Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/2001 Work Session . . . . MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2001 The Springfield City Council met in Work Session at Springfield City Hall, Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, on Monday, June 4,2001, at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Lundberg, Ralston (arrived at 6: 15 p.m.), and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Kim Krebs, Administrative Coordinator Julie Wilson, Police Chief Jerry Smith, and members of staff. 1. Discussion of Building Permit Fees and Land Use Application Fees. Community Services Manager Dave Puent, and Development Services Director Cynthia Pappas were present for the staff report. Mr. Puent said staff is responding to Council and Budget Committee's direction to increase the cost recovery of fees so that revenue from fees equals the City's costs for processing permit and inspection services and land use application. Mr. Puent said the City's current structural permit fee charges are based on the 1979 State of Oregon Fee Table that was legislatively enacted. In the 1999 legislative session, Senate Bill 587 was passed by the Oregon Legislature. The bill mandated certain service levels to be provided, and allows local jurisdictions to adopt "necessary and reasonable" fees for the administration and enforcement of the State specialty codes. He said the goal of the proposed fee increases is to obtain higher level of cost recovery for the City in providing permit and inspection services. He said for land use application fees, in 1999 the Council approved amendments to the Fee Schedule to achieve 75% cost recovery. The full recovery fees are generated by updated the existing fees from 75% to 100%. The basis for the 75% fee recovery was an extensive analysis oflabor and charge rates by the Public Works Department and Development Services Department undertaken in 1999. Councilor Hatfield asked what percentage of cost recovery. Mr. Puent said the goal is 100%. He said it is important to remember currently that on every fee that is charged, we do not have 100% recovery. Are these revised numbers included in the current budget? Finance Director Bob Duey the revised numbers are included in the current budget figures. By consensus council directed staff to move forward with the preparation of amendments to increase the permit and inspection services and land use application. 2. Discussion of Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) Recommendations to Resolve TransPlan Policy Issues. Traffic Manager Nick Amis was present for the staff report. He said the purpose of this work session is to deliberate and provide direction to staff regarding proposed TransP1an amendments . . . , Minutes of the Springfield City Council Work Session - June 4,2001 Page - 2 as recommended by MPC. He said this should probably be the last work session discussion regarding this unless something unexpectedly comes up. Mr. Arnis said there are two attachments to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), and briefly highlighted each of those items. . Attachment 1 - Provides the exact language of each proposed amendment approved by MPC. The topics included Bus Rapid Transit (TSI Transit Policy #2), Nodal Development Implementation funding, OM&P funding, and inclusion of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) approved nodal development implementation schedule into TransPlan Chapter 3, Land Use Planning and Program Actions. · Attachment 2 - Is the Order adopted by LCDC approving alternative standards to accomplish reduced reliance on the automobile. These alternatives were submitted in lieu of the Transportation Planning Rule requirement of a 5% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) during the 20 year planning period. Mr. Arnis said the council is requested to approve, by consensus, the MPC recommendations contained in Attachment 1. Including these final recommendations from MPC in the TransPlan edition that is currently scheduled for a July 16, 2001 second reading and adoption will carry out council's approval. Mr. Arnis said that there were four items that the MPC went through when reviewing the items. Mr. Arnis highlighted the information covered in the Council Briefing Memorandum (CBM) that included: 1- BRT Policy. 2 - Nodal Development Funding. 3 - Operations Maintenance and Preservation Funding. 4 - Definition and Intent. Councilor Ralston arrived at 6: 15 p.m. Councilor Hatfield said the BRT issue was added at the City of Eugene's request and LTD provided the language. There was discussion regarding the recommended language changes outlined in the CBM. Mr. Arnis said all of this is very new, including BRT as well as nodal development. He said we could not prepare examples of either one of them. He said we will start with general policies, and after three years when there is an update we will be able to identify how far we have gotten. He said it would be a check in point. He said Councils comments are pertinent in the process and are very much appreciated Councilor Hatfield said nodal development is independent, BRT is not a performance measure, mass transit is, whatever we do will be based on mass transit, not BRT, and the two are independent. These are the basic guidelines, separate BR T and mass transit from nodes, so the two, when measuring performances, will be independent. . . . , 1 Minutes of the Springfield City Council Work Session - June 4,2001 Page - 3 There was discussion regarding the number of nodes Springfield currently has. Councilor Simmons asked when this is adopted, how does that phase into the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) without action committed by other parties? Mr. Amis said these are policies only. He said we could look at this as a policy that provides the overriding direction and details that have to go into it. The IGA's need to be prepared and signed, and those will have to be developed in great in order to determine who will do what and how that will be accomplished. After further discussion Council consensus was there was no opposition to the four changes, and it is time to move this forward. 3. Discussion ofa PotentiaL5% increase in Transient Room Tax (TRT) starting in FY 2001- 2002. Economic Development Manager John Tamulonis was present for the staff report. He said council discussed this item at a previous work session and directed staff to explore some other options and opportunities. He said one of the questions was what is the overall impact of an increase in TRT. He said locally we have somewhat of a spotty history over the past 30 - 40 years of raising TRT. He provided some handout material and provided a summary of that material. He said there was a study performed that looked at economic impacts in summary, and highlighted that information. Mr. Tamulonis said there was also a question as to whether there was an agreement with CV ALCO, city of Eugene, and Lane County and the city of Springfield. He said that agreement was in draft form only, there was no final document signed. He said there does not appear to be anything binding. Councilor Ballew said this current policy was developed by a previous council, and asked City Manager Mike Kelly how binding that policy was? Mr. Kelly said it is not binding. He said this policy could be changed by a majority vote of this council at any time. Councilor Ballew asked how much the comparative average room rates are. Mr. Tamulonis said the average is probably $65.00 per night. There was a discussion about the percentage ofTRT that goes to the General Fund, and whether or not the split should be re-evaluated. Mr. Tamulonis said right now the percentage is 44.4444% which goes to the General Fund, which is 4/9ths of the revenues that the City generates. Mr. Kelly said council has the choice of doing a few things, they can increase the TRT, or reevaluate the split, or they can do both. Councilor Hatfield received two letters in opposition of the increase ofTRT, and read them aloud. Minutes of the Springfield City Council Work Session - June 4,2001 Page - 4 . Mayor Leiken received a letter in opposition and read it aloud. Councilor Lundberg said earlier this evening council held a discussion regarding the increase in the building fees, and said that had support from the development community. She said there is a lot of opposition to this current issue. She said she would like to have a discussion about re- evaluating the split of the TRT to the General Fund. Mayor Leiken said he would like to also hear information about a proposal of locking up funds for the next twenty years for funding of the planetarium. He said it is important to bring that information and share it with council. He said he thinks Springfield is due some funding, and needs to be discussed. Mr. Tamulonis said the Lane County Fairgrounds has had some improvements made over the past few years. He said they are currently looking at some refinancing and then some reinvesting. In order to accomplish that, they would require a substantial amount of the uncommitted Capital Improvements money. He said that commitment would probably extend 20 years out in order to make that happen. There was discussion about what better use of Capital funds might be. What position Springfield might take if the proposal should come up. There was discussion about a possible Conference/Convention Center. . Kari Westlund from CV ALCO said they are now trying to review and understand before the annual work session of the Fair Board and the Lane County Commissioners that is scheduled for July 10th. She said she is not sure where CV ALCO will come in right now, because they haven't had those discussions yet. Dan Egan, Springfield Chamber of Commerce said they have made contact with the County Commissioners and have a letter ready to go out to them asking them to take a look at a Springfield proposal. He said the Fair Board has some timely issues, and the July lOth meeting will be a very important meeting. Mr. Kelly said whatever decision the council makes, he wanted to remind them that we have the Budget hearing, and adoption scheduled for June 18th. Councilor Hatfield said there may be some testimony later in the Regular meeting under business from the audience, and he would prefer to delay any decision until after that is heard. He said Councilor Lundberg brought up an idea that needs to be evaluated and that is looking at the split oftheTRT. After further discussion Council consensus was to continue the discussion on the split for next week, and also bring up any discussion regarding a convention/conference center. . Minutes of the Springfield City Council Work Session - June 4,2001 Page - 5 . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. ~ Minutes Recorder - Kim Krebs A~~ Kim Krebs, City Recorder . .