Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/2014 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY MARCH 17, 2014 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday March 17, 2014 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, 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 Wylie was absent (excused). 1. Nuisance Code Enforcement in the Urban Transition Area. Current Development Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. Staff requests Council direction on whether or not to evaluate the steps, costs and consequences of establishing the City of Springfield and the Springfield Municipal Code as the jurisdictional authority for nuisance code enforcement in the Urban Transition Area (UTA). The Lane Code and Lane County government currently have sole jurisdiction on this matter. The topic of effective code enforcement in the UTA has been the subject of several previous Council discussions primarily because the Springfield Municipal Court, and by extension the effective implementation of Springfield's codes, has no jurisdiction outside the city limits. This condition has persisted ever since the County transferred UTA planning and building authority to the City in 1987. All of the City's efforts to date to enforce land use and building codes in the UTA have relied upon cooperative compliance or in extreme circumstances, an appearance at Circuit Court. The City recently tried to assist a property owner in Glenwood with nuisance type violations but without success because 1) The County's Code did not address these activities; 2) The City's Municipal Code, which does address these activities, is not in effect in the UTA; and 3) The mechanism to enforce the Code, the Municipal Court, has no jurisdiction outside the city limits. The probability that such circumstances would continue to be "un- fixable" prompted staff to bring this matter to the City Council for discussion and direction. Mr. Mott referred to the Council Briefing Memorandum which was included in the agenda packet. This document provided some history on jurisdiction authorities in the UTA, a brief description of the status of program enforcement in the UTA, and several possible solutions to achieve a change in the status of enforcement in the UTA. Some possible options noted in the memo included: 1) Ask the County to adopt into Lane Code the same nuisances identified in the City's Municipal Code and thereby expand the County's enforcement program to bring it on par with the City; 2) Ask the County to adopt the City's nuisance ordinance into Lane Code but then transfer enforcement jurisdiction to the City; this would include transferring the administrative civil penalties procedure the County uses to levy fines, withhold other required permits, enter property to abate, and to attach liens; 3) Annex the UTA and thereby bring all of this land into the City's jurisdiction without any participation from Lane County. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 17, 2014 Page 2 Mr. Grimaldi said as parts of Glenwood become annexed, this will be more of an issue as annexed properties are affected by un- annexed properties with no mechanism to address those issues. Mayor Lundberg said there had been a situation in Glenwood that prompted this discussion. When that situation came to the Mayor's attention, staff and elected officials from the City and Lane County met to discuss how this could be addressed. After looking at the County's resources and the City's resources, they realized there wasn't anything satisfactory that could be done. The situation involved a neighbor that had large amounts of garbage, unused vehicles, rodents and other nuisances that were not being addressed. Councilor Moore said one option was to take the City's nuisance ordinance and put it into the Lane Code, and give the City enforcement authority. She asked if there was a difference between that and having an intergovernmental agreement stating the City would implement our nuisance code in that area. She asked if it would be advantageous for the County to have their nuisance code address these issues. Mr. Mort said not every possible solution had been evaluated. One of the shortcomings was that Lane Code didn't address the same nuisances or in the same way. No satisfaction would be gained by having the City act as an agent for the County. A possibility would be to ask the County to adopt our nuisance code, but that was not likely. Mr. Grimaldi said during initial discussions with Lane County, they did not want help. Mr. Mott said the County's regard for issues within the urban growth boundary (UGB) were less of a priority for the County based on recent actions. He described those actions which included jurisdictional transfers to the City within the UGB. Those actions allowed the County to retreat from financial responsibility. It didn't burden the County to adopt our nuisance code, but to enable the City to enforce it would require an IGA that specified that either the City would use the County hearings official for the enforcement process, or create our own hearings official process and administrative penalties process with our own official. Councilor Woodrow brought up the number of nuisance complaints per year. Mr. Mott said the number of nuisance infractions the County investigated in the UTA was not great. He couldn't confirm that their practice was the same as the City's regarding nuisance code violations or complaints. If the City got a complaint, they investigated it and made a determination whether or not it was a violation. The City received ten to fifteen calls per week from residents in the UTA complaining about nuisance violations. Councilor Woodrow said the UTA would eventually be annexed. It could be very frustrating for those living in that area not to receive any assistance from the City when they would be part of the City once annexed. She would like to come up with some way to ease that transition. She liked Option 2 or something similar that would allow the City to have jurisdiction to investigate and enforce. She hated to see people in that area with no recourse for resolution. She understood Lane County's hesitancy, but would like to find some middle ground. Councilor Brew agreed. There were people living in Glenwood and other areas around town that were Springfield citizens paying taxes who would be affected by nearby neighbors not within city limits and City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 17, 2014 Page 3 not required to follow city regulations. He would like them to do whatever they could to work something out with Lane County. If Lane County adopted the City's nuisance code, he asked if they would be under an obligation to enforce that code elsewhere in the County, or would it be specifically in the UGB. Mr. Mott said the County's existing nuisance codes identified violations within the UGB of either city They had a slightly different approach for properties outside the UGB. Some things were allowed in County zoning that were not allowed in the UTA. He read from the Lane County code. Councilor VanGordon asked if staff knew what the additional cost to the City would be with any of these changes. Mr. Mott said they did not. It was difficult to determine at this time because the volume of work Lane County does is much different from the City. It was also difficult to know how many calls the City would receive. He noted that the City received 10 -15 calls per month related to the UTA. So far this calendar year, the City's code enforcement had received 480 calls related to both City limits and in the UTA. A certain percentage of those were violations and some were not. Councilor VanGordon said he was in favor of going forward, but was concerned about cost. Mr. Mott said staff would do their best to bring that information to the Council. We had a good enforcement program in the City. There was a big difference between the City and County programs. Councilor VanGordon said in making this change, he didn't want to hurt our current enforcement program. Councilor Moore said she liked the public information strategy piece. She agreed that Option 2 was the best solution unless it was cost prohibitive. She suggested expanding Spring Cleanup to those living in the UTA in the future. Some people didn't have a place to dispose of things. Councilor Woodrow said she would think that since the City hadn't had an enforcement process in the UTA, the costs would initially increase, but could eventually go back down once people got familiar with the program. Councilor Brew said he sympathized with people that had to deal with these issues. Things had be to fairly egregious to get to the level of enforcement action in the City. He asked if the enforcement program was self - supporting. Mr. Mott said 120 -140 cases per year ended up in Court. Fines could be fairly steep if it is an ongoing health hazard activity, but were often reduced if the property owner cleans up the violation. If a property owner was constrained through no fault of their own, the Judge will take that into account and provide additional time or payment plans. He wasn't sure what type of revenue came into the program. City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said this would be a tool for compliance rather than a revenue stream. Mayor Lundberg said Council was supportive of moving forward with Option 2. She asked staff to bring back figures and other information. She noted that the people in this area were people that had lived in an area for a long time without any enforcement, so it could be an issue if suddenly they had City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 17, 2014 Page 4 enforcement. On the other hand, they were part of the transition area and this could be a boost to bring them into the community. It could be an opportunity to polish up the area, such as Glenwood, with some code enforcement. Mr. Mott said since the area in the UTA included about 6000 residents this change would be impactful. He would bring back additional information to consider this further. 2. TEAM Springfield Annual Meeting Follow -up. City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented the staff report on this item. At the annual TEAM Springfield meeting held on January 25, 2014, discussion was held on a series of next steps to continue to strengthen TEAM Springfield and provide direction regarding the future of TEAM Springfield. It was agreed that each governing body would review the next steps and provide direction. The results of the discussions of the governing bodies will be reviewed at the TEAM Springfield Chief Elected Officials meeting on April 16, 2014. He reviewed the top four items. Councilor Woodrow said she was reminded of AI King's question of the School District helping with urban renewal and downtown, starting with a meeting between the School District and the City. She would like to add that to the four items. Everything else looks good. Councilor Moore said she appreciated the statement under Item 43 that stated, "Use this effort to explain TEAM Springfield as a collaboration of partners, not a separate entity ". She suggested they use pictures of staff from each agency at different events to show that they are four different agencies. Councilor Woodrow said she thought they were thinking of doing something like that on the website. She would like to see each agency emphasized with an article in the newsletter similar to what they did when they highlighted the Council members last year. This could be done on a cyclic basis bringing each to the forefront with an in -depth look at the role of each agency in the community. Councilor VanGordon said he was good with the four items listed and had no additions. Mayor Lundberg said their collaboration went beyond sharing activities and should include encouraging one another: She would like to add to the list looking at other ways they could collaborate on money saving ideas and increasing efficiency. Councilor Woodrow said if someone had a project or idea, they should bring that idea along with the specific roles for each agency. That might save time and get a more collaborative mindset from the start. Mayor Lundberg mentioned the joint meeting between the School District and City Council. A meeting had been scheduled with Mayor Lundberg, Board Chair Light, Dr. Hertica Martin and Gino Grimaldi to discuss a possible direction for a joint meeting with the full Council and Boards. She re- iterated the suggestions from the Council. She asked if there was currently a cycle where each agency was highlighted in the newsletter. Community Relations Manager Niel Laudati said staff was working on that now. They often highlighted the agency that had an issue that rose above the others or was timely, but typically it rotated. The newsletter went to print twice a year and was sent to 28,000 residents. It was sent by zip code. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 17, 2014 Page 5 Mayor Lundberg asked if it went to residents in Glenwood. She felt it would benefit that population and she would like to include them. It also needs to include those that are in school and park district boundaries. Mr. Laudati said they could break that down to the zip code in Glenwood. Councilor Moore asked if the bylaws were being updated. Mr. Grimaldi said they were. She mentioned that Mr. Keefer had brought up the Mill Race and that everyone was already involved in that process. She asked if there was further discussion about that project. Mr. Grimaldi said that came up when discussing collaboration and identifying the separate roles of each agency. That did go forward as a collaborative project. Councilor Moore said that was a good project to promote. Mayor Lundberg said the Mill Race would be a place where the TEAM Springfield logo and each agency logo would be listed so people saw that all four agencies were contributing to that project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. Minutes Recorder —Amy Sowa V. Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: Amy So City Recorder