HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2013 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4,201-3
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street. Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 4, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amv Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Building Program Fees.
Engineering Supervisor Matt Stouder presented the staff report on this item. He introduced David
Bowlsby, the current Building Official for the City who was also present to provide information.
The State of Oregon had delegated to the City of Springfield the authority to provide a full service
building program. As part of administering the program, state requirements dictated the City provide
adequate funds, equipment and resources necessary to administer and enforce the program.
Furthermore, State Statute required that revenue collected for building activity be spent only on
activities that directly support the building program.
Traditionally, Springfield had enjoyed a healthy level of building activity and associated revenues due
to a large amount of high value construction in the community. This had allowed revenue collected
from permit fees to build a healthy reserve even though the City's fees were among the lowest of
comparable jurisdictions. The overall philosophy for managing the Building Fund had been to store
excess revenue during times of high activity to supplement the fund during periods of low activity.
With the downturn in the economy however, expenditures had exceeded revenues for the last 4 years,
resulting in the depletion of reserves and staffing reductions from 13.6 FTE to 6.9 FTE within the
program. At the same time, the overall number of permits issued had increased during the past 4
years, in part due to an increase in the number of lower value construction projects applied for
(alterations /additions /minor work, etc.).
Another contributing factor to the instability of the Building Fund was that Springfield had not
increased building permit fees since 2009 or specialty permit fees since 2007. Not surprisingly, the
City's fees were near the bottom when compared to other jurisdictions. Attachment 2 of the agenda
packet showed how Springfield compared to other jurisdictions under existing rates, while
Attachments 3, 4 and 5 of the agenda packet showed Springfield's placement when compared to other
agencies for a fee increase of 7.5 %, 10% and 12.5 %, respectively.
To help stabilize the Building Fund, staff had identified three options — further staffing reductions,
building permit fee increases, and subsidizing the program with General Fund monies. These options
were described in more detail in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 4, 2013
Page 2
Mr. Stouder distributed a document which showed how Springfield compared to the City of Eugene
and Lane County with all building fees, and how we would compare with the three increases proposed.
He discussed this document as well as Attachment 2 of the agenda packet. He noted the difficulty in
comparing with other jurisdictions due to the way the fees were calculated. Staff felt confident they
had provided as close a comparison as possible.
Mr. Stouder noted the three options presented for Council consideration:
• Option 1: Further staff reductions
• Option 2: Increase permit fees
• Option 3: Subsidize the Building Fund via the General Fund
He discussed each option and the impacts of each.
Mr. Stouder said a possible consideration would be a tiered approach in which there were higher
increases for the lower end building fees, and smaller increases for the larger projects.
Councilor Ralston said the philosophy was to be open for business and development. Reducing staff
didn't seem to be an option, nor did subsidizing from the General Fund. In looking at the document
handed out, the 10% fee was too much of an increase as it would put us at too high a rate. He would be
inclined to support Option 2 with a 7.5% increase with a cap at some point to keep us at or below
Eugene.
Councilor Moore asked how current the fees were for Eugene and Lane County,
Mr. Stouder said they, were current as of a few weeks ago. He wasn't sure when they did their last fee
increase.
Mr. Bowlsby said Eugene had an increase within the last couple of years and Lane County was
looking at increases across the board.
Mr. Stouder said the past policies of Council were to keep the costs low for smaller development.
Councilor Brew said he would support the 10% increase. Some fees hadn't increased for 5 and 6
years, and he felt the City was doing a good job of holding costs down. The City needed to be open for
business, but we also needed to have staff available to do the work. He could support the 7.5%
increase if they looked at doing an automatic increase in one year.
Councilor VanGordon asked about the different in service between a 7.5% increase and a 10%
increase. He asked if the builders would get different service.
Mr. Stouder said they would receive the same level of service as they currently received.
Mr. Grimaldi noted that with the lower rate increase staff would need to come back to Council sooner,
perhaps a year, and the department would lose financial ground.
Councilor VanGordon asked if staff had met with builders to discuss the proposed increases.
Mr. Stouder said it had been mentioned during the Developer Advisory Committee (DAC) meetings
and staff was meeting with the HomeBuilders's Association (HBA) next week.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 4, 2013
Page 3
Councilor VanGordon said he would like to hear about that conversation before they made any
decisions. He was inclined to support the 7.5% increase in order to allow people to adjust. He also
thought they should revisit this each year because he didn't want to wait five years and ask for large
increases. Smaller increases could be better for builders.
Councilor Brew asked if staff could do research about when fees had been increased in other
jurisdictions and when they planned their next increase.
Mr. Stouder said Bend just increased their fees at the first of the year.
Councilor Woodrow asked how they came up with the percentage increases.
Mr. Stouder said he looked at the comparables with the other jurisdictions and determined the
percentage that would bring our fees to the middle of the comparison.
Councilor Woodrow said she was concerned with coming back each year for increases and would
prefer to find something that would sustain the department for a few years. She would like to know
how feasible the tiered system would be with the higher percentage increase for smaller development
and the lower percentage for larger development. y
Mr. Stouder said they could provide that information. His sense was that the tiered system would not
hurt the department.
Councilor VanGordon said he would also like to hear more about the tiered system. He would also like
to hear the feedback from the HBA about what they would prefer — smaller annual increases, or larger
increases that lasted a few years.
Councilor Wylie said she would also like to hear more about the tiered system. She would also like to
know what this would buy the City and how it would help the department regarding positions.
Councilor Brew said the building fund was supposed to be self - supporting. He asked what was left in
cash reserves and how long it would carry the department forward.
Mr. Stouder said they had nearly no reserves left.
Mr. Bowlsby said funds for building activities could only be spent on building activities. Over the last
few years, jurisdictions with building programs were no longer self - supporting. Springfield started
using reserves several years ago.
Mr. Stouder said they had a healthy reserve in 2008, but those were now depleted.
Mr. Bowlsby said the State's Department of Consumer and Business oversaw the Building Codes
Division. They were forecasting that it would be at least another five years before we returned to pre -
recession numbers for development. The City needed to craft a way to sustain the department until that
time or longer. The proposal provided wasn't significant to a developer, but the volume would help the
department. He expected that during the meeting with the HBA and other stakeholders; the increase in
fees would seem justifiable in order to continue to provide the service rather than have it move to the
State.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 4, 2013
Page 4
Councilor Moore asked if people could go online for some of their requests and what office hours the
department was open for people to get permits and schedule inspections. She would like an overview
of what was being paid for with the fees.
Mr. Stouder said the department was open from 8:OOam to 5:OOpm, Monday through Friday, for plans
to be submitted and reviewed. Minor plans could be submitted electronically, although most were
submitted over the counter, reviewed and approved in house. Inspectors were out in the field anytime
during those hours each day and sometimes earlier or later depending on the needs of the builder. If
they reduced those hours, they would need to look at some other options such as limiting the days
inspections could be done.
Mr. Bowlsby said timely inspections were very important to builders and could be costly if there were
delays. The builders couldn't go anywhere else for this service. The City was trying to accommodate
development
Councilor Moore asked how many staff were in the Building Department.
Mr. Stouder said they currently had 6.9 FTE, but there would be less next year. They had three
inspectors, two plans examiners in the office and pieces of supervisory and administrative staff.
Councilor Ralston said he would support the 10% increase; but would also like to hear about the tiered
approach.
Mayor Lundberg said she had asked for this information and looking at the tiered approach. The point
was that we were available to the public so they had access when needed. She explained how she had
broken down the list regarding the tiered approach and the larger increase for the first two. Inspectors
had to go out whether they were inspecting a large project or a remodel. Springfield was in
competition with Eugene and Lane County, so it was important to keep our fees close with them. For
larger development, they could look at a lower rate increase. She wanted to look at the impact of each
percentage, and also the tiered approach after staff met with the HBA and developers.
Mr. Grimaldi said another work session would be needed with that additional information. February
19 was a possibility for that meeting.
2. Council Goal Setting Follow -up.
Assistant City Manager Jeff Tower), presented the staff report on this item. Council selected the
following 10 goals and directed staff to analyze the items for cost, opportunities, hurdles or other ways
of approaching the goals listed.
One Year:
• Complete an intra - jurisdictional agreement to reduce system development charges to stimulate
economic development.
• Explore incentives to encourage annexation of improved area developments just beyond the
city boundary.
• Identify, two large (50 acres minimum) properties for near -term job development.
• Create a Springfield consortium of public and private interests to market our community.
Two Year:
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 4, 2013
Page 5
• Hold a city -wide cleanup event twice a year.
• Explore the viability of a local voter's guide for Springfield.
• Move jail and police service off the levy.
• Form a partnership with TEAM Springfield to host a downtown multicultural festival.
Three Year:
• Complete a signature milestone in Glenwood such as NEPA process completion, engineering
of Franklin Boulevard, or acquisition of right of way for Franklin realignment, etc.
• Develop long -term plan to phase out mobile home parks in Glenwood by offering replacement
housing, counseling, and other options.
If the Council wants to hold a Work Session on any of the goals, staff could also identify potential
strategies, work plan options; budget impacts and influence on existing projects and work plans. Any
Council direction regarding priorities, including working with Council Leadership to set timing, would
assist staff in planning, follow up and meeting scheduling. After review and discussion of these staff
responses; the Council may also want to discuss the preferred approach for public review before
decisions are finalized.
Mr. Towery pointed out an error on page 3, Attachment I of the agenda packet under the Cost/Time
for identifying two large properties for near -term job development. The date should read " ... will be
complete by January 14 ... ".
Mr. Towery noted that of the ten goals, two had been adopted or acknowledged by TEAM Springfield.
The goal on mobile home park issues had been addressed a couple of times and a work session was
scheduled for later in February to discuss next steps. The large property annexation was part of the
work being done on the potential expansion of the urbari growth boundary (UGB). Related to the
milestone for a signature project in Glenwood, the Franklin Boulevard corridor information was also
in the works and a work plan was being built. Staff felt the rest of the goals required more work
session time to determine what Council would like to accomplish and how they would like to proceed.
Mayor Lundberg said some of the items could be removed, such as those that Mr. Tower), addressed
Mr. Towery said staff could come back with some performance measures or targets and revisit some
of the goals to determine if they were being successful.
Councilor VanGordon spoke regarding the first goal on the list: Complete an intra jurisdictional
agreement to reduce system development charges (SDC) to stimulate economic development. The
Development Advisory Committee (DAC) had this item on their work plan, so he suggested tabling
this goal until they had the feedback from the developers. This could be brought back to the Council
after those discussions. He also spoke on the seventh goals on the list: Move jail and police service off
the levy. He would be interested in seeing what we would have to put aside regarding property taxes
in order to save up enough to get off the levy. He didn't see how they could get that done in three
years. He would like a work session on the sixth goal listed: Explore the viability of a local voter's
guide for Springfield. He felt it could also be a TEAM Springfield effort or they could use the
quarterly newsletter.
Councilor Ralston asked why the city -wide cleanup was listed under the two -year goals and not for
this year.
Councilor Woodrow said there was an additional cost that was currently not in the budget
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 4, 2013
Page 6
Mr. Tower), said it was on the two -year goal because this years' cleanup was already planned and
scheduled. The additional out of pocket costs for a second event was about $50;000 because many of
our partners were donating or subsidizing their contribution for the one event and would likely charge
the City for a second event. They also hadn't estimated the additional staff time for a second event.
They may need an additional work session or budget discussion to look at other options. If they went
with a second cleanup that was the same as the current event; funds would need to be reallocated. A
work session would allow the Council to dig deeper into the goal and look at targeting a specific
cleanup, such as in a Promise Neighborhood or during the Day of Caring.
Councilor Ralston said he thought the second one would be held in the fall with more yard debris. A
work session would be helpful to look at options of what the event could look like.
Councilor Moore asked about the date this year.
Maintenance Manager Brian Conlon said it was scheduled for mid -May. The event was planned and
agreements had been made with Sanipac and other partners in the cleanup.
Councilor Moore asked if there was time to make it a bigger event this year. She asked about getting
volunteers involved to go into neighborhoods to assist with cleanup.
Councilor Woodrow referred to the tenth goal on the list: Develop long -term plan to phase out mobile
home parks in Glenwood by offering replacement housing; counseling, and other options. She knew it
was being researched, but didn't want that to be taken off the list.
Mr. Towery said that topic was already scheduled for a work session the end of February. He referred
to the idea of holding a work session on the cleanup idea. He didn't feel the work session would be
restricted to how they could change the existing cleanup; but how a second cleanup might look if they
did something different.
Mayor Lundberg said an option was to focus on something such as abandoned cars. A work session
gave them an opportunity to look at what could be done and get more ideas.
Councilor Brew agreed it would be great to have a work session on the cleanup. He then spoke
regarding the SDC goal. He asked if the incentives Council had put into effect over the last few years
had impacted development. He would like to know if those types of things actually stimulated
development. He spoke regarding the police levy goal. Since the levies were passed, there had been
discussion about moving off the levy, but they had not talked about a plan of how that could be done.
He would like to have that as a serious goal with a plan, or not make it as a goal if they were not going
to make a plan. He would like to have a work session on some of the options.
Councilor Moore referred to the second goal listed: Explore incentives to encourage annexation of
improved area developments just beyond the city boundary. She was concerned about water quality
and septic tanks on those unincorporated parcels just outside the city limits. Septic tanks and the
failure of them could cause water pollution problems. There were other issues under that topic, such as
public safety. She asked if they could provide information in a list of the advantages of being annexed
into the city and promoting it to those outside city limits.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 4, 2013
Page 7
Mayor Lundberg said her interest in this topic was that there were.people that would consider
annexing if the fees weren't so high. The City of Eugene had waived city property taxes for 10 years
for people that annexed. She didn't want to force anyone to annex, but wanted to encourage them or
find ways to make it feasible. She referred to a map that Mr. Mott had available.
Planning Manager Greg Mott displayed the map and explained some of the tax rate areas outside city
limits and the cost to annex. Some areas had higher taxes than others, but each had their own issues.
The obstacle to wanting to annex would be exchanging their current lifestyle of low taxes, to double
taxes for city services. He said he could ask Lane County Assessment and Taxation if these tax rates
were constantly in transition. The map he displayed was a snapshot of how things were currently.
Councilor Brew said his concern was areas just outside the city limits that took advantage of city
planning efforts and the city road network.
Mr. Mott said staff could provide Council with information about either pro -rated base, depending on
the nature of the tax district or the capital improvement bonding. As an example, Willamalane had a
recent bond election and some of their patrons lived outside the city limits and paid that tax. Any city
bond elections were strictly paid for by people in city limits_ Rates charged through the water districts
for fire protection could be adjusted.
Finance Director Bob Duey spoke regarding Rainbow Water District and fire and water services
outside the city limits.
Mr. Mott said staff suggested talking with some of the people in those areas. He discussed contiguous
properties and noncontiguous properties, and those living within a certain number of feet needed to
hook up to City sewer. It was a question for Council to decide whether or not those people needed to
annex in order to hook up to City services.
Mayor Lundberg said this topic was worthy of a work session. She would like to find ways to
encourage and allow people to annex if they wanted.
Mr. Towery said there were three projects — mobile home parks; large parcel for job creation and the
signature project in Glenwood — that were already in various stages of work planning. Staff would
continue working on those as planned. There was no discussion about the two goals — multicultural
celebration and collaborative marketing of Springfield — that had been identified as TEAM Springfield
goals. He asked if that was the right venue to pursue those goals. Yes. Work sessions could be
scheduled for the cleanup item and annexation policies. He hadn't heard much discussion on the
SDCs, online voter's pamphlet and the levies.
Councilor Woodrow said she wanted a work session on the voters` pamphlet.
Council concurred.
Councilor Wylie said she would like to start work on looking at the police levy at next year's goal
setting session. She had some ideas; but needed to check with the State legislature for alternative
funding sources. She felt it could be pulled this year; but made a number one priority at next years
goal setting.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 4, 2013
Page 8
Mr. Tower)/ noted that League of Oregon Cities (LOC) efforts to make changes Statewide to the
property tax system could change the landscape under which levies were handled. Also; they could
talk during the budget process about the path to move Police services off of the levy rather than having
an additional work session. They could then focus next year's goal setting on that topic.
Mr. Towery said it had been suggested that the SDC topic be left with the DAC for now. Council
concurred to pull that from this year's goals.
Mayor Lundberg asked if staff could provide a compilation of the goals as amended
Mr. Grimaldi said a Communication Packet could be provided.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes Recorder — Amv Sown
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
l,L
Amy Sowa
City Recor er