Springfield City Council — March 4, 2024

0:04 I'm going to call the city council work session to order with roll call. Mayor Vin George Here. Councilor Weber Here. Councilor Moe Here. Councilor Rodney Here. Councilor Blackwell Here. Councilor Doyle Here. And Councilor Fisionari Here. Thank you. We have one item for the work session tonight, which is the Eugene-Springfield Fire Governance Review update. And uh that's with Chief Kaven. Take it away, Chief. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh Thanks for this opportunity this evening. Uh what we have in store for you is uh presentation from AP Triton. Uh they're the consulting firm that we engaged at the end of 2023 to uh continue our governance work forward. Uh as you recall uh in early 2022, we began

0:49 this process of a governance review panel uh who was tasked with determining uh kind of how are we established, uh what's going on at ESF, and what's the future needs. Uh both the needs of the fire department, the needs of the individual cities that we serve um and what options are available for that. Um we moved through several different meetings in 2022 um with a another consultant that focused on the financial side. It became apparent there were some answers that that couldn't really be done without some subject matter experts. Uh so in the fall of 2023 again, we put out an RFP um in partnership with the cities to um just select a a vendor who was able to do uh both the financial analysis, but also uh kind of that independent

1:34 expertise. Um and so what we're going to hear tonight is the current conditions analysis. Um this is a summary of of um you know, nearly 100-plus pages of work um that will be boiled down into a brief presentation. Um there will be plenty of time for uh kind of questions and and thoughts from the council uh following that. So, without further ado, uh I'd like to invite uh Dan Peterson from AP Triton to introduce himself. Hi there. I'm uh I'm Dan like uh like the chief indicated. Uh I'm the project manager for this particular uh project for you. I've also got uh on the call uh

2:19 David Honey who did the finance work. Additional members of the team are Don Jarvis and Stacy Maxwell and Melissa Swank, but they're not able to make the call today. Um but today we're going to share our screen, go through a PowerPoint, and again give you the update on the progress and timelines, and a presentation on the findings related to current conditions. So, when you're ready, I'll go ahead and share screen and start the presentation. Go ahead, Dan. Can everybody see this all right? Yes, we can.

3:04 Wonderful. Wonderful. So, again, this is the um this is this was completed in late February. We presented this to the governance review panel, and we've also presented it to Eugene, and now we're here to give you the same same report. We're really not ready to present any recommendations yet. We do have a lot of good information that we're working on through the recommendations, but but we're we're really focused on making sure we have current conditions right. And that took us a while to make that happen. As we go through the slides tonight, if you've got specific questions related to the slide, please ask your question. If you've got general questions, let's save that for a discussion after the presentation. That'll allow us to move through this at

3:49 a reasonable time. Um the uh purpose of the study, as a reminder, uh you retained AP Triton to conduct a feasibility to study to evaluate the following options. Continue roughly as ESF is currently organized. Establish an IGA to allow one city to provide service to the other. Establish an intergovernmental agreement to form an intergovernmental entity. Form an independent fire district. Or if none of those look good, what it would look like to dissolve the existing agreement and return to individual city fire departments. Our timelines, we kicked off the project on August 9th with ESF staff.

4:36 On August 29th, we met with the governance review panel to review the targets of the actual project. By October 9th, ESF had completed the majority of the data uploads. And on the week of October 30th, we were on site for stakeholder meetings. We met with a little over 50 people to gather information from city and ESF staff. On December 7th, we presented the first draft of the introduction and findings of related to the current conditions to ESF staff for their technical review. And after they completed theirs, we presented a draft to the cities of Eugene and Springfield for their technical review. We received most of the technical review of the draft back on February 9th. We're

5:23 still getting a little bit back and forth. We had another a request we for a review of that of this draft just last week. The next steps right now is what we're accomplishing is the update for you. Late March, early April, we'll present a first draft of the full report that should be available for technical review by both ESF and the city managers. Late April, early May, we should have a final draft ready that should be available for us to present to the governance review panel and both city councils. For some background, you entered into the third battalion system in 2007

6:08 and in 2010 you entered into functional consolidation. The fire departments were branded as Eugene-Springfield Fire with apparatus uniforms showing that branding. Eugene and Springfield remain independent entities and operate with separate fire and EMS budgets. The duplicated administrative and support positions were eliminated and employees working with the ESF are either Eugene or Springfield. They're not ESF employees. And operations employees are assigned to stations regardless of who their employer is. The service area, this shows the layout of battalion 1, 2, and 3. I know this isn't new for anybody. Uh population served, Eugene serves with

6:54 the fire districts 187,000. Springfield serves with the fire district 70,000 for a total of 258,280 Service delivery, there's 16 fire stations, five in Springfield, 11 in Eugene. This denotes what the staffing levels are each day in both cities. The financial summary, I'll turn over to Dave Honey. He'll walk through the next three slides. Good evening, councilors. I'm Dave Honey. I'm working on the financial components of this study.

7:39 We've worked really closely with ESF administration to get a good picture of revenue and expenditures for Eugene and Springfield fire and EMS separately as well as uh looking at ESF finances as a whole. So, we're presenting actual revenue and expenditures from fiscal year '19 through fiscal year '23. And I'm going to go over this uh briefly in uh three slides that we have for you. This first slide, as you can see, is a financial summary of ESF as a whole. And we can see here that uh we had revenues of uh $29.1 million in fiscal year 2023. This was a about a

8:24 23% increase from what we saw in fiscal year '19 with uh about $23.6 million in total revenues. Eugene generated 69% of that revenue with Springfield generating the balance uh of 31% of total revenues for ESF. Uh significant revenue sources, there are about four of them that I want to go over here that the the top revenue source here is EMS fees, uh emergency medical services fees of uh $14.3 million with Eugene generating about 2/3 of those and uh 1/3 generated by Springfield. The next revenue source we're looking at is uh ground emergency

9:10 medical transportation program or GEMT. There's about $5.7 million generated in fiscal year '23 with uh 69% of that from Eugene and 31% from Springfield. The next revenue source is reimbursement for fire services, and these are things like mutual aid uh reimbursements and reimbursements uh for services provided to fire and water districts within the boundaries of each of of the cities. And uh, those came in at about 4 and 1/2 million dollars in in fiscal year 23. And then the final final large uh, of those top four revenue sources was grant revenues coming in at about 700,000

9:55 dollars in fiscal year 23. On the expenditure side, we have uh, 84.4 million dollars in uh, total expenditures in fiscal year 23, about a 21% increase from what we saw in fiscal year 19. Um, yeah, still still on that the ESF summary site there. Uh, Eugene incurred 72% of all expenditures in fiscal year 23 with Springfield incurring the balance of 28%. And there were about four major areas of expenditures that I wanted to highlight tonight. The first is personnel services. This accounted for 71% of all ESF expenditures in fiscal year 23, and

10:41 those came in at about 60.5 million dollars. And you can see there uh, Eugene responsible for about three quarters of those at 74% and Springfield the balance at 26%. There also a lot of expenses in the material supplies and contractual costs area, about 7.8 million dollars there. And then we have interdepartmental fleet costs of about 3.6 million dollars and vehicles and equipment coming in at about 1.2 million dollars. The next slide shows Eugene fire and EMS finances. Revenues and expenditures. And over the

11:26 past five years again, looking at the period fiscal year 19 through fiscal year 23, we've seen about a 27% increase in total revenues in the in Eugene fire and EMS increasing from $15.7 million to just about $20 million. We saw significant increases in the ground emergency medical transportation or GEMT revenues and those contribute to uh most of that overall increase. And additionally, we've seen about a $500,000 increase in EMS fees. On the expenditure side for Eugene during this 5-year period, expenditures have increased about 23%

12:11 from $49.3 million to $60.6 million. And significant areas of increase include personnel costs and material supplies and contractual costs. And personnel costs account for about 74% of Eugene's total fire and EMS expenditures. Moving on to the last slide, uh this highlights Springfield fire and EMS uh financial the revenue side. And and revenues from $7.9 million to about $9.2 million. Uh again, a a lot of that increase most of that increase is uh

12:57 accounted for by the GEMT program. On the expenditure side during the same period, expenditures increased by about 15%. Uh we saw large increases in the material supplies and contractual costs line item. Uh but most of that increase is attributed to increased payments from Springfield fire to the Eugene uh for fire and EMS services. Uh finally, fiscal year 2023 expenditures were just under $24 million um in fiscal year '23 compared with about $20.7 million in fiscal year '19. For Springfield Fire and EMS, the personnel costs accounted for about 66% about 2/3 of total

13:43 fiscal year '23 expenses. That concludes my remarks on the financial slides. Our Our next focus is where we spent a significant amount of time and energy and that's to try to evaluate the actual changes in administrative and support positions between 2010, the start of the functional consolidation, and 2023. In 2010, there were 59.25 admin and support employees in both cities compared to 53 today. In Eugene, in 2010, they had 41.25 positions that represented 68.01%

14:30 of the combined department's cost of the admin and support positions. Today, Eugene employs 39 at a at 74.23% of the ESF admin and support position costs. In Springfield, 2010 employed 18 admin and support positions and these do not include 12 positions that were in the Springfield billing office that were eliminated over recent years based on the reduced external ambulance billing clients. We normalized this by identifying that in today's world, there are four, three with Eugene and one in Springfield, and simply matched that between the two

15:15 years. So, these do not factor in any of the admin and support positions that were primarily used for the Springfield billing office for EMS. So in 2010, those 18 positions represented 31.99 percent of the combined departments cost of administrative and support positions. And today, Springfield employs 14, which represents 25.77% of the ESF admin and support position costs. And these position costs are based on this year's wage and benefit packages to compare apples and apples. For the city of Eugene, there were there are 5.25 positions funded in 2010 that

16:02 are not funded today, and three new positions that were not funded in 2010 for a net reduction of 2.25. The positions not funded today compared to 2010, deputy chief, finance manager, battalion chief training, battalion chief fire marshal, .75 of a deputy fire marshal inspector, .5 of a program support positions. Three positions funded today that were not in 2010, EMS CQI, and the EMS fire instructor, and an application system analyst. For the city of Springfield, there are six positions funded that were funded in 2010 that are not funded today, and two new positions for

16:47 a net reduction of four positions. Positions not funded today, fire chief, one deputy chief, two deputy fire marshal, an executive assistant, and a program support positions. Two positions funded today that were not in 2010, fire maintenance worker, and an application support technician. The reduced cost from the merger, there's 11.25 admin and support positions that have been eliminated in the combined ESF organization since 2010. So, not taking into account any new positions that have been necessary, these are positions that have been eliminated that should either department restore their old fire department, these would probably need to

17:33 be returned, which means that the combined savings, the reduced cost is 2.5 million at 2023 wages and benefits each year. In Eugene, with the 5.25 positions represents a reduced cost of just under 1.2 million. Springfield, with the six positions, uh generates a reduced cost of 1.3, just a little over 1.3 million each year uh at 2023 wages and benefits. The net reduction of cost, this takes the 11 positions Dan, could you go back for a second to that one slide? Sure. You You made a statement that I want to make sure that I'm clear on it. Yes. You said that if we had chosen, and

18:19 where I understand we're not towards the policy choices yet, but if we chose to separate the departments again, we would have to add all of those positions. I don't know Did I hear I I'm saying if you restored your fire department to what it was in 2010, these positions would be restored. Right, but that's not Is that Is that a true statement? Are the city managers telling you that or are you just sort of assuming that you would go back to whatever the 2010 steady state was? This is my uh this is our look and and if we go back in slides for Springfield, uh it would basically state that uh if you were to restore to 2010 staffing, you would be adding a

19:04 fire chief, a deputy chief, two DFMs, an executive assistant, and program support position. This is not an assumption that you would do that. This is stating that if you were to return to the staffing levels at 2010, if you were your own fire department. Okay, so is that something that city staff in Eugene or Springfield are telling you or is that something and I and I just want to get my head around it, right? So I'm not trying to make it into a thing. Or is that something that, you know, you just sort of looked at the facts and just said, "Hey, this is kind of what I think would happen." I I just want to make sure we're cuz I don't know that that's true, right? Like that's 15 years ago and I don't know that anybody's asked that question, right? Like Nancy or chief, are we saying that we'd

19:49 automatically go to the 2010 staffing levels or that you would have to figure it out from there. Uh I can This is not a recommendation. This is simply a statement that says if you restored your staffing levels to 2010. All right, let's just let's just keep going then. Let's just keep We'll bring in what we think is appropriate in the next phase of the report based on uh a as a recommendation, but this is simply a statement. Does that help with that? Yeah, keep keep going. Okay. So, again, this particular slide simply says that if you did this this is what your reduced cost is generally based on the reduced cost from the functional merger.

20:37 The net reduction of cost here the uh 11.25 admin support positions eliminated, five new. The reduced cost with the additional positions that have been added by this both cities is a reduced cost of 1.6 in 2023 wages and benefits each year. Eugene, 5.25 and three new for net reduction of 2.25 generates a reduced cost of 527,000 at 2023 wages and benefits. Springfield, six positions eliminated, two new positions for a net reduction of four, reduced cost of just over 1.1 million at 2023 wages and benefits each year.

21:23 The balance of cost reduction, this is a this is again uh an an analysis that we are providing. The 2017 IGA does not identify a defined balance of funding from each city. The target, the intent of of the agreement is to maintain each city's service level while benefiting from shared administrative positions. The uh percentage of the cost of employees from each department in 2010 compared to the total workforce for admin and support in 2010, Eugene was 68.01% compared to Springfield's 31.99. In 2023, Eugene was 74.23 compared to Springfield's 25.77%.

22:09 If you applied the 2010 percentage to the 2023 administrative and support position costs, Eugene's personnel expenditures would be 600,000 less and Springfield's would be 600,000 more. But I want to note that we are there is nothing that says there's a magic number in returning in applying that same percentage strictly because this has evolved over these years. In our And we've got a question. So, um Yes. Joe's going to jump in. Thank you. I'm I'm getting confused here in a sense of your numbers. I'm kind of a numbers person, and um so you said Eugene had a reduction of 2.25 positions with the with the reduced

22:54 cost of 527,000 $297 in '23 wages, and then similarly, Springfield had a reduction of four positions with the cost savings of 1.1 million. And I'm trying to get my arms around if if that's the the numbers are true numbers and that's what you're saying is that the Eugene positions are costing the 282,000 a year. Is that right? Well, some of the positions that you're you're managing are higher level positions. You're you're the Springfield Springfield has eliminated a fire chief position and eliminated some higher level positions than what Eugene. And this is based on a spreadsheet that shows the current today's cost of the way Or average. So

23:40 still I'm looking at an average of 282,000 a year. Are you saying that the chief makes 282,000 dollars a year? I can tackle this one for you, Dan. Um Please. Yeah, so when we look at those deputy chief level positions and the fire chief um wages, benefits, all of that combined, we are pushing in the high 200,000 range. And then I understand that. I get that cuz I know the package with average FTEs what 140,000 a year something like that. Yeah, our average our firefighters right now are hovering around 185 up to a battalion chief at 240. Um and then our deputy chiefs uh push up into that uh high 200s range fully loaded.

24:25 High 200s? Yeah, and not in wages, but in all the other about 41% PERS and and everything you might tack on to that. It's it's quite substantial and when you look at that cuz I had the same conversation with Dan when they presented this um to us. It is because of the fire chief position, the deputy chief position, there's some pretty high-level spots in Springfield that push it up just slightly higher than than what Eugene reports with less. And then even Eugene, I was looking at those numbers at 2.25 and and to 527,000 you're still looking about the same numbers. So Yeah, cuz Eugene reduced the deputy chief as well. Um, a battalion chief in the fire marshal's office and and some of those other ones on the the previous slide. Um, in the full report that that Dan

25:11 will issue to us all, um, all the spreadsheets are there. You kind of can track where that's coming from, what's what's gone, and and kind of what that total is. have it would just made a little more sense to me if it was broken down with just two or three people having their wage next on the individual totals. That way I can understand. But thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks. Yeah, there's a there's a lot of information here and we're trying to to narrow it down, but there will be there's if if you're a numbers guy, you'll appreciate the numbers of spreadsheets that are available in this report coming. What I do want to mention though is is from this percentage, this is simply a snapshot in time comparing what the might have been the intent back in 2010 to 2023, but we're we're looking and and

25:57 generating recommendations for sharing this cost in that next analysis of operations section that may be more directly related to the demand for admin and support as opposed to an arbitrary point in time. So, we're not saying that this is we're just saying that this is just looking at it from the perspective of 2010 compared to 2023. The admin and support functions, uh, ESF leadership could you clarify something? So, when you say 2010, is it that the point that the consolidation was quote done and that was the current that was the sort of the planned staffing at that point or Yes. Okay. So the staffing like like the day before the merger of what the admin and support

26:44 positions were in place. Okay. Okay, thank you. Yep. And that reconstruction took a pretty significant amount of time to generate. We believe we have it pretty accurately. Um the admittance admittance support functions the and and I apologize for not being able to be present and see the questions. So please do just jump in if you do have one like you are. ESF leadership the fire chief is the department head in both cities. The leadership and administrative team are tasked with all the typical city level department functions. And the team works with two different city support services and administrations. Inside of each city each city provides the typical support services

27:29 independently such as finance HR IT fleet and facility maintenance. And even for the cities working with the ESF is unique for most of the city support services. The efforts to improve the workflow clearly both cities have endeavored to work to improve the flow for all these administrative functions. But generally we're finding that complications in all of the support areas persist due to the distinct governance and administrative structures at the city level. And there's considerable process differences unique for each city depending on the employee apparatus facility or a specific issue requiring a support function engagement. The advantages today that we identified

28:15 is the advantages of this merger bring effective and efficient operational deployment as a single agency. You've got an emergency response and search capacity is much greater since the functional merger. The ability to have the 16 stations move throughout the two cities is generating a a greater availability of resources and deployment than would be accomplished by individual cities. You also are gaining a common protocols, promotional practices, employees so that when two resources show up on the scene, they are from the same fire department as opposed to two mutual aid resources showing up on the

29:00 scene working together as best they can. There's a broader scope and resource availability that provides greater service than could be accomplished by either city on their own. Uh and the reduced duplication of administrative positions uh provides some significant economies of scale and savings in admin and support staffing each year, reducing the cost of 2.5 million from 2010 compared to 2023. The uh challenge is there's a large number of small issues that ESF faces every day, and there's a few that are a little bit larger. They tend to work through them all due to the value of working as one operational fire department. These issues altogether are causing some

29:46 frustration. What what we're attempting to share with you is we just pulled eight of of the ones that we've identified in the full report to just talk about today. Uh governance and administration, managing the accountability to two different city managers and council uh and participating in the leadership teams across both cities re- requires some balance and coordination to meet the to two systems and it in in addition to administering the department. The fire chief has a good full picture of ESF. However, neither city really understands what the priorities are for the other city. Um there's a feeling that we heard that

30:31 the fire department is outsourced, and some of you in Springfield shared that you have a feeling that your fire department is outsourced to Eugene. And it's basically Eugene fire, and you don't feel like you have adequate representation. Not all of you expressed that, a few expressed that enough for me to capture that particular challenge. I'm the one that expressed I'm the one that expressed that. I don't know about others, but that's one of my concerns. Yeah. And and it's important for us to capture all of these so that as we look towards solutions, we can address these challenges. Um a budget process. Uh the they have to develop two separate budgets budgets with different processes

31:17 under two city governments. Each division in ESF follows the guidance for each city and creates two budgets for their division. ESF staff can have a hard time prioritizing their work when each city has a unique set of priorities. And then the fire chief presents the budget twice to separate governing bodies. Human relations working through different HR policies and practices between the two cities. Uh trying to manage this evolving environment and workforce can be challenging. As an example, if there's a discipline involving an employee, ESF needs to follow the procedure and outline for the city that employs them. In Springfield, that could include a delay to allow for pre-loss legal to engage

32:02 where Eugene, that's processed in-house. If this if this issue involves with two people or more, could often does because it might be a supervisor and an employee, it can cause the inclusion of of HR staff and possible legal from both cities to work through the issue together. Which is cumbersome for both cities. Health benefits. The two cities offer different health plans. Eugene provides a low deductible plan while Springfield offers a high deductible plan with access to free city clinics for for employees. Though some of the equivalent these plans are not equal. Uh both of these plans offer opportunities for employees depending on where they're at in life,

32:47 but they don't get to chose to choose, which creates noise and conflict in the station between employees and even their families if they don't get to choose the plan that most applies for them. Payroll tax issue, Eugene and Springfield firefighters assigned to Eugene fire stations are subject to the city's payroll tax, whereas personnel assigned to Springfield stations are not. The firefighters understand the purpose of the tax. They get it and and the administration uh supports what this tax is purpose for. They're not worried about that. The issue they're struggling with is that if you're a firefighter assigned to Springfield for the day uh and you don't pay payroll tax. However, if you come into Eugene for a

33:34 4-hour training session, then they're assessed that a tax for those 4 hours. Hey Dan, could we maybe just recommend that Eugene withdraw their payroll tax? You know, you can always recommend anything you want, right? Um the um the uh firefighter that might be assigned to Springfield for most of their career, but then retires from Eugene fire station, their retirement payouts are then subject to that payroll tax. The network configuration, the different network configurations across Eugene and Springfield create some challenges for ESF accessing resources of the city they're not employed by. There's workarounds. There's a way to make that happen, but there's different

34:20 logins to the computer and MDC. They're not able to log into the opposite city's system. Hey hang on, Dan. I got a question from Victoria. No, I was just going to say I've talked to several firefighters who said they've had they've been going out on a call and then not been able to log into the system because of this that you're speaking of. So, it sounds like a pretty significant problem to me. Well, it's not that they can't log in. It It's that they have to go through a workaround to do it. And the challenge comes if you work in Springfield for 5 years and then you work a day in Eugene, you're you may not remember that workaround and you may not be able to to make access to that MDC. Does that make sense? Yeah, but if you have to do a workaround, that means you're not able to log in. So, that makes sense.

35:05 Okay. All right, Beth, go ahead. It's not clear. So, that like the charting systems are different or the What's Just to get into the computer is different in each city? Couple different systems. Uh speak to it. Yeah, so the station systems, the the charting system is a little more unique in it being one login because it's a third-party vendor. Um the challenge that that you hear from crews is um if you just show up at the station, you haven't had an opportunity to shift change, people move around, and that force logs the person before you out, you can't get into your mobile data terminal, um which is where you know, some of your more critical dispatch information comes from. Uh like Dan was

35:50 saying, there's a workaround, um but if you're not doing it all the time, um it can be cumbersome to get it corrected, um and that's really it's about network access. Um with employees don't carry a network access to both cities' network. Um the IT teams have done a really good job figuring out ways to get us in, uh but it's it's not one system, um and so those issues persist and sometimes they catch folks off guard. The uh resource inequities, there's some disparities in resources available to to employees in each city. If you're a Eugene Springfield, you have access to their ERC and if you're in a Springfield employee, you don't have access to those resources that are available to the

36:35 Eugene employees for instance. Um the um the the next part that we're working on and we're we're a good ways working through this. We're attempting to determine and validate a lot of the smaller pieces that we keep going down rabbit trails to validate. But this next section that we're working on considers all the information received through the stakeholder interviews, analyzes the existing conditions, and then we consider those four options that we were asked to work on. We're finding some good sustainable options in the analysis that that could alleviate many of these challenges um with respect to even to the concerns that were shared with us during the stakeholders interview. Uh more information is going to be

37:21 available as the analysis is finalized and the report is completed. With that then, we'll come into recommendations where we'll give you our recommendations for sustainable fire and EMS service delivery in the cities of Eugene and Springfield along with the financial financial impact and the implementation considerations. Again, these are strictly going to be what you asked us to do and bring you recommendations to consider. Uh they're no more than recommendations for both councils to consider. In closing uh I I really appreciate the effort that that Eugene Springfield and ESF staff have given to this project. They've been fully engaged as we've conducted the

38:06 analysis. We had a we asked for a significant amount of data to make sure that we could analyze this accurately. They've taken it seriously. They've reviewed the data. They've been engaged. I think our our our information that we've captured is very accurate now with their help. The The level and depth of service provided to both cities by ESF is exceptional. It's very good when you're coming together with that operational response. There's been significant work to address challenges, but there are persistent issues for ESF in both cities. And as we progress through this analysis, we're finding some options that will bring you to consider in the future. Um with that I'll I'll close this down. I'll stop sharing my screen screen and

38:53 you can ask any other questions that you might have. Hey, thanks Stan. And I just want to recognize there's been a significant amount of work that's gone in to get us to this point including among the elected officials and a lot of work from fire and all the support services. With that who wants to jump in with their questions first? Steve Uh this document got a lot of stuff in it, but I'll tell you it's pretty hard to understand. Especially for a normal person. I'm a normal person, but I'm a good numbers person like Joe. Uh I think I'm a Springfield City Councilor. I represent Springfield. Whatever happens here, I want to make sure that our people are represented properly and equally in all this. And of course

39:38 Eugene's bigger and weight goes that way, but our people the Springfield people I need to make sure I do the best I can for them. Uh one thing that's always concerned me in all of that is what's it going to cost us? When we get done here what's it going to cost Springfield? More or less? Cuz right now we pay for it through our property tax and our fire our fire measure. And you say Eugene pays for it through their employment tax. Do that Is that also in include property taxes with that or is that just the employment tax base for fire? I don't know that. Yeah, the there's a large gap that's any of the gap that's not generated by by Eugene Fire for revenue is all paid for in combination between property tax and

40:25 payroll tax. Okay, so so Eugene also pays property tax. Absolutely. Okay. Cuz you say employment tax, it doesn't make that clear. Uh so I want I just want to make sure we get done here when when Springfield gets assessed the cost of this thing how are we going to do it? What's going to do to our tax base? What are we going to do to our taxes that we pay? And uh and and the people are going to they'll hold us accountable. You know, that's that's the one thing I have. Uh during during the initial part of this uh talking about merger and everything we were pretty much told over here that it's going to be sort of a equal equal type not equal but proportional type thing going on. And the one thing I

41:10 noticed was was the offices over here full of uh apparently they were they were the uh medical services uh people it disappeared. 12 people went away. Those are people that work in Springfield that shop downtown, did businesses downtown, and they're gone. That's a big deal. Uh so my feeling is we're pulling a lot of stuff out of Springfield over Eugene. Uh so Springfield taxpayers don't get the benefit of those people spending money over here. And that's important to me. And I I don't know how how to do that or not, but anyway, that's that's a concern I have. So

41:55 I've got lots more we'll talk about those later, but I am the one person that raised raised that I think there's disproportionate thing going on here, but that's I got it out in the open so we can talk about that. But we have the best joint fire department in the world. I assure you. We have the best chief in the world, I assure you that. I believe all of that. I want our services to stay the same, but I want the people to be able to to uh feel as they're being treated equally, also. Thank you. All right. Joe, go ahead. So, I'm going to go back a little bit on the you're talking about some of the challenges and on your uh page 12 slide 21, where it says the

42:40 payroll tax, going back to the payroll tax. I just wanted to ask is the folks that are the ones that are upset are are Eugene or Springfield firefighters going over to Eugene and getting dinged for the tax, correct? It It's not a concern if they're working that day, they understand that. The concern is the fact that if they go over just for part of the day, they're assessed that tax. If they're in Springfield, whether they're Eugene or a Springfield firefighter, if they go over for part of the day, it they're assessed that tax. So, are they thinking that it's not something that they are responsible for while they're working and getting paid there? No, they they consider it

43:25 valuable and they they see the value of the payroll tax. It's just noise that creates conflict in the stations. So, I'm I'm just I can see how it could be like an administrative nightmare more so than it would be noise in the fire station. Seems like that would be a hassle for the uh unless it's I guess it's all software controlled. The No, I'm just trying to figure out I mean it sounds like I mean I just don't see our I mean I'm I'm having a hard time envisioning our firefighter guys, gals getting upset over a 2% 1 and 1/2% It's It's less than that. Yeah. But, it's the So, the issue that creates the noise is one of two things like Dan mentioned. It's the idea that, you know, you're working over in Springfield and,

44:12 you know, you're told to go over to Eugene for, you know, 1 to 4 hours and somebody, and this is part of the challenge, somebody from our timekeeping staff, which is pretty limited, um has to go and verify when did those crews come over, were they here for longer? Um because it's been pretty clear that not reporting that is, you know, a violation. And um then the other one is if I've worked for Springfield for my entire career and I'm assigned at Eugene and management holds the right of assignment and I retire, my retirement payouts are all taxed by Eugene um even though, you know, technically I work for the city of Springfield. So, it's a nuance. It's, you know, normal in in employee noise that that comes along with that. Um

44:59 but moving back and forth, the original angst that existed um between Springfield versus Eugene firefighters cuz Eugene employees that are over here don't get taxed. Um all of that has kind of settled down. People kind of understand the rhythm, how it works, you know, one organization and um but those Dan brought up those things that were brought up by staff to him in in those stakeholder interviews. And that that's interesting you bring that up because I'm I'm not a big fan of that tax over there. So, I've made no bones about that. But it's interesting that when you have, I believe it's in police, maybe Mary B or Nancy or somebody can correct me, but if an employee, if a person is

45:44 uh working in Springfield, but their office is in Eugene, they're getting taxed. Is that correct? In other words, their their home office, let's say you got a landscape company, their their their main office is out Barger and you have people that are working in Eugene in Springfield for that company but working in Springfield as their their general works. Then then they're getting payroll taxed as well. Is that right? I would probably defer to Susan. I'm I honestly I haven't really immersed myself in the complexities of how this tax is administered, but it sounds like that would be a correct assessment. it is. I think it is.

46:29 The larger issue that I would encourage employees to remember is that yes, this is a a tax that they pay that they pay, but it benefits their department. So No, and I get it. I I get the whole picture, but what I'm what I'm trying to to cipher out here is that because of the way it's for example, it's applied is almost opposite of what's occurring. So if you got a Springfield firefighter going over to Eugene to work for a split shift or or whatever and they work for Springfield, but they're working in Eugene for a couple of hours, then why are they getting taxed when when if they work out of Eugene

47:14 their office or their home office is Eugene firefighter, they come into Springfield and work and they're not getting taxed. So it see what I'm saying? There's some hypocrisy there that I think begs to be to be ciphered out and settled at some point both to the advantage of the disadvantage being a Springfield firefighter going over there and getting taxed, but yet also a inordinate advantage of a Eugene firefighter coming into Eugene or into Springfield and not getting taxed when there's workers that work out of a Eugene company coming into Springfield and working and getting taxed. Does that Yeah, and there's some nuance to that which obviously a whole different discussion about the duration or the

47:59 type and so each one of our individual fire station locations is considered a location of employment not a reporting location like a plumber or some other work in another city. To your point though, you know, if ESF was some form of an independent entity headquartered in Eugene, everybody would be taxed. That I mean that's the the nature of that and so So it seems along that same argument seems like if we have a Springfield firefighter which is assigned to station 14 and he goes into Eugene, she goes into Eugene for a few hours and getting taxed but you just said their office for all intents and purposes as station 14 and they should not be taxed. That's I'm just being devil's advocate for those folks and it seems like it's being people are

48:44 trying to grab money where they can which is something I've always been against as far as government is concerned. Yeah, and that the biggest issue I mean there's noise in the stations but we think about the administrative burden, um, the fact that every time somebody's reassigned a station payroll people have to print something out, bring it to my office for an executive signature. Everybody that that touches that just because somebody was reassigned for a period of time um, is a is a huge challenge but that is what both teams determined was the best uh, way to comply with that. Right and and it's uh, properly identified I think as a key challenges to why they're staying together. To me. The merger. Yeah, people are getting taxed because you're in Eugene versus

49:29 Springfield etc. So that's it's kind of a I know Dan was mentioning or hitting that but that's kind of the what I'm getting from that is it is actually a challenge or a issue with that merger. Because of that payroll tax. Sure. Yeah. Got it. Thanks. Okay. Michelle. So I just want to tack onto that for a second. Based on some reading I'm doing right now as I'm studying to open my own business. It seems to me that this is probably a municipality issue. So, I I hope we're talking to the folks at this city level in Eugene to to understand how they're how and why they're implementing the payroll tax in that way. There was there was a tremendous amount

50:15 of work back in 2019 up to include some action from the firefighters union on how that was sorted out. Um but I know both cities worked a lot on this issue and how it was implemented. Um what was legal and and how to accommodate that. Okay. I would just say that among a lot of other issues that have redundancies or different processes in two different places. I mean, that's something I I think we have to find a way to solve whatever we land on at the end of this. Corrine. Thank you. Um and I just I've had I've been a part of this process now for along with Councillor Mayo. So, I've had a lot more

51:01 time to dig into all of the things and um really appreciate the work that AP Triton is bringing to this cuz we did we we were we were going gangbusters and we hit some blockages and this has really helped us to kind of tease out some of those. And some of what I know we were kind of stumbling on early on that were questions that we were all coming to as part of the governance review panel was just trying to understand what efficiencies we had experienced early on that we were no longer experiencing. And one of the things that that um Dan didn't really point out is when you're you're looking at this FTE, I think it's also important to say because I find this to be a bit shocking that

51:46 we've pretty much stayed flat in terms of our firefighters in these last several years. So, as we're growing and as Eugene is growing and as we're talking about, you know, building infill and developing in Glenwood and all of these things that we're doing, I find that we not only do we need to look at like, how did we get to here, but how do we build the fire and life safety services that we are going to need in the next 10, 20, whatever years. So, I think that's part of the next conversation that's coming. It's very natural for us to say like, oh gosh, you know, let's look at the numbers, let's figure out where we were in 2010. What does it look like now as opposed to, where do we need to get to? And I've said this in the governance

52:31 meeting, so I'll just say it in this as a public meeting. I think it's it's really important to me, the lens that I'm bringing is how are are the are the residents experiencing the services? And how are our employees experiencing in their employment? And having I hear what Counselor Morse has about being concerned about are we getting are we getting good services for this merger that we have, this functional merger as I like to call it. And I believe that we are probably getting better services from the merger than we would get if we were standing up our own fire department in this climate that we have. And somewhat of what Counselor

53:16 Weber was saying, we really do have to address the inequities that are being experienced by our fire and life safety and EMT folks because, you know, they they're showing up every day for our residents. And I think the least we can do is make sure that they are in a solid employed situation where they're experiencing experiencing equities in their employment. Thank you. Victoria. Thank you and thanks for all the work on this. I um I'd like to somewhat piggyback with what um Counselor Roddy has said because one of the statistics that I found somewhat staggering, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it's a number that we're not talking about is the 47% attrition rate that we have over

54:03 the last 10 years within our department as opposed to like 7% you know, around the rest of the state. That means that we are bringing people in, we are training them, spending all that money on them, and then they are turning around and leaving and going to another department. Why is that? That's a question we should be asking, and I think it's because if I did that and I didn't know what my future held, and I had to deal with all of this, I would say, "Why am I doing this?" And so, the cost that we're not counting in this is those millions of dollars that we're spending putting these awesome people through these programs and then losing them. And so, to me, not just the future of growth, but the retention of these good

54:48 people that we're losing because of this confusion, and I'm frustrated that it's taken 14 years because these problems didn't happen overnight. They didn't happen since 2019. This has been going on since the beginning, and the fact that I appreciate that we're finally looking at it and looking for solutions, but I don't think it should keep it should take another 2 years or 3 years to get this solved. Whatever we decide, we need to decide it. These guys and gals need an answer, and they need to know that they have a future they can count on. And that's what I want to help do with our decision, and however it goes. So. All right, anybody else? Beth.

55:33 I just I was going to say I agree with that, and I think when you have men and women standing next to each other and doing the same job, yet their health care packages are different and their their benefits are different and maybe their pay scale is different, it's going to feel different. There are going to be grumblings in the department. There's going to be mixed feelings and and it's not going to feel real good. So, I agree with that. Okay, so I've got a couple of things here. I think it's fair from a financial perspective to look at the attrition rates and with them. Um you know, and I don't like I know it's going to be a little bit nuanced, right? And you're going to have to, you know, double knot your right shoe and look through, you know, and squint a little bit, but

56:18 um if if attrition significantly went up, right? And it the hard costs associated with training and recruiting new people is a is a valuable, I guess, metric to understand the financial impact. The next question that I had, I'm still not sure what the report's trying to solve. And I think when I and I think about this in a couple of different frameworks, right? One of them is, you know, it could be construed as relatively narrow about, "Hey, we should just choose a governance model and this is how we do it." And then the next report is kind of the road map and the strategic plan. But sometimes when you hear um us all talk, it's we're putting all our hopes that this report's going to solve everything and create a strategic road map for the next, I don't know, 15 years of the fire service. So, can somebody help me really understand,

57:04 like, should I think about the report as just narrow about what should you do about the governance structure, or should I think about the report as really the beginning of the strategic vision for the fire service? I I think what what we've been tell what we're presenting to you today is the narrow view of current conditions cuz we can't really bring you options to think about for sustainable fire and EMS service without truly understanding today. So, we put a pause in here to give you the story of today. What we're trying to present to you next is going to be recommendations and implementation strat implementation strategies to how to solve the majority of the challenges and how to provide a sustainable fire and EMS service delivery model and then

57:51 implementation methods and ways to make that happen. And we're looking at the four areas, but really the five that you asked us to look at and fit those in with specific financial indications and what they address, what they don't address to give you options to think about. I mean, that's really I don't know if that hits your target for you, Mayor, but that that's really what what what we are attempting to bring to you. Go, Chief. So, just tag on to Dan's statements in the you know, we think about the strategic vision for ESF and and what our needs are. Um, this has been a lingering question. Obviously, uh I wasn't in the seat when we started down this process, but those

58:36 of you know, I you know, I've played a role in it over the years. Um we need to understand kind of how we're going to be structured when we start to vision those next strategic investments. Staff have touched on it. One of the biggest challenges that we hear from our staff and particularly those that that leave is um we have one of the busiest, hardest working uh workforces in the state, um the largest public ambulance transport provider. And what they don't necessarily see is that helps on the way to relieve the burden of the call volume. Um we're making incremental adjustments where we can, um but when we think about where do the next stations go? Um we're all we're really talking about border territories. You know, do we move one Eugene station and one Springfield station to accommodate not needing to add a whole another station

59:21 in one location? Um what are the impacts if if we move two over here? Um understanding how we're going to do that and finance that is important. Um, you know, and I and I think Dan touched on it and and everybody knows, it's not the end of the world. Um, you know, if for some reason something didn't change, um, it would make it a little more difficult to deal with, but we would know, right? That's kind of a the roadblock moving forward with this narrow view and our elected officials in both cities speak, here's a path, develop a plan for that. With that, those subsequent that lead, um, both investment, growth planning, all of that come into play if the Councilor Most point, how are we going to finance it? Um, you know, that that business model

1:00:08 will will help in a lot of those places. Um, it doesn't mean I touched on it the ESF update, governance aside, we're working on kind of rebuilding and refreshing those strategic plans, our standards of cover, how are we doing our work and where are gaps so that our councils can be informed regardless of this process. Um, what we need to be on the look look out for. So, I just heard you say sort of both, right? Like you kind of need us to answer the question about what your governance model looks like and then we can dive into the question about, I don't know, what the next 5 years looks like, right? Yeah, incredibly helpful in in doing this work, um, to understand what that looks like. Okay. And I think and I think, um, when I read the slides, what I really see, right, like is a lot

1:00:55 of, um, double work or, you know, overlapping work and I guess when I think about the ultimate governance model, is there a goal, is there a vision, right, like to to reduce the administrative costs associated with the department as an outcome of this? So, I I think we're in a place with the the cumbersome the type of work, the things that we need to do, um, that as we look at those costs or the potential for reduced cost um we need to think of it in the space of cost avoidance. Um and you'll see that in the title the administrative staffing and governance analysis. One of the things we asked AP Triton to do is kind of give us that independent analysis of the type of work we're being asked to do. Do we have uh

1:01:42 the right number of positions or right people. Um my experience in the position uh would suggest that to keep it the way it was we would need to make investments in some key positions uh to accommodate for the redundancy of work. Um if we were going to do you know some form of um you know as close to one entity as possible in the way we do our work. Um you know that comes with cost avoidance not necessarily cost savings. Well um I'm using it probably loosely. Cost avoidance is is an acceptable answer to me as long as we really have a definition I think about what the what the replacement work actually looks like and that you know there's a sort of value associated to it. So if you know you guys came back and said you know hey that extra FTEs is really going to be

1:02:27 used to finance to to work on our call volume right? To me that you know there there's a conversation there. Yeah. Yeah the operational side of it I mean that's a that's a kind of an easy nut to crack. In that first option that that Dan talked about here is like what would it take to make this work the way it is. Um that's where some of those answers would come that you would then apply uh that cost avoid metric as you we could do that or one of these other options. I still keep coming down to and then I got two other light questions and then I can ramp up here is I'm still unclear about what the requirements of the report are. And maybe this is something we can you know take into and dive into it from you know from a broader perspective right? Because if the requirements aren't that we've got to do I don't know the same thing for roughly the same amount of

1:03:13 money right? Like we can do a lot if we spend 20 25 million dollars more a year, right? And so I'm still unclear about how all of that those pieces kind of work, but I haven't sat on the governance committee, so that information could be out there. Um the other, I guess, two statements that I just want to make is I have a very clear opinion about what um what the out you know, what a governance model should have should potentially look like and I've talked about it a couple of times, but I just want to take a point to underline that this isn't going to work without the elected officials on both sides, you know, being continuing to be engaged about fire policy because you're our fire department. And right, the city managers being able to, you know, being fully engaged with the ability to actually do

1:04:00 their job. And I'm going to say that every time we talk because I think that that is a requirement for me is that we can't somehow cut the elected officials out of the conversation or cut the city managers out of the conversation, right? We need to invest in the system working the way it's supposed to, which is where the policy makers, right? The and the city managers deal with the administration portion of it. And you don't need to respond to that. You've heard me say it about a million times. The other thing that I keep hearing about and and there's a lot of peripheral sort of HR type issues and IT issues and I know you guys are going to work through a lot of them. But the start of the conversation I thought was really interesting. I wrote down a comment somebody made was their their Eugene employees or Springfield employees, not Eugene-Springfield fire

1:04:45 employees. And like as we're sort of working from a from a uh position to try to get people clarity about where we're going. They're employees of the city of Eugene or the city of Springfield, right? The fire is not a separate entity. You're part of us, too. I just want to say that to reiterate the importance of that is that I think we all feel ownership and responsibility and frankly, grateful for the employees you have work for you every single day, but I just want to make sure that we're all walking away saying their employees of the city of Eugene or Springfield, right? They're part of the whole thing here. Does anybody have anything else? All right. Did I miss anything, Chief? Do you you have enough direction? Yeah, appreciate the dialogue. I just

1:05:31 want to acknowledge the work of the council informing Dan and his team back in October. You know, Neil and in particular along side assistant city manager and Eugene. They've been kind of the spearheads of this through a couple different chiefs now and their work to to bring this forward has been incredibly helpful. So, I appreciate that. All right. Well, thank you guys for the presentation. We appreciate the update and we're looking forward to the next one in the probably the next couple of months. The target right now is in May with a goal of having a joint work session between the two councils. Oh, wow. It'll be a goal. That'll be a challenging scheduling

1:06:16 event. All right. Thanks AP Triton for joining us. We are adjourned. We are going to reconvene at 7:00 for the public meeting. Thank you. I'll call the regular meeting of the Springfield City Council to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon. Here. Councilor Weber. Here. Councilor Moe. Councilor Rodley. Here. Councilor Blackwell. Here. Councilor Doyle. Here. And Councilor Pishioneri. Here. Thank you. Please join me for the pledge of allegiance.

1:07:08 As we begin our meeting tonight, there are two designated times for public testimony this evening under public hearings and business from the audience. If you're attending in person, please complete the request to speak card located at the entrance of the council chambers and give them to the city recorder. If you're joining us online with a tablet, smartphone, computer and wish to speak at either of those times, please raise the use the raise hand feature in Zoom. The order of public testimony is as follows. Anyone any person in the council chambers and then anyone who has raised raised their virtual hands. First item, please. Mayor, the first item is the consent calendar. I move to approve the consent calendar. Second. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Council Weber. Yes. Councilor Mowe. Yes. Councilor Rodley.

1:07:53 Yes. Councilor Blackwell. Yes. Councilor Doyle. Aye. And Councilor Pesce Neri. Yes. Thank you. Motion passes, six yeses, zero nos. Next item, please. The next item is public hearings. You have one public hearing this evening. This is the housing diversity tax exemption. This is ordinance number one, an ordinance adopting Springfield municipal code sections 3.550 through 3.558 to enact a property tax exemption for multiple unit housing. Excuse me. To increase housing diversity terminating the vertical housing development zone approved October 12th, 2004 adopting a severability clause and providing an effective date. Um, this is the first reading and Katie Carroll is here for this item.

1:08:40 All right. Um, good evening, Mayor and Council. My name's Katie Carroll, housing analyst for the city. Um, as Neil mentioned, this item is a first reading of an ordinance to adopt the housing diversity tax exemption or HDTE, as well as a public hearing for that program. Um, this is tax exemption is intended to incentivize development of multiple unit housing in transit served and core areas of Springfield as specified by council. So, the council has identified parts of downtown, Glenwood, East Main Street, Mohawk, and Q Street as program areas. Um the tax exemption is application-based, and qualifying projects would receive a partial tax exemption for their first 10 years of operation. The exemption would be for new residential improvements. Uh so, land,

1:09:26 existing improvements, and new non-residential improvements, including parking, would not be included in the exemption. And by lowering operating costs, the hope is that more of these multiple unit housing projects will pencil and be built than would without this incentive. Again, it's an application-based program. Some of the requirements are that projects would need to include at least five new units, um that they have to include public benefits as outlined in the program guidelines or approved by the council, that they are within one of those program areas that I mentioned. If a project is receiving system development charge or SDC payment assistance from CEDA, so that would be applicable to projects in downtown and Glenwood, um

1:10:12 then those projects that project would need to be four or more stories upon completion to be able to qualify for this incentive in addition to CEDA's help. And then finally, um this would not be available for projects where a developer has already applied for a building permit because the intent of the program is to incentivize housing that would unlikely be would be unlikely to be built otherwise. So, council has been working on this for a long time at this point. Um in 2016, staff did an analysis of housing challenges in Springfield and found um a shortage of housing and a high cost of housing relative to incomes. That set council on the path of putting together its first housing strategy and identifying this tax exemption as one of the things it wanted to work on Um to

1:10:59 incentivize housing in Springfield. Springfield has a really tight housing market. As of the 2022 census, the rental vacancy rate in Springfield was just 1.6%. A healthy rental vacancy rate is generally considered to be around 5%. So, not enough housing means that demand is going up and prices are going up and we're seeing that in Springfield. 43% of renters in Springfield are considered to be cost burdened, which means that they pay 30% or more of their income on housing. In addition to just needing more housing, Springfield is also looking at this program to incentivize a greater diversity in housing. So, the majority of housing in Springfield is single-unit

1:11:44 detached and we have seen more multiple-unit housing projects in the last five or so years than in the prior decade, but the share of multiple-unit housing really hasn't grown. So, hopefully this program could incentivize more multiple-unit housing and provide more opportunities for households of different sizes and incomes to find housing that meets their needs. And then finally, because this is intended to make Springfield more development-friendly by incentivizing projects that we wouldn't otherwise see, the hope is that it can also increase the city's tax base over the long term as valuable improvements that receive this tax exemption come onto the rolls after their exemption period.

1:12:29 Per state statute, the city needs to hold a public hearing before it could move forward with adopting this program to determine whether multiple-unit housing that meets the qualifications of the program guidelines would not otherwise be built in the program areas without the benefit of this exemption. So, if council finds that there is a need for this program to stimulate construction of multiple unit housing um as shown in the whereas statements in your draft ordinance which I think is attachment two in the packet then at a future meeting the council would um pass the ordinance. So the draft code and guidelines in your packet do have a couple of changes from when you last saw them in your October meeting. Those are summarized starting

1:13:15 on page three of your memo um and the changes that were made were done to reflect council direction in October and February meetings and then also to clarify uh program requirements and clean up some typos. Um you'll see in the draft ordinance um as mentioned in the title that this also repeals the vertical housing development zone which is a different tax exemption that's been available in part of downtown. Um this was something that was originally administered by the state and then handed over to Springfield in 2017. In 2020 council directed staff to repeal the vertical housing development zone and replace it with the HDT downtown so

1:14:00 that is um what the draft ordinance does. So next is obviously the public hearing tonight um and then if council moves forward staff will return in your April 1st meeting for another reading. Um we'll also have a resolution for your consideration which would adopt the program guidelines for this program. Um and then if council moves forward with adopting this program the next step would be to reach out to other taxing districts formally to request their support for the HDTE program because as you'll recall this will only apply to the city share of taxes unless at least 51% of the levy signs on. So the ordinance in your packet also directs the city manager to make that formal request if council moves forward

1:14:46 with adoption Um and there is a draft letter to other taxing districts if you're interested in looking that in the packet as well. Um and then finally, we would return to you for um approval of an application fee in a future meeting. And that's what I have. All right, any questions before we take public testimony, Jill? Just a quick question. Can you tell or just briefly uh explain your criteria in regards to the borders of the How we drew the areas? you would, please, you know, maybe delineate areas that are are we just can't. Yeah. So, um council originally looked at just kind of general by description areas that might be considered for this

1:15:32 and then once they honed in on um the areas, staff originally drew the mapped boundaries, I believe, based on zoning. Um but then, you know, working on this program we put on pause for a couple of years, so when we picked it back up again, we looked at that methodology and decided it actually made more sense to draw the boundaries based on plan designation since that's what Springfield wants to see in these areas in the future. Um so, long-winded answer is we looked at the areas that had been drawn based on zoning, based on council's direction. We then drew them based on plan designation and made sure that all of the properties in there um were within a quarter mile of transit

1:16:17 and were within a plan designation that allows multiple unit housing to be built. So, that's kind of why you see the squiggly borders. So, um we didn't go outside that quarter mile transit buffer or extend to plan designations uh where we wouldn't allow multiple unit housing. So, the real super short answer is we put it where we could and where we can put multi-unit housing and yes this all And meet the requirements of the state to be within a quarter mile of transit. Great and I think unless someone else I'll let someone else go ahead. Bethany. Hi Katie, thank you. I'm excited about this program but I have a question. Will you remind me why we decided to exclude the parking from the tax exemption?

1:17:02 Yeah, so this was something that staff brought in your October meeting as a question for council of whether or not you wanted to include parking and I believe the answer at that time was given that the state has recently said we can't require parking and we kind of don't know how the market is going to treat that that council was interested in just kind of seeing how the market played out and not including it in the exemption at this time. One of the changes that we made between when we talked about this in October and now was to put that parking isn't part of the exemption into the guidelines and not in the code so that it would be easier for council to make a change in the future if it would like because the guidelines would just be adopted by

1:17:47 resolution so it wouldn't require another you know first reading second reading public hearing. So just to clarify to so the the parking portion of the structure would not be tax exempt if there was parking built correct of that Yeah, correct. How it reads now? Is that my understanding? Yes, that's how it reads. And I know maybe we can save some of this till we get the public testimony. I'm about 97 and a half percent sure that this is going to come up in the in the public hearing and then we can get into some of these questions. Victoria. Just really quickly one of my biggest concerns with a program like this, I think it's great, is the difference between it being subjective and it being clear and objective. So I want to make sure that this is set up in a way that

1:18:32 when if someone meets the criteria period they they can qualify for this exemption that it's not something it is subjective to whoever is reviewing the the plans or whatever. And it seems like it's pretty clear and objective, but I just want to be really really clear on that. Yeah, so when we talk about the public benefit piece of it, which is where I think the most opportunity for subjective stuff would come in. Um, we set it up so there's this option one, option two, option three. And the option one is what you would think of in planning planning is like a clear and objective review of do you meet these minimum criteria? So, someone could use that option one to meet their public benefit requirement. That would be a clear and objective review. The option two is instead of including a public

1:19:19 benefit in the project, they would pay a fee in lieu. That would be clear and objective to review. And then if someone wanted to come in and propose something else that didn't meet those criteria, those would come to council for review, recognizing, you know, that we would run into subjective review there. Um, but there are criteria in the guidelines that would help council make that kind of decision. Okay, and then if for some reason um, a project is terminated and it doesn't really say in here, I'd have to look up the ORS, but there is a method for a person to um, to dispute that and to go through a process or is it I mean, I'm trying to know what the process is if I believe there's a process, but I might

1:20:05 punt that to city attorney's office. Did they have the right to Did they have a way to appeal if they're for some reason it was it was not approved or was terminated for some reason? Do you mean Do you Do you mean if they weren't, um, allowed to if the city made the determination they weren't allowed to participate in the program? Yeah, like under the termination clause in here it talks about um, the city if the city finds that that that something's not being met or the conditions of approval are not being complied with, then they have to give notice to the property owner and it and the property owner it says can has to show cause. I'm just trying to find out if there's a an actual appeal process through that or Yeah, I think there is. I don't know if I would call it

1:20:50 like an like an appeal process to a court, but yeah, there would be an opportunity for them to show that they did comply with the program if that's what you're if that's what you're asking. To the council or It would be back to the council. Okay. All right. Yeah. All right. Any other questions? All right. I think we're ready for the public hearing. All right. I have two cards. I'm going to open the public hearing. I have two cards for this item. The first person is Phil Farrington. Good evening, Mayor and councilors. Phil Farrington, I work for CDC Management

1:21:36 Corp. You've I've spoken to you before and I'm going to harp on this one last time for you. First off, I'd just like to say thank you so much to the councilors, to the staff, Katie Carroll, and all the staff with the city who've worked so hard on this project. I think it's really needed. I think it's going to hopefully provide lots and lots more new housing in this community that wouldn't have otherwise been constructed. I think you've also threaded the the needle at what I would call the developers' paradox. It's like you're asking for flexibility and certainty at the same time and I think you've been able to craft a program that really provides those two things at the same time. So, well done. I do think that and my recommendation to you would be that you did include the

1:22:22 entirety of improvement values for any given project, especially for mixed-use projects. Those are exceedingly difficult to develop. Um when you do have a project that um that is required to have some sort of non-residential uh use as the city requires in all mixed-use commercial zones, um we don't know exactly what those uses may be um you know, maybe at the start of a project or when it's first being conceived. Um as you know, it the market for office and for brick-and-mortar retail is not robust and hasn't been for a few years. That's a difficult proposition to fulfill in terms of uh the zoning requirement and being able to meet that. What we're trying to do on the

1:23:07 development side is really have something that can be underwritten. Um and to start exempting either certain types of uses that may represent a significant portion of a floor of a building and or other improvement costs that we otherwise provide not as a maybe a code requirement like parking, but improvements that cost a great deal of money in order for the project to be successful and to advance lease up in in its um ultimate benefit for the community. Um so, that's why I would suggest that you keep it simple. I can tell you from personal experience, half a mustache is not a good look. And so, I think that you would just do well by saying the improvement value of a new project, especially on a mixed-use uh development project, should either all or not be

1:23:54 subject and eligible to the HDTE. Thank you again for the work that you guys have done here and for your service to the community. Appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thanks for listening, Paige. Good evening, Mayor Van Gordon, uh Council President Pechenart, and city councilors. My name is Paige Walters. I am the director of advocacy and economic development at the Springfield Chamber. We represent over 780 local business organizations. I'm here tonight in support of the housing diversity tax exemption program. This is a critical tool for addressing

1:24:40 Springfield's pressing housing scarcity, an issue that not only burdens our residents, but also impacts our local businesses of all sizes. Housing diversity plays a critical role in nurturing a robust economy vital for both attracting and retaining a skilled workforce, which remains a top business challenge for our local business community. The proposed program is a promising step forward in catalyzing new housing starts while ensuring flexibility for projects that offer significant community and economic benefits. I want to emphasize that without the support of the HDTE program, these are housing projects that may otherwise not pencil out for developers for years to come. We appreciate the intention to minimize bureaucratic hurdles by providing clear and objective standards for project

1:25:26 approval, thereby enhancing the efficiency and certainty in the development process. By incorporating this feedback from stakeholders into the program, the city's demonstrated its commitment to collaborative and effective policy making. We're especially encouraged by the program's potential to stimulate mixed-use development in Springfield. By incentivizing projects that integrate commercial and residential spaces, including market rate, we'll create more dynamic and accessible neighborhoods. The tax exemption program's a significant opportunity to catalyze development, and we at the chamber have been monitoring the discussion of the program from stakeholders, from city staff, and from council for some time. Your staff presented back in November at a round table discussion to our business members this program to overwhelmingly

1:26:11 positive feedback. Uh across the board, when asked, developers have good things to say about the program and the process you've undertaken to set it up as it is. But as you monitor and evaluate the program moving forward, there are two areas of consideration that we believe would bring increased flexibility. The first, um, as Phil mentioned, is a reconsideration of the exclusion of parking, especially for mixed-use zone projects. Adequate parking infrastructure is essential for supporting commercial activities and ensuring the success of mixed-use developments. And second, we recommend extending the application timeline beyond the permitting phase and allowing developers more time to assess eligible community benefit options. Uh, an email with our full testimony was sent to you, um, earlier today. Um, but

1:26:56 on behalf of the chamber, I just want to express our gratitude to city staff and to council for crafting a program that aligns with the community's goals and removes barriers to a diverse housing market. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. I don't have any other cards. Neil, do we have anybody online with a raised hand? I don't see any raised hands. Okay, hold on. We just have one. Um, Bob Miller is your next speaker, and Bob, you should be able to unmute your microphone on your end. Bob, are you there? Can you hear me? We can hear you. You You have 3 minutes. State your name and location for the record. Uh, good evening. My name is Bob Miller. Uh, I am a, uh, partner in Masaka

1:27:41 Properties. We currently have a, uh, project going in downtown at 5th and Main Street, 13 residential units and two commercial spaces. Uh, my partner and I are very much in favor of the HDTE. Uh, obviously our timing was bad because, uh, I guess we do not qualify. Uh, the other thing that I just heard today from Katie was that, uh, by accepting SDCs, you need to go up four stories. Uh which seems a little arbitrary. Um uh But for future projects, I think all developers are very much in favor of

1:28:26 uh this HDTE and I think it will benefit Springfield greatly. Uh we appreciate all the work that's gone into it and uh we appreciate the city uh staff, mayor, and counselors being behind this this project. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Bob. Neil, do we have any other hands? No other hands for this item. I'm going to close the public hearing and then we'll change it back to uh council discussion. Does anybody have other questions? Beth, did you have more questions? Steve. I don't have questions so much as Springfield needs housing. And I want to see us go for whatever we can. I want us to be assertive in

1:29:12 bringing new people into the into the city, new housing. That's what we need. The tax base will grow by itself as soon as we get them in there. And let's do what we can to get it done. All right. Anybody else? There was a comment on that um last one about the permit time frame about extending that. I have a question about exactly what they were after on that or what what was needed I guess for that. Or what the What the barrier is? Yes. Um so, the requirement in the program is that in order to be able to qualify for this tax exemption, a

1:29:59 project could not the developer could not have already applied for a building permit. Um so, they have applied for a building permit and that's the barrier there. Um the reasoning behind that is the intent of the program to incentivize development that um would be unlikely to be seen otherwise. Okay, thank you. Go, Joe. Just quick uh question. When it comes to modifying, for example, the the borders, if we want to take a look again at the borders, whatnot, and I know you wrote that a little bit different, so it's not as cumbersome, as clunky as changing code type. How how efficient is it or how efficient would it be as written? I mean, he explained as you said it's going to be easier to, but When you say the border, you mean the

1:30:46 program areas or the Program areas, program areas, yeah. Okay. Um what I was referring to easier that's easier is easier to change now is the parking piece of it. The um program areas is kind of the most clunky thing to change. Um my understanding from talking to city attorney's office about this in the past is because it might change the mix of taxing districts involved. Um that is something that we would for sure need to go talk to taxing districts again about, and um it's in the code, so it need to go through uh the ordinance process again to make modifications. Yeah, and I think anything we can do it avoid painting ourself into a corner would be good, but it may you've already got it pretty well drafted, but from this point forward, I'd make sure

1:31:32 that we keep that into consideration. So, I have a follow-up question before we go to over here. Um Could I know we have to go ask the other taxing entities to participate? Could they delegate authority to us to change the border if it's within a certain a certain percentage, so we didn't have to go through the whole rhythm the whole song and dance about it? I guess it's a Mary Bridget question. Yeah, I'm not sure we could do that they could delegate that to the city, and then you'd still have to change the code most likely which is fine. It's just the ordinance process and the public hearing, but I don't know that another entity could delegate that authority to another one. We could look and see. Yeah, like maybe if it's under a certain percentage, right? To give us a chance

1:32:18 to like if we stumble into something that's an obvious error, right? Without having to that's not going to be a significant cost. All right, thank you. look at that. Uh Michelle. In relation to the parking exemption, um I know we had this conversation back um you know, a few months back. But in light of the fact that developers are coming to us and telling us that that's a challenge for them getting their projects off the ground. Is that something maybe we want to consider going the other direction on and saying, you know, instead of exempting it let's maybe put that back in into their toolbox. I feel like it is. I do.

1:33:06 Okay. Um was there this thing's been going on for so long. I'm trying to remember. Was there a specific reason that we had chosen around the parking exemption? Like was there any issue with putting it back in? Um from what I recall from council discussion last time was just around the new state requirement that we cannot require parking. Um I will say in terms of city attorney's office reading of what can be done um in state statute in terms of parking is it seems pretty clear that any existing parking could not be included in the exemption. So it would have to be parking constructed as part of the project. Um and then the other thing

1:33:52 that seemed pretty clear was that um parking that is limit limited to just commercial tenant use could not be included so it need to be available for residents also. Okay, court. Thank you. Um, because now I'm remembering this conversation all adding in all of the things cuz I remember us talking about this and and I think um, there was definitely I'm remembering concerns about because of this the C fact rulings and as much as we were all and I'm probably was the leader of being crabby about the parking pieces of that. Um, is what this look like we were trying to create some workarounds that might, you know, draw attention. Um, and I think if we're going to and I'm

1:34:37 totally open to considering it as we move forward if we want to talk about it some more and I think just having a really clear understanding of all those little pieces that you're talking about like this part of it would still be exempt if it was already existing as parking. And all of those little pieces I would want to sort of understand so that we don't make it messier than than, you know, we need to make it if that makes sense. So, I'll just punt to Mary Bridget to explain process wise bringing it back what that would look like. So, procedurally if the council is interested in looking at um, parking that would most likely be part of the program guidelines but as Council Roddy has talked about, you know, there

1:35:22 might be a lot of details or impacts to other parts of the program that you would want to know about. So, we would recommend that if the council is interested in looking at including parking that we come back for an additional reading with those changes to the guidelines in the program. You have an opportunity to look at that and discuss it. Um, and then it could come back for a second reading for adoption. Um, but that probably be the most clean way procedurally and to kind of get you the best information about it. And then the other thing I would just add on to that is that since we have been having informal conversations with some of the other taxing districts would want to go back to them and share that since that would be a change from what we had previously told them. Joe. Yeah, I just wanted Excuse me. The

1:36:08 as far as pre-existing parking versus parking improvements. And so I'm hedging on the parking improvements part as far as opposed to parking exist pre-existing parking. So I I think because development may want to provide more parking and if that would be an encumbrance upon making a project pencil out because it's new construction if it's an improvement. I would not be interested in doing it if it's pre-existing, but if it's if it's parking improvement then I think it'd be worth addressing sooner rather than later. And it sounds like there's a lot of folks that are in that same camp right now. Victoria. Yeah, and I'm

1:36:54 not a huge fan of C-40 and the rules and I know that there's stuff that we have to do to adhere to it although sometimes I feel like we should say no and I and just take a stand cuz the stuff that they're requiring is so cumbersome and two communities and our growth. So if we're doing this because we're trying to avoid possible issues with C-40, that's a problem for me, but if we're you know, if if we can do this without like creating an issue with them, I just I don't really care about C-40 anymore. I just I'm really tired of them dictating what us on the community level do. And so I would love it if we as a community would take a stand and say this is what we need for our community

1:37:39 regardless of what C-40 says. Sorry. Well, well, to be fair, I mean, we rounded up like 13 other cities and are currently suing the state over it, so I don't know how much more of a stand we could actually take over it. Um I think I'm hearing the the bring back the parking, you know, a change with the parking added back in. Also, I'm I think it would be helpful if you sort of summarized and give us some sort of staff analysis about it cuz I think we still have questions to try to get, you know, you know, just a paragraph to kind of answer some of the some of the facts about it. Now, can we go back to this other um issue that uh that I think Phil brought up about the commercial improvements? And I

1:38:24 And I vaguely remember there's more to that sort of story. Can we include the commercial improvements under state law? Can we not? Would we have to look at it? Tell me more. And I'll have my Bridget hop in if I'm being incorrect here. So, my understanding is commercial improvements can be included um if the council says that they are a required design element for the program or a public benefit. Um so just by the nature of zoning requiring it, I don't think gets us there. The council would have to say either we're requiring it or this is something that we would count as a public benefit.

1:39:11 Did you pass her uh city attorney's uh Yep, she's uh the new assistant city attorney now. Yes, passed. Okay. So, here's I guess here's my opinion. I know that there's going to be like some interest in doing this is maybe when we're going to have a second hearing anyway and maybe ask for a little bit more of a written explanation and we may have to sort of split this and do it like if people are interested in do a little bit more work on it. Because that with that answer, I'm hearing that this is probably going to take another 3 months to put together, you know, if we've got to add it part of the program. Sorry, what was that, Jeff? Do you have a timeline on how even with these changes, what it might take for you to get that back to us? Are we looking at the fiscal year or we looking

1:39:57 at the next Um month or two? I mean, I think so council goes on recess, right? So first meeting we come back would be April 1st, I believe. Um I think the bigger question mark in my head is just getting back to talking to other taxing districts and letting them know that that is Right. considering options. Sorry, go ahead and finish. Oh, that was all. So I think and let me maybe ask my question a little bit clearer here. Everything in the in the current order of the program doesn't have a commercial requirement for ground floor in it, is that right? Not everything. So um Mixie's commercial commercial is full mention that has a ground floor commercial requirement that is a

1:40:43 significant part of the downtown area and Mohawk Glenwood also has either minimums or maximums of commercial space that are already required by zoning and then council in a previous meeting had directed staff for the East Main Street areas to not allow projects that have ground floor residential on Main to qualify for this tax exemption which would kind of necessitate having a different ground floor use. Um and then otherwise a lot of the program areas are residential which allow some commercial uses but it's not the primary purpose. Right. So in your answer, I guess what I heard was that anybody participating in

1:41:30 the program, if we added commercial, we're essentially having to add commercial like everybody's going to be required to put commercial on the first floor. Unless it was structured as a public benefit option. Okay, go ahead sorry go ahead go ahead. Sorry. But I was going to say in that case um what I think the staff recommendation would be would be looking at commercial above and beyond what's required by zoning since that's how the other public benefits work is something that's above and beyond what we would already require. Victoria. So my question on that would be because I think Phil brought up a good point about the brick-and-mortar uses that are kind of happening. Um is can the public benefit be to the people who are living

1:42:15 there then? So let's say it's a gym or would it would it have to be open to the public? Like would they be able to cuz I think that would be like a flexibility that would be really great is to be able to provide services for the tenants on that first floor. Um but then that wouldn't necessarily be the public per se if it wasn't a public um you know, open to the person walking by on the street. Um I don't know for sure the answer to that. we'd have to look at that and make sure that um whether the public benefit can must be um you know, for the public at large or if some percentage of it or all of it can be for the residents who live in that site. We can figure that out. So I think my recommendation here would be maybe sort of split the two two and a

1:43:00 half is bring us back for the second hearing, include parking, right? So we can get this thing across the finish line and then bring us more information about the like what it would be required for the commercial question um and then we can come back and make a modification later if we want to. Is are people good with that? And so just so I can confirm procedurally so this will come back to the council for an additional reading with the parking um added to the program guidelines and the council can discuss um what those additions are and whether those work. Mhm. And then the council is not required to have a public hearing, but you could have a public hearing at the at the next reading. Is there any preference there? I don't I don't know that we feel like

1:43:46 we need I'm looking around. I think the preference would be just to discuss it at this point. Okay. And then the at that meeting also additional information about adding commercial to be included in the exemption with the public benefit question. Okay. And then if we do that, that would be changing the code. That could push you out to another reading, but at least we'd get more direction there to be able to have a conversation. Okay. Does that make sense, Katie? Okay. Great. Sure. Yeah, you might take a quick look at the ORS definition of open to the open to the public. I think it's 801.100 or 400. It's pretty it's pretty clear. Yeah. And I think

1:44:31 yeah, I think we're I think we're good. There's no action required since that was the first reading even though we had a lot of discussion about it. Thank you, Katie. Thank you. Next item, please. Next item is business from the audience. I have no cards. Do we have any hands going up in the virtually? No answer to this item. All right, next item, please. Next item is business from the council. Any business from the council? Yes, we are going to Corey. All right, I think we're ready for the next item.

1:45:16 Any business from the city manager? No further business, thank you. Business from the city attorney? No business, thank you. All right, thank you, everybody. We're adjourned.