement on a one-year contract for 2011-2012 that met Council’s guidance. The
City Attorney’s Office updated Council on March 19th on the progress of the bargaining. IAFF #1395
voted to ratify the contract on April 10th, 2012.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2012
Page 7
The contract provided each member a cash payment in lieu of a permanent salary increase, changed
language with regards to military leave, and allowed a cost-neutral decoupling of their existing job
classification. The City also agreed to a memorandum of understanding on a medic unit ride time
incentive, with an eye toward aligning the contract with Eugene’s in the shadow of the potential
merger of the Springfield and Eugene fire departments in the future.
Councilor Ralston confirmed that all firefighters were paramedics. He asked if all new hires would
need to be both. Yes.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO RATIFY THE IAFF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT FOR 2011-2012. THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:35 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________
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, APRIL 23, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 23, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and
Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Regional Wastewater, Local Wastewater, and Local Stormwater User Fees for Fiscal Year 12-13.
Civil Engineer Jeff Paschall and Senior Finance Analyst Katherine Bishop presented the staff report
on this item. Mr. Paschall introduced Ms. Bishop who was hired by the City in November 2011. Each
year, staff presented proposed user fee rates for local wastewater and stormwater programs to Council.
These fees were established to provide adequate revenue to fund operations and maintenance, capital
improvement programs, and the debt service payments and bond covenants requirements for the City
of Springfield. In addition to the local fees, MWMC developed regional user fee rates to support the
Regional Wastewater Program.
Mr. Paschall presented a power point presentation. Staff had used the following two Council Goals to
guide them in their rate analysis: Financial Responsibility and Stable Government Services; and
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities. That included debt coverage obligations, ongoing
daily operations, and environmentally regulated standards. The other goals staff had used were the
following revenue goals: Provide Adequate Operations and Maintenance; Fund the Adopted Capital
Improvements Program; Maintain Debt Coverage Requirements; and Maintain Fiscal Health and
Favorable Credit Rating.
Mr. Paschall spoke first of the local wastewater rates. He described the timeline of local wastewater
rates starting in 2008 when the Wastewater Master Plan was adopted through to the current proposed
rate increase. In March 2009 a $22.8M bond was issued to fund about $10-$12M of rehab work and
the Jasper Trunk Sewer. Rates were driven by debt coverage, but the user fees did fund about 50% of
the capital program.
Ms. Bishop said the rate drivers included the existing revenue bond and the need to have debt service
coverage on an ongoing basis. There were also plans within the current proposed rate and revenue plan
for a $10M revenue bond that was projected in FY13/14. Within the rate model, there was also debt
coverage. The Capital Plan adopted by Council was also a rate driver. The proposed local wastewater
rate for FY12/13 was a 4% rate increase. This was the rate that was forecasted to Council last year.
That increase would mean a $0.77 increase per month for an average residential customer. The
increase provided debt service coverage for the projected $10M revenue bond. Over the five year plan
the increase provided nearly $9M towards capital investments in the system. With the proposed rate
change, the City would continue to deliver essential services such as scheduling maintenance of the
wastewater pipe system and 17 pump stations. It would also allow for manhole inspection and repair
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 2
and high priority rehabilitation projects, which included the infill/infiltration (I/I) reduction resulting
in a lower flow coming into the plant.
Councilor Moore asked if the rates could be reduced once the bonds were paid in full.
Ms. Bishop said it would depend on what was happening at that time in terms of capital investment,
but it was unlikely. The bonds were normally 20 year bonds. Currently in the wastewater industry it
was standard for maintaining, rehabilitating and improving the structure in terms of environmental
standards.
Councilor Moore said she and Councilor VanGordon had taken a tour of the wastewater facility last
Friday. During the tour they had been told that the facility was processing a lot of water needlessly
that was getting into the system. She asked if the maintenance of the system would alleviate any of
those problems.
Ms. Bishop said anytime a pipeline was replaced, it made it a tighter system. It was actually the inflow
and infiltration reduction that needed to take place to have a sizable change.
Councilor Moore asked if taking care of some of those issues could possibly reduce the rate. She
referred to her bill and noted the amount for wastewater and stormwater. The increases continued and
she wanted to see when there might not be an increase.
Ms. Bishop referred to a chart showing the increases in the future and explained that there could be a
smaller increase in the future once the $10M bond was positioned to handle that plus the debt
coverage. She noted that the I/I had a return on the investment.
Mr. Grimaldi said if the improvements were not made, it created a need to increase the size of the
plant at a higher cost.
Councilor Moore said that was one of the things noted was that part of the issue was the water getting
into the system that shouldn’t be there for processing. She was concerned that they address the
problem.
Mr. Grimaldi said there was another part of the system. Staff was discussing the public side of the
system, but there was also the connection between the house and the street which was more difficult to
address as it was an expense borne by the property owner.
Mr. Paschall said they had completed about 60,000 feet of pipe rehab in the last three or four years.
They were identifying the other side of the issue by looking at some of the house laterals that were
installed in the 1940’s and 1950’s.
Mr. Paschall spoke regarding local stormwater and the timeline. In 2008, the Stormwater Master Plan
was adopted. At that time, several high priority water quality projects and restoration projects were
identified with the majority of them centered on the completion and availability of Federal funding for
the Mill Race project. At that time, there was a 15% rate increase that set the City up for a $10M bond.
The rates were then to drop to a 3% rate increase, but in order to maintain current debt coverage and
credit rating a 4% increase was needed in the coming year. The capital was not the main driver of the
rates, but rather the debt obligation. User fees did fund about 58% of the five year capital program.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 3
Ms. Bishop said the proposed change was 4% for the next fiscal year. That equated to an increase of
about $0.47 per month for an average user. That rate delivered approximately $1M in the first fiscal
year and about $4.2M over the five year period. The only way to reduce that rate change would be to
have a reduction in the operating budget which would be ongoing in nature. The primary driver for the
stormwater rate was the debt coverage. The rate change allowed the City to provide essential services
which included implementation of the Stormwater Management Plan, ongoing inspection and cleaning
of pipelines and catch basins, maintenance of 29 water quality facilities, maintenance of public and
private bioswales and work on high priority capital improvement projects.
Councilor Moore asked if they would be talking about the alternatives outlined in the packet.
Ms. Bishop said they could discuss alternatives now or later.
Councilor Moore referred to alternative 1 on page 9 of the agenda packet which showed the projected
average monthly bill of $14.05 compared to $14.19 in the proposal. She said she would prefer to find a
way not to make an increase at this time. She noted that would make the debt ratio coverage less.
Ms. Bishop said the area of concern was on the last row of the table of alternative 1. The minimum
debt coverage was 1.25 and in alternative 1, the ratio would be 1.37, 1.34 and 1.31 which was a very
narrow margin. She explained how that could be an issue in the future in trying to get that debt ratio
back up. They tried to avoid a spike in the rate change and to keep moderate revenue with ongoing
incremental rate changes. The public was never pleased to see a rate change, but the City had the
responsibility to make sure the fund was healthy and stable and prepared to meet the debt service
obligations.
Councilor Moore asked if the ratio affected the City’s credit rating if it stayed above the minimum.
Ms. Bishop said it demonstrated the fiscal health of the fund. If credit agencies were looking at the
fund and considering a bond issuance, they would like to see a stronger ratio. The credit rating was
about every two years. They looked favorably on governing bodies that made a commitment to
maintain the debt service ratio above that minimum level and had moderate rate changes to avoid a
spike in rates.
Councilor Moore asked where the City had been with rates in the past. She noted how much rates had
increased over the years.
Councilor Ralston said the City had a large number of required improvements.
Mr. Paschall said there were several years prior to 2007 where there was no increase. That was what
had caused the large increase in FY11.
Councilor Pishioneri said this increase had been discussed and predicted. He asked about the
collection of the stormwater from pervious and impervious surfaces and if there was a balance
between how much was collected, treated and discharged into the river and how much went through
the soils as natural filters.
Mr. Paschall said if the wastewater system was tight we would have a higher groundwater table during
winter months. The City was required to treat water from the pervious surfaces prior to discharge into
the river or streams.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 4
Mr. Grimaldi said he understood the question to be whether or not there was a positive impact on
infiltration to the sewer system when we were managing stormwater and handling it in a manner that
put it into the river.
Councilor Pishioneri said that was correct. He wanted to know if we were maximizing the efficiency
of the stormwater collection and if it had a positive impact on the sewer collection system.
Mr. Paschall said water collected on impervious surfaces was not the water that was causing the
problem with wastewater. The water that was causing the problem was the water that fell on yards and
fields. Councilor Pishioneri noted South 70th Street where there was no gutter or collection system.
Mr. Paschall said there was potential in those types of areas.
Councilor Pishioneri said financing for stormwater collection should be eligible to place those types of
systems on our transportation systems.
Mr. Paschall said that would be a discussion about how to allocate funds towards more street type
projects with a storm benefit.
Councilor Pishioneri said at a later date if the City looked at bonding and structure of our
transportation system, he would like to look at financing our transportation system with stormwater
system collections revenue. He wanted to look at how to restructure how the City was rebuilding
roadways.
Mr. Goodwin said it was a very complex interaction. The more water that was taken off of pervious
surfaces like the streets and transported to the river, the more we needed to let it infiltrate through
natural swales or engage in active treatment of a stormwater. Right now by allowing it to go into
swales to a reasonably large extent, they minimized the cost of treating the stormwater before it got to
the river.
Councilor Pishioneri spoke regarding streets with the bioswale for stormwater and said there could be
innovative ways to finance projects for the betterment of the system.
Mr. Goodwin said the green street approaches used bioswales in that way. Some of the concepts
within the Glenwood Refinement Plan looked at some of those innovative approaches to stormwater
management along streets.
Councilor Wylie asked how they calculated the “average” monthly bill.
Ms. Bishop said it was based on 5000 gallons of wastewater treated. That could vary based on number
of people living in a home or other factors. The winter average flow was used to determine the
amount.
Councilor Wylie noted how the increases would affect her stormwater bill.
Ms. Bishop said stormwater was a set fee for residential and was currently $11.66/month.
Ms. Bishop spoke regarding regional wastewater rates. The MWMC budget process occurred parallel
to the City’s budget process. The Council had representation on the MWMC with Councilor Woodrow
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 5
and was staffed under the supervision of Ron Bittler, Springfield’s Environmental Services Manager,
who also served as the General Manager for the MWMC. The budget process for MWMC was kicked
off in January of 2012. The Commission talked about key outcomes and performance measures, and
draft capital programs. In March, staff brought the budget presentation to the Commission. On April
13, 2012, the Commission adopted a resolution for a 4% rate change on the regional wastewater fees
and for the budget to be forwarded to the governing bodies. Springfield City Council was scheduled
for May 7, Eugene’s City Council was scheduled for May 14, 2012, and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners were scheduled for May 23, 2012. It would come back to the MWMC in June for final
ratification of the budget and adoption of the rate effective July 1.
Ms. Bishop said the regional rate strategy was to continue to use SDC revenues for debt service,
maximize capital transfers, invest in capital infrastructure, maintain a rate stability reserve at $2M, and
project future borrowing in FY14/15 or later based on current cash flow estimates of capital
expenditures. The MWMC was focused on adopting the lowest responsible rate increase to remain on
track for future bond issuance, have consistency in rate changes to avoid future rate spikes, maintain
strong debt service coverage ratio, and maintain favorable credit rating. She noted that the Standard
and Poor’s (S&P) reviewed the regional fund recently and upgraded the credit rating to AA from AA-.
Ms. Bishop recapped and noted that a 4% increase was being proposed for all three services – local
wastewater, local stormwater, and regional wastewater. That would mean an annual increase of about
$0.70 per day for the average user. She referred to chart showing a comparison of the effect the
changes would have on rates in Eugene. Eugene was looking at a 3% increase in local wastewater, 4%
on regional wastewater, and a 4.5% increase for local stormwater. She did note the economy of scale
and how that helped to lower their rates.
Councilor Pishioneri said he felt the cost between Eugene and Springfield should be split. He didn’t
understand why there was a difference in rates between the two cities.
Ms. Bishop said it depended on flow and the number of people per household. She discussed the
different demographics in each city.
Mr. Bittler said they looked at both systems independently. For local stormwater, some of the cost
depended on the amount of capital investment for each system. Eugene had more people to pay for
those improvements, so it would be less money per person. A flow based calculation was used on the
wastewater side.
Mr. Grimaldi said there were many policies that impacted the rate.
Ms. Bishop said it was difficult to do a comparison to another city due to many variables.
Councilor VanGordon referred to page 6, Attachment 1, Figure C which showed the typical residential
monthly wastewater bill for a number of cities in Oregon. He noted that there wasn’t enough
information on that chart to understand the differences in rates.
Ms. Bishop said Springfield was in the middle of those comparisons. Each community had their own
set of circumstances. Some communities didn’t have staff to work on rate setting so hired consultants,
or didn’t know what was forecast. Springfield had a five-year fiscal forecast to plan for the future.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 6
Councilor VanGordon said when looking at the five-year forecast, there were many things that the
City had to do in terms of projects. He asked if there could be a possibility that we would get to a
place where there was no increase.
Ms. Bishop said for communities to achieve and maintain the increased environmental standards and
regulatory requirements a significant investment in the system was needed.
Councilor VanGordon asked if it was more realistic to get back to the 3% increase, which was more in
line with annual inflation.
Mr. Bishop said they would have to be able to predict what would happen regarding regulatory
standards and the economy. One thing that could have a positive impact would be new development
and the system development charges (SDCs) collected from that development. That would help offset
what was being distributed across the general purpose rate. There were signs of interest in
development.
Councilor Wylie asked Mr. Goodwin if he knew of any community that had tried to institute a low-
income fee increase.
Mr. Goodwin said he was not aware of any community in Oregon that had gone to discounted rates.
There was some concern about providing discounts which raised questions in the financial community
about stability of funds. The banking industry liked to see steady, stable revenue sources. He knew of
cities in other states that had run into issues by discounting rates and the revenue bonds secured with
those rates became less attractive financially.
Ms. Bishop said providing a discounted rate would be asking other customers to subsidize. There were
programs such as a “Care Program” in other communities where the funds were taken from the
General Fund to provide for the program.
Councilor Wylie said she felt it was not fair for users to pay for new development.
Ms. Bishop said the purpose of the 20-year revenue bonds was to take the infrastructure that would be
needed for development and amortize it over a 20-year period. The hope was that as development
occurred and SDCs were collected, they would be paying their fair share. As those funds from
development came in, user rates were often moderated to an amount closer to the cost of living. There
was a point in time when infrastructure needed to be built so development would come in. Each
existing residence or business had paid for the next to come in and so forth.
Councilor Wylie said it was difficult to tell citizens about continual rate increases.
Ms. Bishop said it was difficult, but they were providing a public service making sure the City’s funds
were properly funded so the system could be properly maintained. It was a 24/7 high quality service.
Councilor Moore said she appreciated that Springfield paid a lower electric rate than other
communities in the State. She asked about the administrative fees paid to Springfield Utility Board
(SUB) for the collection of the charges. She asked how the fees were collected in Eugene.
They were collected by Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB).
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 7
Mr. Grimaldi said there had been ongoing discussions about doing the billing differently. It was very
complex.
Mr. Goodwin said they had held very preliminary discussions. The challenge was that SUB or EWEB
were also citizen utilities and were apportioning some of their costs to collect the water and sewer bills
for municipal government. If the City moved away from them, pressure was put on the electric rates
for each city. If the City could find a system that was more efficient, they could perhaps find a way
that would reduce that negative impact. Everything had different moving parts, and each affected the
other.
Councilor Moore discussed rain gardens. She understood that the State recently approved use of gray
water for outside irrigation. She asked if that could alleviate some of the stress on the system, and be a
way in which customers could save money.
Mr. Goodwin said if it succeeded in reducing the impact on the system, it could reduce the level of
new investment the City needed to make. If all stormwater didn’t have to get treated by a public
system, the City wouldn’t need a public system. Using gray water took water away from the sanitary
system, which reduced flow which could cause pollutant level to be more concentrated.
Mr. Bittler said individual customers could do a number of things to reduce their bill, such as making
sure their system was tight and conserving water. There was a number on the bill that citizens could
call to get information from staff about how to check those things. If someone did have a leak, they
could get credited back for that additional water use.
Mayor Lundberg said they had been going down this road for a long time. Continually making small
increases didn’t force the City to really look at what could be done to change this course. That could
include looking at laterals and other things that impacted the system. This was a challenge to look at
what could be done. Council may have to look more closely at some of the things that could be
impactful in the long run. She noted that the cost of the regional wastewater plant started out at about
$50M and was now over $200M. The Council needed to take on the challenge. Laterals were not a
popular topic because they were privately owned, but they were affecting the system. Many were very
old and in disrepair.
Councilor Pishioneri noted that in less than 10 years, rates had increased about 59%.
Councilor VanGordon asked if we could get to 2 ½ % within the next five or six years and what would
need to be done to get there.
Mr. Grimaldi said the discussion would be what the City wouldn’t do, such as capital improvements,
maintenance, staffing, etc.
Councilor Woodrow said as we made improvements and maintained the system, the costs increased.
Councilor Moore asked how they could meter what left her house. She was paying about 3 times as
much to process the water that left her house as she was for water coming into her house. She asked if
other jurisdictions charged for outgoing sewage.
Mr. Goodwin said almost no one charged sewage based on measurement of affluent because the cost
of installing the meter on each property was cost prohibitive. Some charged based on water coming
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 8
into the house, and others used size of pipe or other formulas to determine the charge. Most were
based on the assumption that the amount of water that came in, went out.
Mr. Grimaldi said two percent had been shown as an alternate. He said staff could show them what
would happen if 2% was used instead of 4%.
Mayor Lundberg said she would like to see what it would take to get to 2% with a goal of 5 years. She
felt we wouldn’t get there if we didn’t force ourselves. Behavior changes occurred based on actual
need. She would like to see what could be done in the future. The current rates were already set in
motion.
Mr. Grimaldi said he understood Council was not comfortable with 4% this year, but would move
forward with the challenge to look to the future to reduce the increase to 2%.
Mayor Lundberg said they would like to see the possibilities so they could determine whether or not
they could make some changes.
Councilor Woodrow said if the councilors had that information they could then share that with
citizens.
Councilor VanGordon said if 5 years didn’t seem practical to get to the lower rate that was fine as long
as they were moving forward realistically.
Mr. Bittler said their conversation was similar to the one with MWMC. Staff looked at a 0% and a 2%
and discussed both with the Commission. The two bonds the City had borrowed were driving the rate.
Mr. Goodwin said as the bonds matured, the City could generate sufficient SDCs so there wouldn’t be
a need to rely on user revenues to fund 50% of the capital programs. Then future rate increases could
be less as the City would not be going out to the bond market.
Mayor Lundberg said they needed to set a direction.
Councilor Moore said the public had been educated about the use and conservation of electricity. She
asked if there was a way to educate the public on regulation changes and the treatment of stormwater
and how to put less stress on the system. Through education, citizens had decreased the amount of gas
and electricity used.
Mr. Bittler said they did have an educational program. The State of Oregon adopted one of the strictest
water quality standards in the nation regarding toxics. The City needed to address toxics in their public
education piece so constituents knew how to keep toxics out of our system, which was not designed to
treat some of those toxics. They needed to ramp up their education to the public.
The Council was fine with the 4% increase.
Mr. Grimaldi reminded the Council about the Budget Committee meeting on Tuesday, April 24, and
that there was no Council meeting next week because it was a fifth Monday. There would be another
Budget Committee meeting, however, on Tuesday, May 1.
ADJOURNMENT
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 9
The meeting was adjourned at 6:32 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder