CC Minutes - 06/25/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman believed that the agenda topic involved a merger of services and that issue was a council policy issue. She asked if the two departments spent similar amounts on equipment and capital investments. Chief Groves said each jurisdiction was invested in its own infrastructure; Eugene spent more because it was a larger agency. The department covered a service area of about 162,000 in population; Springfield’s department covered an area of between 50,000 and 60,000. Ms. Bettman could not imagine how there could not be a cross-subsidy. She asked about per capita expenditures and how they compared. She questioned what capital investment was being made and did not think that the outlay of equipment and infrastructure could be equitable between the two agencies. She asked if the City of Eugene would be subsidizing Springfield’s response to the Peace Health’s River Bend campus. Ms. Bettman considered the issue a budget and policy issue, and requested figures that demon- strated undeniably that there was no cross-subsidy. Ms. Bettman said her concerns were exacerbated by the fact that Springfield was now able to expand its urban growth boundary without Eugene’s permission. Chief Groves said Eugene responded to more calls for service than Springfield with a larger infrastructure. In regard to the River Bend campus, he noted the two cities had commenced work on the initiative long before Peace Health planned to relocate from Eugene to Springfield. He said in terms of moving back and forth, the two departments could do that now under its mutual aid agreement, but in reality, resources flow with the call load; given Eugene’s larger call load, some might say the shift in resources was the other way. He thought it balanced out over time, but agreed to attempt to provide those numbers. City Manager Taylor said that being able to train together had been an important step, and having the same terminology for apparatus and the same standards of coverage was very important. If the City expanded to a new station, it would use the standards of cover to make that decision. Springfield was using the same methodology in regard to its standards of cover. Over time, he thought staff could share information about response times and the fiscal impact of the initiative. Ms. Ortiz said she had some concerns about the cost to Eugene, but she had asked different medics at Sacred Heart about the issue, and they provided positive feedback, particularly with regard to training. She thought that it was a good idea for the two cities to work together, as it would make the training more streamlined and ensure that training was continuous. She shared Ms. Bettman’s concern about Springfield’s choice to make its own decisions about its urban growth boundary and the impact that might have on Eugene, and hoped the chief took the council’s remarks to heart. She said the council’s constituency was the city of Eugene. Mr. Pryor said he loved the concept presented by Chief Groves because if someone was in a house burning up they would not be thinking about the jurisdiction that responded. He hoped that if someone in Eugene could be saved by a Springfield response that would occur. He trusted staff to ensure that contributions did not get “too lop-sided.” He thought the automatic aid agreement demonstrated cooperation had worked. He also agreed as to the importance of shared training. He pointed out the two agencies were still operating independently with individual budgets so he did not characterize it as a merger, which implied shared governance. Mr. Pryor said the message the chief should be hearing was the need for Eugene to spend its money wisely, as well as that Eugene was not an island. He thought it important that Eugene recognized it was part of a larger community, and it was a good thing to partner with other agencies accountably. He appreciated that the two chiefs were working to coordinate services so that nobody had to die. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 6 Work Session