Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/2014 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY JUNE 16, 2014 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday June 16, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, 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. 1. Annual Joint Work Session with Springfield Museum Board and Director. Administrative Specialist, Brenda Jones, introduced Jim Cupples, Springfield Museum Director. The City owns the Springfield Museum building and its permanent collection of historical artifacts. Under an agreement that renews annually, the City contracts with Springfield Museum Board (a non- profit corporation) to manage the Museum for the benefit of the community. The City / Museum Board management agreement sets forth obligations for both parties. The Management Agreement at Section 7 (Attachment 2, page 5) addresses compensation for Museum Board services. The base fee for 2013/2014 remains at $45,000. Several Museum Board members were present. Chris Stole, President was unable to attend due to a scheduling conflict. Mr. Cupples presented a slide show of the highlights from the 2013 -2014 year. The Museum is a partner with businesses downtown. He discussed some of the events held at the Museum in more detail and how the events have increased visibility for all businesses downtown. He noted the partnerships between the Museum and other entities to bring fun and unique exhibits to Springfield. Mr. Cupples noted the other materials in the agenda packet, including the annual report. The Museum had set a goal to digitize and catalogue the Museum collection and that has been completed. The next step is to take a closer look at their collection with the program. A volunteer, Kurt Lantz, is working on digitizing all of their photographs. Councilor Woodrow asked if the digitized collection would be accessible to the public. Mr. Cupples said it would be accessible to the public through a request to the Museum. He hopes they could someday have it available online, but that would take a grant. That was a possibility and he would be looking for that type of grant. Councilor Moore said she had been very impressed with the events at the Museum over the last year. She thought Mr. Cupples had done a great job. Councilor VanGordon asked for more information about the Strategic Plan City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 2 Mr. Cupples said he partnered with Bob Choquette from the University of Oregon and his graduate students to develop the Strategic Plan. Mr. Cupples provided all of the Museum's information to them. One of the things they came up with was additional administrative support for Mr. Cupples, so a part- time assistant, Tina Case, had been hired for the Museum. The Museum just received a grant of $4500 for collection materials and Ms. Case had spear- headed that effort. Councilor VanGordon said what the Museum is doing downtown was great. He enjoyed seeing the exhibits and especially the Strategic Plan to improve even more. _ Councilor Woodrow said she had heard a lot of people commenting on what they were seeing at the Museum. That was something new and had elevated the quality of the Museum. Mayor Lundberg said the Museum used to belong to the City — it was our building and our collection. She felt an affinity for the Museum since they are doing work for the City for their collection of historical materials. It is a very important role. In looking at the Strategic Plan she didn't see a budget and wanted to know what percentage of the budget is the City contribution. She had heard that if the City funding went away, the Museum would go away and that concerned her. She asked if he could send the Council the budget. Mr. Cupples said the City did provide a large part of the Museum's budget. He felt the City got a good return on the Transient Room Tax (TRT) funds provided. The Museum is open five days a week, for over forty hours. Wherever you find a City museum, a large part of the funding is from the City. He foresaw seeing more of their income from corporate sponsorships and grants. He agreed with her concerns and that the Museum shouldn't be so dependent upon one source. They have improved the grants this year, as well as business sponsorships. He is not sure if the Museum would ever be self - sustaining. That is generally the case for any museum that houses a City's collection. He felt the Museum should diversify where their income is coming from. He would send the budget to the Council. Mayor Lundberg said this is the City's collection and building and they are doing wonderful programs. They want to take it up to the next notch. Perhaps within the next year, the Museum could take a look at how much funding they would need to step it up to the next level. If the City could come up with more, she asked if the Museum could match that to take it to that next level. The entire downtown is becoming successful and the Museum is a piece of that success story. If they can bring in more people, it is very legitimate to spend TRT funds. She would be supportive, depending on the proposal, of advocating for what they could do to increase funding to bring the Museum to the next level of success. Mr. Cupples said he would be happy to engage in that conversation and finding out if the Council has ideas to further attract people. The Museum Board is looking at doing something related to genealogy with a database. Mayor Lundberg said do an Antique Roadshows and bring back the wine event. She also suggested reaching out to the Council to keep them in the loop regarding events. She asked if the Council agreed that the Museum should bring a proposal to the Council next year for a way to move ahead. Councilor Woodrow agreed. She went online to her home town and looked at their Museum site. It would be fun to have that kind of access for our citizens. It could be something the City could provide matching funds to help with a grant for that type of project. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 3 Council thanked the Board and Mr. Cupples for their work. 2. Proposed Annexation Incentives Project. Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item The annexation incentives project is divided into three phases: 1. Information gathering; 2. Incentives program development; and 3. Incentives program implementation. The value of Phase 1 is directly enhanced by Council endorsement of the materials used in this phase, including a survey of incentives options and a facts sheet showing tax differentials, city services, and fees and assessments related to city sewer service. The principal objectives of Phase 1 of this project are to identify the level of interest in annexation; identify the reasons why people have not annexed; and identify the priority of city -only services received upon annexation. Much of this information focuses on costs and most of these costs involve sewer. An important element related to sewer costs is when a home with a functioning septic system must connect. The Springfield Municipal Code requires connection when sewer is available within 300 feet regardless of the condition of the septic system. State law requires connection when the septic system needs repair and sewer is available within 300 feet. This difference in standards is a local choice that can be amended at the Council's option. However, unless the Council indicates this is something they would consider as a potential incentive, such possibility cannot be included in the fact sheet provided in Phase 1. On February 4, 2013 the Council conducted a work session discussion follow -up of the December 10, 2012 Council Goal setting session and identified the following action as a short term goal: "Develop incentives for those developed areas just beyond the city limits to annex to the city." This topic was briefly discussed, but no decisions were made other than to revisit at a later work session. Tonight's work session materials were prepared in support of this broader discussion identified by the Council on February 4"' and includes a briefing memorandum that cites some annexation options available for Council consideration, and a map that displays the different tax assessment rates residents of the urban transition area pay. The map uses different shading to represent the difference in rates, from a low of $8.25 per thousand to a high of $14.75 per thousand. Mr. Mott discussed the costs involved for annexation. That is often the reason people choose whether or not to annex. He discussed the sewer and stormwater connections and when those are required. Mayor Lundberg clarified that state law allowed people to stay connected to septic if it is working properly even when the sewer is within 300 feet. If the septic is not working, they are required to connect. Mr. Mott said staff hasn't talked to the public yet until they knew what Council was willing to do in regards to incentives. Some of the costs are adjustable and some are not. Staff outlined the costs and which are adjustable. Mayor Lundberg said if someone does need to do something with their septic tank, there are other costs involved, such as decommissioning the septic tank, for the private property owner. If their system is still working, but their septic is still working, they would not have to incur those costs if changes are made to the Municipal Code. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 4 Mr. Mott said that is correct. He reviewed the costs involved for someone wanting to annex, including the increase in taxes and connecting to the sewer. Mayor Lundberg said staff would go out to the public with some of these incentives based on Council input. Councilor Moore said she would want to include in the materials to the public the advantages (City services) people would receive by annexing into the City. Mr. Mott said they had identified those things. Some are just a direct switch from County to City such as citizenship in Springfield. Sometimes it is an additional service. Councilor Moore said those outside the city limits that received their fire service from Rainbow Water District, would receive city fire services if annexed, as part of their property taxes. She asked if they would change their water service as well. Mr. Mott said once annexed, those property owners would receive their water service from Springfield Utility Board (SUB). Councilor Moore asked if Rainbow Water District and SUB charged the same for water. Mr. Mott said he would check into that and let her know. Mayor Lundberg said the purpose of this is to gauge if people are interested in annexing. Those she knows of that want to annex say it costs too much. She wants information to go out so people know the cost of annexing and the advantages in annexing, such as representation by a City Councilor. Mr. Mott said another advantage is a reduction in planning services for those in the city limits. Councilor Ralston asked what the City's hard costs are when someone annexes. He asked what the $1000 fee covered. Mr. Mott said fee was based on the average cost to do the work in annexing. He described in more detail. It came to a 65% cost recovery. Councilor Ralston said he is willing to incentivize annexation however possible. if they have a working septic system, he sees no problem in letting them keep that in place. Once it fails, they can then connect to the City system. Mr. Mott said tonight theyjust want to know if Council is willing to consider some of these things. Next time they meet, they may want to choose some specifics. Councilor VanGordon said he is willing to consider allowing them not to connect if they have a functioning septic system. The long term goal is to incentivize and get people annexed into the City. He is also willing to consider the options regarding property taxes and waiving or reducing annexation fees for a large group of neighbors wishing to annex at the same time. He wants more advantages added to the information to the citizens. Councilor Brew said he is willing to waive the annexation fee and is also willing to look at reducing SDC costs. The reality is that these people had been benefiting from City taxpayer for years by using City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 5 the roads, the planning services, fire service, etc. He is in favor of seeing what they could do. He noted the amount of tax revenue the City would get once people are annexed. He asked about the requirement to connect and a recent emergency annexation to connect someone whose septic had failed. Mr. Mott said if the septic system is functioning, they do not need to connect to the City line. City Engineer Ken Vogeney said if a property is not annexed and their septic system fails, in order for them to connect and receive service they would be required to annex. Mr. Mott said health hazards are different and regulated by the State. Councilor Brew said he didn't like having to rush to annexation because someone's system failing. He would rather proceed in an orderly way. Councilor Woodrow asked about the property tax delay of three years and how that worked. Mr. Mott said if Council initiates an annexation, they can modify the amount of taxes collected on those property for anywhere from 3 to 10 years. They would be phasing in the City taxes. Councilor Woodrow said overall she is comfortable in gathering that information to help with their decisions. Councilor Moore asked how the addition of all of these properties would do for the City's population. Mr. Mott said they currently got about 3 -4 properties annexed each year. Councilor Moore said potentially it would be a benefit to the City and to the property owners. Mayor Lundberg said she felt anything they could offer should be included in the incentive package. There are many properties that will end up needing to annex due to septic failure, so if they could put something together that would allow someone to make a decision ahead of time. She would like to look at all possibilities. 3. Transportation Systems Development Charge (SDC) Methodology Update. City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. Based on Council direction from the May 19, 2014 work session, staff presents two Transportation SDC rate scenarios using different approaches for allocating bicycle/pedestrian project costs to growth. Upon Council's direction, the preliminary SDC methodology will be updated with Council's preferred approach and staff will issue the statutorily required public notices announcing the availability of the methodology for review and comment. A public hearing will be scheduled at least 90 days following the public notice. City staff is in the process of updating the System Development Charge methodology for the Transportation System. Transportation SDCs were last reviewed and updated by Council in 2008. The Council adopted the city's new Transportation System Plan (TSP) on March 11, 2014. The projects from the TSP that are expected to be built within the next twenty years from the new project list that is used in the SDC methodology as part of the process to set SDC fee levels. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 6 Per Council direction at the May 19, 2014 work session, the recommendations from the Citizen's Advisory Committee have been incorporated into the proposed methodology along with the Council's direction to assume 70% of roadway project costs will come from external funding. Staff has prepared two rate calculations based on the two bicycle /pedestrian approaches. Option A is derived from the "Level of Service" approach. Option B continues the City's current practice and is derived from the assumption that growth will pay for 20% of all bicycle /pedestrian projects based upon the overall growth in vehicle trips. The Transportation SDC is comprised of two components: the Reimbursement Fee and the Improvement Fee. The updated Reimbursement Fee (growth's share of the replacement cost of current arterial/collector system less external funding and bond principal) is calculated to be $16.14 per trip end, which is a decrease from the current Reimbursement Fee. The updated Improvement Fee (cost of future projects attributable to growth) is calculated to be $331.55 per trip end using bicycle /pedestrian Option A or $309.45 per trip end using bicycle /pedestrian Option B. Both options are an increase from the current improvement fee. The overall Transportation SDC calculated with the updated methodology and new Transportation System Project List is $347.69 per trip end using Option A or $325.58 per trip end using Option B. This is an increase over the current SDC of $86.39 per trip end for Option A or $64.28 per trip end for Option B. The difference between the two bicycle /pedestrian approaches is approximately $22 per trip end. Mr. Vogeney said they are looking to get direction from Council on the methodology for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Two ways of calculating the fees associated with these projects are outlined for Council. Staff recommended using the Level of Service calculation. Staff will put the selected methodology into the proposed methodology and schedule a public hearing in the Fall. At that time, Council could discuss what rate. Councilor Woodrow asked if the current method of 20% is adequate Mr. Vogeney said it collected fewer fees giving the City less SDCs to apply towards bicycle and pedestrian projects, but enough to do some. Overall, the improvement SDCs will collect about 10% of the cost of the full project list. The more they collect, the more projects could be done. Staff felt the Level of Service basis more accurately reflects how the system will be used. Councilor Woodrow said it sounds like the Level of Service will provide a better adequacy. Councilor Brew said neither is perfect for different reasons. The second option of 20% assumed we are providing the right level now, and would increase the level to match the vehicle infrastructure. The Level of Service indicated that a good portion of the cost would be placed on growth, but gave us a better system in the end. That has been underfunded in the past. He supports the Level of Service. Mr. Vogeney said the projects identified for bicycle and pedestrian use have been set through the Transportation System Plan at a certain standard for the future. They then back - calculated the standard of today and determined that we are in a deficit. The City would be spending money other than SDC funds to catch up the deficit. The SDCs are then growth share for the future. Mayor Lundberg said she chose Level of Service. One of the reasons is because of the Safe Routes to School, connectivity and traffic calming devices such as flashing beacons, all encouraging safety. She City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes June 16, 2014 Page 7 said they could utilize a bicycle and pedestrian counter through Paul Thompson from Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). The counter he has measures both bicycle and pedestrian traffic. It could give us a sense of areas used a lot for that type of traffic so they can prioritize areas for improvements. She asked staff to take advantage of those counters. Councilor Woodrow said it lines the City up with everything else they want to do The rest of the Council agreed to Level of Service. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Minutes Recorder —Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: Amy Sowa City Recor er