Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 05 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/17/2013 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa Staff Phone No: 541-726-3700 Estimated Time: Consent Calendar S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate ITEM TITLE: COUNCIL MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, approval of the attached minutes. ISSUE STATEMENT: The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes: a) May 28, 2013 – Work Session b) June 3, 2013 – Work Session c) June 3, 2013 – Regular Meeting DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Ralston was absent (excused). 1. Demonstration of Publicly Accessible GIS Application. Technical Services Division Manager Brandt Melick presented this item. The technical services division manages surveying, Autocad users, GIS users, Accela users and MapSpring to all City employees. They also managed the City’s Asset Management System replacement project which came to Council last year. An update on that project would be brought to the Council on July 1. Tonight he would be discussing the outward facing application of MapSpring. MapSpring provided frequently requested information about roadways, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, council wards, zoning, parks, special districts, address and site information, natural resource information, major landmarks and several years of aerial imagery. It also provided a variety of functions such as address searching, viewing tax lot details and linking to the Lane County Assessor’s maps. It provided easy access to local and regional information not commonly found in products such as Google Maps and Bing. MapSpring, which began as an internal application available only to City staff, now relied on Open Source Software technology to provide a cost effective and viable alternative to expensive and proprietary vendor supplied software systems. The cost for this Open Source project was $8,320. In comparison, a non Open Source solution to achieve the same result would cost between $116,320 and $140,320. Mr. Melick referred to the five-year roadmap of the projects starting with the Asset Management System Replacement in FY12-13. MapSpring. He noted that the full demonstration would be done through his iPad to show that it could be accessed from a mobile device using WiFi. The development of this application had been a collaborative effort with regional, state and federal partners such as Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), Lane County, Oregon Department of Administrative Services Geospatial division, U.S.G.S and BLM, and a lot of staff from many City departments. The MapSpring application, which was previously available only to staff within the city’s firewall, would now allow the general public to query this information in a web browser interface like they were already familiar with in Google Maps or Bing Maps. The application’s intent was to better serve the citizens of Springfield, and the development community, by providing easy access to GIS data and other Springfield Development and Public Works information. Other anticipated benefits included reducing calls to Springfield staff for simple data queries, promoting regional data sharing efforts, City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 2 promoting economic development and promoting open data standards that enhanced regional data sharing. Mr. Melick further demonstrated how MapSpring could be accessed and used by the general public and the Council. He explained how MapSpring provided an efficient solution to the needs of the community. He noted that MapSpring was designed by a number of talented City staff. He referred to a chart showing the different components involved with the project to provide the technology to a large group of people. He compared the cost of these components using the Open Source Solutions (OSS) versus using a Private Provider Solution. Also, with the OSS, there were no annual maintenance costs. Councilor Moore asked exactly what it was that staff had developed using the Open Source System at a lower cost. Mr. Melick said there was no cost involved with the Open Source Software. There were many layers of that software. He explained further. He displayed what was shown when someone from the outside entered into the system. He demonstrated how to use the system to see different types of information. The information on this site was the most up to date information posted through Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Councilor Moore asked if she could see utilities that ran through her own property on MapSpring. Yes. Mr. Melick said the City of Springfield had very good facilities information that was much more accurate than many agencies. He displayed an area and the different information and images that could be found for that area. He noted the web address where this application could be accessed. Staff was working with Information Technology (IT) staff to get a more common link that looked more like a Springfield link which would be placed on the City’s home page. Councilor Woodrow asked that Council be informed with the new page address. Staff would send that out to the Council when it was available. Councilor Moore asked how much staff time it took to create this program. Mr. Melick said staff time equaled the $8320 noted in the agenda packet, which was at a rate of about $68/hour. Also, a lot of time was spent with staff determining what was most commonly asked at the front counter in order to make the information the most relevant. Mr. Goodwin said developers could go on this system and determine the location of utilities before coming in to the City about developing. They hoped it would save developers thousands of hours. Councilor VanGordon asked if this would be featured in the Development and Public Works (DPW) quarterly newsletter. Yes. He asked if they had a process to receive feedback from the developers. Mr. Melick said a survey was associated with the application to get some feedback. They were also using Google analytics to look at usage. Councilor VanGordon said it looked great and was a good example of innovation by the City. It brought in a competitive advantage in doing business in Springfield. He appreciated the work. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 3 Councilor Moore asked if this was available in Eugene and Lane County as well. Mr. Melick said currently, they were trying to keep the information geographically centric to Springfield to make it easier for the public navigating the site. The data sets spanned the County and State and sometimes the nation. There was no charge for the service. Councilor VanGordon said it would be helpful to include boundaries for the Lane County Board of Commissioners, the House representatives and Senate representatives for Springfield. Councilor Moore asked about the water district boundaries, but it was noted those were outside city limits as a whole so may not be as useful for Springfield residents. Mayor Lundberg suggested adding both the Springfield School District and Willamalane Parks and Recreation District boundaries. Councilor Brew suggested adding the urban renewal districts in Downtown and Glenwood. Mayor Lundberg said it looked great and she thanked staff for all of their work. 2. System Development Charge Discounts. Engineering Supervisor Matt Stouder presented the staff report on this item. The temporary reduction of SDCs authorized by Council on February 6, 2012 would sunset on June 30, 2013. As of April 15, 2013, the City had forgone collection of $868,846 in otherwise eligible SDC’s as a result of this reduction policy. This lost revenue had impacted the City’s ability to fund future Capital projects. The SDC discounts authorized by Council involved three actions intended to stimulate growth including: 100 percent reductions in local SDCs for commercial and industrial development where more than 75,000 square feet of new space and new employment opportunities were created; 100 percent reduction in local SDCs for commercial and industrial development where more than 50,000 square feet of new space and 50 or more new full time jobs were created; and 50 percent reduction in local SDCs for all other development (small commercial and residential). On a related note, but under separate action, SEDA extended a program whereby SEDA assumed the obligation of City SDCs for development in Downtown and Glenwood in those cases where the development conformed to the requirements of the recently adopted Downtown and Glenwood Refinement Plans. During the time the reduction program had been in place the City processed 208 permits that met the threshold for the 50% local SDC reduction; as a result $868,846 of eligible charges were not collected. No development applications were submitted which met the criteria for 100% reduction. More detail on the qualifying developments was included in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. As discussed in previous Council work sessions, continued implementation of the SDC discount program would place funding of current and future capital projects at risk. Several capital projects currently budgeted or programmed in the 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Program relied on SDC revenue. Should the economic rebound which appeared to be taking hold continue, need for some of these projects may become more urgent, but also more uncertain because of continued underperformance in SDC revenues. This may force the City to identify alternate funding sources such as user fees or new debt to advance projects such as those listed in Attachment 1. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 4 Mr. Stouder referred to the first table on page 2 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet which showed revenue not collected by permit and SDC type. He reviewed the information on that table. The second table showed a list of priority capital projects for the City that had associated SDC funding. The projects ranged from 12% – 80% eligible for SDC funds, depending on the amount of growth associated with the respective project. One of staff’s chief concerns was that continued undercollection in the SDC funds put the City’s ability to fund those future projects at risk. The color chart on page 3 of Attachment 1 showed the SDC funds available over the last eight years for capital projects. There had been a substantial decline in SDC reserves from 2008 to what was proposed for 2014. The concern was that some projects would need to be postponed or cancelled, or alternative funding sources would need to be identified in the form of user fees, a bond or some other measure. He noted the Franklin NEPA projects listed on the second chart which showed the SDC transportation funds set aside for that project, but didn’t show the follow-up project of the expansion which was nearly a $10M project. The City was currently seeking $6M in federal funds, which would mean a match of about $3.6M in City funding. He noted a gap in the funds available and the funds needed. After reviewing the data, it was determined that the stimulative impact of the reduction program regarding residential development was limited. There seemed to be a rebound in the housing market. The greatest benefit for commercial development occurred in Downtown. Staff recommended extending the benefit in the Downtown and Glenwood urban renewal areas if the Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) were to continue to extend their existing SDC program. The City would be reimbursed those funds at some date putting the capital projects at less of a risk. Staff also recommended taking no action with respect to the SDC reduction program. Councilor Moore said no one took advantage of the incentive for development of 75,000 square foot. There would be a lot of advantages if that type of development came into the City. She asked if they should maintain the program for that size development, or would they be able to just look at that one area if an opportunity arose. She referred to the Veteran’s Administration clinic that was looking to develop in several sites in Springfield and Eugene. Mr. Grimaldi said the site selected for the VA facility was currently under appeal. The numbers that were put together in the proposal from the developer for the VA clinic included not paying for SDCs. If that project came back to life, the City could review that on an individual basis. He was not sure of the chances of that coming back. Mr. Stouder said most of the large developments that were being considered were in the Urban Renewal areas. Councilor Brew asked City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith if waiving or reducing the SDCs on a specific project was under the purview of the City Manager as a negotiating tool. Ms. Smith said in the context for an individual proposal it was under the City Manager’s ability to use that to negotiate. Councilor Brew said if Council let the program sunset nothing would preclude them from providing a reduction on a specific project. Mayor Lundberg said it wouldn’t be setting a precedence as they had done similar things in the past using a variety of tools. They needed to be careful not to restrict based on the type of business. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 5 Councilor VanGordon said letting it expire and talking with SEDA was the best thing to do. At this point, the City needed to get back to charging the full amount in order to receive SDCs for projects. Councilor Wylie agreed. The last couple of years the City had worked hard to assist development to get through the recession. Mayor Lundberg said philosophically, they began by waiving downtown SDCs years ago and kept on that path. There had been some bumps and starts, but she was happy to see the development in Downtown and Gateway. It did help. Philosophically the urban renewal areas were their top priority for development and redevelopment. Mr. Stouder said Community Development Manager John Tamulonis would be bringing the SDC program to the SEDA Board soon. He discussed SDC methodology. Councilor Moore asked about the bank in the Mohawk area and the SDCs. Mr. Stouder said the difference of use would be less so there would be a reduced amount of SDCs. Any project in the works by June 30 would still be in the program. That had been advertised and people at the counter had let developers know. Mayor Lundberg said Council was in agreement with staff’s recommendation. 3. Flood Plain Management Regulatory Changes. Planning Supervisor Jim Donovan and City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was sued in 2009 in Washington for failing to ensure that the National Flood Insurance Program complied with the Endangered Species Act. In response to the settlement agreement for this lawsuit, FEMA had proposed draft changes to the Program that would, if approved, significantly affect how flood plain development was allowed to occur in the future, if at all. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provided insurance for property against flooding hazards. As part of the Program, FEMA identified and mapped various flood hazard zones, such as the 100-year flood plain along rivers and other waterways. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) required federal agencies to submit their various programs for consultation when species were listed as threatened or endangered. However, FEMA did not submit the NFIP for consultation, in part claiming that the NFIP was exempt because local jurisdictions implemented the Program, not FEMA. The lawsuit challenged that claim, resulting in the settlement agreement. If NMFS found that FEMA’s proposed NFIP changes were acceptable as submitted, the criteria for reviewing and approving land use applications in the flood plains would become substantially more restrictive. The City was currently evaluating its employment land needs and identifying potential growth areas through the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan project. Each of the areas being considered for growth contained mapped flood plains and staff sought to inform the Council of these proposed NFIP changes. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 6 As part of the settlement in 2011, FEMA had to review its program and make a proposal to the NMFS by July 2012 on how they would change the program in Oregon. FEMA did submit by that date and at that time Mr. Vogeney, Mr. Donovan and numerous others around the state got involved. The State of Oregon, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) formed a statewide working group to help them look at what FEMA had submitted to determine the impact in Oregon. The group had been working on this for the last four or five months reviewing FEMA’s proposal. NMFS had several issues with FEMA’s original proposal. FEMA presented a new proposal in February of 2013 which was now under review by the NMFS with a draft response from them expected in July 2013. Locally, it meant there would be several changes to the national flood insurance program that effected how we did development inside current City limits, land within our UGB and the UGB study areas. He reviewed the primary categories where changes were being proposed: • Revised Mapping Standards • Flood Plain Development Permit Issuance • Floodway and Riparian Buffer Zone Standards • Flood Plain Management Criteria • Guidance and Support • Program Enforcement Mr. Vogeney discussed some of those categories. He referred to Attachment 2 of the agenda packet which was a map currently mapped by FEMA. He discussed the different areas outlined in the map. The last time FEMA issued maps for Springfield overall was in 1999. Those maps were a reprint of the 1983 maps which were based on analysis done in the 1970’s using data from the 1960’s. Because of that, the accuracy on the flood plain boundaries was limited. They had received some updates for specific areas such as the PeaceHealth RiverBend site. Councilor Woodrow asked about the change in that area. Mr. Vogeney said the floodway shifted slightly and floodplain elevations changed in areas. That update was done in 2008 and followed the ground contours more closely. He discussed the north Gateway area on the map. The purpose of the map was to get an understanding that as the rules changed, it would affect how development was done in areas that were in the floodplains in and out of the UGB. Unfortunately, he couldn’t tell them what those changes would be. The cost and land available for development would depend on the path taken by the NMFS and the State, and the ordinance put into place by the City to remain in compliance. Mayor Lundberg said she assumed our primary species were the fish in the waterways. She wanted to know what they needed to be careful about in current and proposed areas in the UGB. There had been issues in the past regarding outdated maps and development being allowed in an area that should have been updated to a floodway. She asked if there would be an agreement between FEMA and the NMFS regarding the maps about identifying areas on the map for insurance purposes, and also identifying impacts on the fish in areas. Mr. Vogeney said specifically for Springfield the effect of this set of lawsuits included spring run Chinook Salmon in the Upper Willamette. The waterways identified as critical habitat for those Salmon were primarily the McKenzie River, Willamette River, Coast Fork, Middle Fork, Cedar Creek and the Springfield Millrace. FEMA was sued about the Salmon issue, but technically FEMA should have their program reviewed for any species that had been listed as threatened or endangered. FEMA was proposing to raise their priority for remapping waterways that had inaccurate maps, although there City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 7 may not be funding available. These regulations affected all waterways in the State, which made it difficult for the State to prioritize. There had been a project in the works with FEMA and the Corps of Engineers for mapping updates on the McKenzie River for a number of years, but was now on hold as additional rules were being reviewed and changed. Preliminary maps for the Middle and Coast Fork should be sent to the City in the middle of July for the confluence, but he was not sure if that would occur. Staff would continue to use the maps we had today until the City or other partners helped pay for the updates. Mayor Lundberg said this information was pivotal in determining where they chose to expand the UGB. She asked staff to keep the Council posted as new information came forward. Councilor VanGordon asked about the maps for the Middle and Coast Fork and if they would be old or new maps. Mr. Vogeney said from information he received last week the maps were based on a new study and analysis. Councilor VanGordon said he agreed with the Mayor that the actual maps would be critical when discussing the UGB. He discussed getting those maps prioritized and a clearer way to submit the maps. He asked about the area of concern. Mr. Vogeney said it was related to the mitigation of fish within the regulated flood plain, which was 1% flood. Councilor VanGordon said they needed to discuss that mitigation. Mr. Vogeney said there was a process for private landowners to amend maps. Wildish Land Development Company in Glenwood followed that process several years ago and the flood plain on their property was modified. Staff was waiting to see if their work had been incorporated in the new maps. The City could also fund that type of process or try to get funding from FEMA through the State. Councilor VanGordon asked how much it would cost to remap the City. Mr. Vogeney said that was difficult to answer. With the proposed new mapping updates, there would be several additional studies that would have to be included. There was a lot more study, including evaluation of flooding downstream into Eugene and Lane County. It was very expensive. The City was working with the Corps of Engineers on the McKenzie River from Hayden Bridge to Hendricks Bridge. The City had put $150,000 towards that and the Corps of Engineers also put some funding towards that, but it was not enough to complete the work so was on hold indefinitely. Councilor VanGordon said the critical thing was to have the maps based on the new study material. Mayor Lundberg said the result would be whether or not people would have to get flood insurance. Without a good set of information, people may not be able to get flood insurance and that could affect whether or not people would buy in a certain area. Mr. Vogeney said the maps in effect remained in place until any updates were adopted. That update process was a political process which required public hearings. How the City implemented the City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 8 program would make a difference. People could buy flood insurance if in a FEMA mapped area. The program was considered voluntary, but if the City didn’t participate our citizens would not have the opportunity to purchase flood insurance. Also, if the City didn’t participate and a flood occurred that damaged public and private property, there would be no opportunity to qualify for Federal disaster relief. Most communities that had mapped flood plains participated. Mayor Lundberg said with so many unknowns, developers should be aware of the possible changes and perhaps be discouraged from developing in those areas until things were settled. Ms. Smith said a letter had been drafted to potential developers so they knew that there were changes coming. Staff would be up front with developers because it could really impact what they did. Mr. Donovan said this was a land use decision so the impacts had to be noted to developers and the community. Staff was trying to draw analogies to the Washington case, but this would take a long time. Washington began this process in 2009 and was just now putting their model ordinance together. It could be another three or four years before Springfield was ready to draft a model ordinance adapted to the City. At some point, this would intersect the UGB expansion and the inventories. The City had 100% exclusion for floodway land, but did not exclude development in flood plains. The City might have to adjust those, but they were not sure to what extent. Local decisions would need to be made and that was why he and Mr. Vogeney were sitting on the committee at the State level. Being in front of Council now to discuss this issue and talking with the development community made them more informed that most jurisdictions in the State of Oregon. They hoped they were doing the right thing by provided that information as it was received. Councilor Moore said the Council had always been aware of the location and constraints of Springfield. Thinking forward was good and would be helpful. Springfield was very resilient and we should always be looking at our Development Code and looking at options. It was great to have the information now so they were not surprised. She appreciated Mr. Vogeney and Mr. Donovan serving on the committee. Mayor Lundberg said the added layer was that it happened to be coinciding with the UGB expansion. She would be interested in any examples of how people dealt with flood plain issues when expanding. Currently, all of the areas being considered for expansion were affected so it would be difficult to determine which site made the most sense. She would like to keep all of this in mind when discussing the UGB expansion. Mr. Vogeney said the best they had in terms of these particular changes was to look at what was occurring in the State of Washington. FEMA was modeling in Oregon what had been approved in Washington. At this point there were a couple of options. The first option was to adopt a local ordinance prohibiting development in the flood plain. Another option was to attempt to get all of the development programs approved by the NMFS showing protection for endangered species. Staff attended a conference in Washington a few weeks ago and learned that two or three communities had adopted the State’s model ordinance. The rest were in the continuum of ordinance adoption. Currently in Washington, applicants were required to go through the Federal process independently until they figured out what they were doing at the local level. Mayor Lundberg thanked staff for their work and keeping them informed ADJOURNMENT City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 9 The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 3, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, and Woodrow. Also present were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Brew was absent (excused). 1. Downtown Parking Enforcement Project Update. Management Analyst Courtney Griesel presented the staff report on this item. The Parking Plan was adopted in 2010 by the Council as recommended by the Downtown Advisory Committee. The boundary was set as part of that process and parking zones identified. As they moved forward staff looked at construction to reconfigure spaces to add on-street parking and make the off-street parking more efficient. Originally, urban renewal funds were set aside for that purpose in the amount of about $130,000 and $150,000. After receiving construction bids from area contractors ranging from $225,000 and $320,000, staff determined that resources were inadequate to perform all construction activities. Additionally, due to declining revenues in the Downtown Urban Renewal area, original funds available for both construction and parking enforcement activities were further limited to approximately $40,000. Councilor Ralston asked what they would be constructing for that amount of money. Ms. Griesel said the recommendation of the Parking Plan was to go through a re-alignment of parking spaces, changing from parallel parking to platooning which would add about 200 spaces to the on- street inventory. Currently, the on-street spaces varied in size from 17 feet in length to 26 feet in length. They determined that spaces could be efficiently configured through these changes. The funds would also have been used to clean up some curbs where paint, often lead paint, was chipping. There were areas that had been yellowed out for reasons that were no longer applicable and could be added back in for parking. Off-street lots also needed additional parking updates and changes. The actual cost to do that work was nearly twice what City engineers had estimated. Because of funding constraints, staff decided not to do the construction, but to start by cleaning up the signage. Staff was able to do that internally with minimal urban renewal dollars. There was new, less cluttered signage on the streets and the number of signs overall had been reduced. That work should be done in all areas by the beginning of July. Once that work was complete, staff would put out Request for Proposals (RFP) for enforcement. The enforcement model being considered was different due to revenue issues. The City was not able to support and purchase equipment or software, so that would be included in the RFP. That could mean that bids would be received by entities that currently provided enforcement services and were established. In addition to the RFP for enforcement, staff was looking at how to provide outreach City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 3, 2013 Page 2 before enforcement began. The outreach could occur during the summer, with enforcement starting in the fall. One proposal was to provide one over-time warning ticket that would come online in the fall, allowing an additional warning. Staff was also looking at putting together a parking advisory committee. The committee could help figure out the best way to do residential permit zones, make exceptions for certain residents or business owners, and help with the education during the warning window. Councilor Ralston asked who would use three-hour zones. Ms. Griesel said people using businesses or employees. They were looking at enforcement windows from 9:00am-5:00pm. Councilor Ralston asked if they would be purchasing a parking spot within a zone. Ms. Griesel said yes. There were certain uses that lent themselves to the three-hour zone. Councilor Moore asked what type of equipment would be needed. Ms. Griesel said a requirement in the RFP was that the enforcement would need to have hand held equipment that was digitized. They were asking that the software talk to a software side on the City’s end so we could access the same ticket database as the enforcing agency used. Councilor Woodrow said without the construction, there would be permits and paid parking for fewer spaces that originally planned. Ms. Griesel said that was correct. Enforcement would be on almost 650 on-street spaces (current inventory) and permitting on over 280 off-street spaces. Even without the reconstruction, it would be enough to impact in a positive way the commerce downtown and generate the turnover needed. Councilor Woodrow asked how many additional spaces would be gained with reconstruction. Ms. Griesel said about 200 spaces. Consideration was also given to off-street parking to make the City more efficient with how the pool cars were managed. Some of that work could still be done while permitting in those areas, although the pool cars would be spread out. The goal was to do the work eventually when the budget allowed and in an efficient way. Councilor Woodrow said the basic goal of all of this, including the additional 200 spaces, was to free up spaces for traffic coming and going into downtown for retail on Main Street or a block or two off Main. Ms. Griesel said that was correct. It was to generate turnover for customers of the retail in downtown. As they pushed further into the neighborhoods, that dynamic changed and included employees and residents. Staff had already received calls from citizens concerned about how the new parking program would impact them. Councilor Woodrow asked how far the area went into the residential neighborhood. Ms. Griesel noted the area on the map. The area on the north east corner included a mix of some offices with the residential. One of the things that was difficult to communicate to the residents was that the interior sections would be most impacted, but the ripple effect would push employees out into City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 3, 2013 Page 3 the neighborhoods. She referred to Zone C and noted that some of the policy would be to determine how that zone was slowly brought into parking management through a residential permitting zone. As employees pushed into the neighborhoods and parked all day, there would be an avenue the residents could trigger themselves for permitting. They were looking for a fee to defer the cost of the program, such as a $10 annual fee for residents to put a hanger in their car. She noted the on-street permit parking area and areas with limited permit parking. The price points changed based on location. The least expensive permitted parking would be farther away from Main Street and the core, with the most expensive parking directly under City Hall. Some possible costs would be $30/quarter, $60/quarter and $90/quarter. These prices were not set and were below market. Councilor Ralston said they would be collecting permit fees in areas that had never had permitting. He asked where the revenue would be going. Ms. Griesel said eventually it would go for a City run enforcement program. The end goal was to reinvest that revenue into further parking infrastructure. Councilor Ralston said the ultimate goal was to be revenue neutral. He felt the first thing they should do was to put the funds the City didn’t have before into expanding the number of spaces. He asked where employees would park. Ms. Griesel said that was the intent of the permit lot and permit on-street areas. There were options, such as to pay one fee during the summer for parking further away, and another fee for the winter for parking closer to City Hall. Some employees were finding this as an incentive to use other modes of transportation. Some employees would choose not to pay and would park as far north into the neighborhoods as needed. Councilor Ralston asked about handicapped spaces and if they could park at no cost. Ms. Griesel said the State regulated handicapped parking. Handicapped could park on any space for double the time posted on the street. It was required to include handicapped spaces in the permit areas. The City would follow Oregon statutes. Councilor Ralston said in Eugene he didn’t have to pay anything to park on the street. Ms. Griesel said Springfield would not have any paid parking on the street. Those that worked downtown would buy a permit. Councilor Moore asked about the cost for enforcement and if it would be self supporting eventually. Ms. Griesel said the goal was there would be no cost with the revenue shared program. What that meant was that revenue generated by enforcement of violations would be the enforcement agency’s payment for enforcement. That created an incentive to enforce, which was one reason it was not the ideal method, but was a start up method to get the program going. Currently the violation rate was about 26% and the industry standard for acceptable was about 5%. An agency doing the revenue share would work to improve that figure and would not want to be limited on number of tickets given. Councilor Moore asked if the enforcement agency would be a private business. Ms. Griesel said it could be private or non-profit. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 3, 2013 Page 4 Councilor Moore asked if there were other places in the surrounding communities that used this type of enforcement. Ms. Griesel said there were a number of private entities that contracted, some cities that would contract with other cities, and non-profit agencies. Councilor Wylie asked what the proposed starting rate would be for employee permits. Ms. Griesel said it would depend on which zone they chose to park. The lowest cost was $30/quarter, the next level was $60/quarter and the highest level (under City Hall) was $90/quarter. They had not yet determined whether or not to restrict under City Hall permits to City employees only. There was a significant employee base of other businesses nearby. They may just make it first come, first served. That had not yet been determined. Councilor Wylie said she had concerns about parking enforcement agencies and felt they could upset people. On one hand, the City was encouraging people to come downtown, but the ticketing agencies often treated people disrespectfully. She didn’t want to treat our citizens with disrespect. They needed to think carefully about how that would work. Councilor VanGordon said since they had no idea about how much this would generate, he agreed that the City’s portion of the revenue should get put back into adding parking spaces. A parking structure could be considered later. He also was concerned about a private parking enforcement agency as they were not always very customer friendly. It was important to remember that it was still free parking downtown. He suggested that the contract include a provision that the enforcement agency would report back to the parking committee or staff regarding the number of complaints and how those were resolved. That would give the City oversight on how they were treating the citizens. He felt the tiering of the enforcement plan was good, with two warnings, but he would suggest adding another level and limiting the number of tickets written at first. He didn’t want this to be a painful experience for people downtown. Mayor Lundberg said it wasn’t that long ago the City had an enforcement program and tickets were given out. It’s always unpleasant to receive a ticket no matter how nicely the program was done, so she agreed the enforcement needed to be handed delicately. Currently, people came downtown and it was free parking, so they might not think there could be a ticket for parking past a certain amount of time. She was concerned about employees because she knew there were some that were not happy with the program. Education and moving into the residential areas was going to be very touchy. Some residents were not going to want to have others park in front of their homes. It was a great idea to have a policy committee to look at all of the issues because it was going to be a bumpy road. At the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting there was a discussion about bicycle parking. Bicycle parking should be equitable as well, and could include time limits or special accommodations for bicycles behind buildings to encourage bicycling. It would need to be monitored. Ms. Griesel said staff realized they were having a hard time communicating with businesses downtown about the process to get a bike rack. Last month Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett and Ms. Griesel created a process and application form with step by step instructions and contact information for businesses to get a bike rack. Staff would encourage businesses to utilize that application form. They would prefer to put bike racks in as many locations as possible rather than installing time stamped bike racks. The wave style bike rack allowed quite a few bikes in a narrow space when used correctly. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 3, 2013 Page 5 Councilor Ralston said he liked the idea of a non-profit running the program as it was a job opportunity and likely lower wages. He liked having the parking as first come, first served. He felt that if the program was managed properly, there would be a low violation rate once people realized the time limits. Councilor Wylie said she wanted staff to see what could be done to mitigate the angst and anger. We didn’t want downtown visitors to feel angry. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 3, 2013 at 7:07 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, and Woodrow. Also present were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Brew was absent (excused). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Employee Recognition: Kristi Krueger, 15 Years of Service. Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery introduced Ms. Krueger, Civil Engineer in the Transportation Division. Mr. Towery noted Ms. Krueger’s work history with the City of Springfield and her accomplishments during her 15 years. Ms. Krueger was a positive force in the city and was well regarded by her co-workers. Mr. Towery presented Ms. Krueger with a plaque showing her years of service noted. 2. Employee Recognition: Loretta Keefe, 20 Years of Service. Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery introduced Loretta Keefe, Community Services Officer (CSO) from the Police Department. Mr. Towery noted Ms. Keefe’s work history with the City of Springfield and her accomplishments over the last 20 years. Ms. Keefe had been instrumental in making the CSO program what it was today. Ms. Keefe had been instrumental in assisting with solving crimes and in mediation services. She was a team player and highly regarded by her co-workers. Mr. Towery presented Ms. Krueger with a plaque showing her years of service noted. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. May 13, 2013 – Work Session b. May 20, 2013 – Work Session c. May 20, 2013 – Regular Meeting City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 3, 2013 Page 2 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Sluggo’s Hot Dog Located at 603 E. Centennial, Springfield, Oregon. b. Approval of Liquor License Endorsement for Oakway Catering Located at 123 International Way, Springfield, Oregon. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM 5C REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – BREW). ITEMS REMOVED 5. c. Authorize City Manager to Sign a Revenue Contract with Life Flight Network, LLC for FireMed Administrative Services. This item would be rescheduled to a subsequent Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE COUNCIL RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Leahy introduced Lauren King, who had recently joined the City Attorney’s Office. Ms. King was a graduate of the University of Oregon Law School, with a Masters in Community and Regional Planning and a graduate from Davidson College. Most recently, Ms. King worked at the Mayor’s Office in Portland. She also worked at Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) while attending the UO, and had worked with various City programs in Portland, Hood River and Eugene. She had served as City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 3, 2013 Page 3 an extern at the Lane County Circuit Court and was fluent in Spanish. The City Attorney’s Office was looking forward to having her as part of the team. Mayor Lundberg welcomed Ms. King. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:15 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder