HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/2015 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY APRIL 6, 2015
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday April 6, 2015 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Moore, Woodrow and Pishioneri. 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.
Councilors VanGordon, Wylie and Ralston were absent (excused).
1. Downtown Parking Fees and Rates.
Courtney Griesel, Management Analyst, presented the staff report on this item.
Beginning July 1st, 2015, the City of Springfield will begin full enforcement of parking in Downtown.
Permits in select areas will be made available for purchase. The proposed permit rates and violation
fees are reflected here.
The proposed rates and fees specific to the Downtown Parking Enforcement Program are:
ASSET TYPE
PER UNIT RATE/FEE
ASSESSED
Premium Permit Parkin Lot
$ 30.00
Monthly
Non -Premium Permit Parking
Lot
$ 15.00
Monthly
On -Street Permit Zone
$ 10.00
Monthly
Residential Permit Zone
$ 20.00
Annually
On -Street Non -Permit Parking 1
$ 16.00
Per Citation for Violation
The proposed rates and fees are recommended by the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee. Based
on the proposed permit rates, and taking into consideration a gradual rate of program acceptance by
downtown employees and businesses and seasonal parking needs, the estimated actual revenue from
permit sales in the first year of the enforcement program is approximately $22,000. Based on the
proposed permit rates, the potential revenue for all areas is $49,680 annually. As Downtown
revitalization continues to gain momentum, demand for parking will increase, bringing the program
closer to realizing all potential permit revenue.
Staff is requesting feedback from Council on the proposed parking program rates and fees. Next steps
for the program include selection and Council award of the contract for parking enforcement services
anticipated in late April.
Ms. Griesel explained the comparisons and how they were gathered and reviewed the proposed fees.
At this time, they are not planning to oversell any of the lots. As the program grows and they develop
a better understanding of usage and peak hours, they may look at that further with the Parking
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 6, 2015
Page 2
Advisory Committee and Council. It is typical for parking programs to oversell. This would be a pilot
parking permit program and would be evaluated over the fourteen month period.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to the map and asked about Lot 7.
Ms. Griesel said Lot 7 is not a permittable lot, but is free public parking for Library patrons. The
boundaries of the parking zones were put together by the parking consultant after taking into account
other parking lots and on -street parking.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about Lot 1 and Lot 2 and that they were only permit parking for staff from
the city and other businesses. He asked about covered parking for patrons of the Library.
Ms. Griesel said the Library specifically requested that Lot 7 (Library lot) was left for public as that is
where their patrons are used to parking and is closest to their entrance. Sometimes patrons are unsure
if the covered parking is for public use. Some lots will be redesigned making them a little tighter and
oriented for permit users.
Councilor Woodrow asked if someone was restricted to a certain area if the purchased a permit.
Ms. Griesel said the permit would identify which lot it was set up to use. You could renew at that lot,
or look for available spaces in another lot to purchase a permit. If a permit is purchased for on -street
parking, the person can park all day at any space that has 3 -hour parking.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the businesses in Zone B are required to buy permits that would allow
them to have their own business parking.
Ms. Griesel said those businesses that are in the green zone could potentially have someone with a
permit park in front of their business. If the business doesn't have private parking, they will need to
buy permits for employees to park more than 3 hours. There is no assurance they would be able to
park in front of their own business.
Councilor Woodrow said she didn't feel that was business friendly
Ms. Griesel said a business could come in and purchase permits for an off-street parking lot and could
provide those to an employee or customer for specific parking. Typically, they don't want to reserve a
particular spot on -street as it limits the users which could negatively impact the rest of the block. They
want the on -street parking as full as possible, turning every two hours.
Councilor Moore asked how much free parking is available. It would be good to advertise that there is
free parking.
Ms. Griesel said all on -street is free for 3 hours. There are 44 free parking spots posted at 3 hours,
including the Library parking lot. The Main Street lot (L3) will also have free parking for half of the
lot along Main Street for 3 hours. Booth Kelly doesn't currently have any free spaces. They are in a
partnership with Lane Transit District for the Park -n -Ride and are at maximum capacity.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there was about the same number of permitted parking spaces as the
number of staff in both the city and private businesses. He asked if there will be competition for those
spaces, and if so how those will be allocated.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 6, 2015
Page 3
Ms. Griesel said it will be set up as a first come -first serve basis. They don't believe the number of
spaces meets the number of employees in the downtown area. There are also a significant number of
employees that utilize LTD and other modes of transportation to and from work. It is another
opportunity to further the partnership between the City and LTD Point2Point Solutions program. They
anticipate that some of the employees will choose to park further out into the residential areas. In the
future, they will look into a residential permit zone with an annual fee. The goal of the program in
partnership with urban renewal is to increase demand for parking on both the employee and
retail/business level. As that demand increases, the City can look at investments in things such as a
parking structure. As redevelopment occurs and more employers are brought downtown, the urban
renewal revenues start to build for that type of infrastructure. There are several key location identified
in the Downtown Plan for property acquisition and investments towards a parking structure. Also,
when they look at the need for Library facilities, they may look at an investment in parking.
Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted assurances that when it starts that it is an equal process for all
who are working in the downtown. He doesn't want there to be an appearance of favoritism to City
employees.
Ms. Griesel said they will be getting the word out and meeting with businesses.
Councilor Woodrow said she misunderstood earlier and was thinking the on -street parking was paid
parking. She had no concerns. She agreed that it was important to make it a fair process.
Mayor Lundberg asked about the hours this would be in effect.
Ms. Griesel said they are considering 9:00am-4:00pm. The signs don't have the days to allow some
flexibility. Early communication would be very important regarding the days and hours.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the permit lots and the hours for those.
Ms. Griesel said the permit lots would probably be from 8:00am-5:00pm. Some of that is part of the
process of working with the enforcement staff.
Mayor Lundberg said people get accustomed to paying to park when a program is in place, and you do
what you have to do in terms of parking. It looks like there is a lot of free parking. She is comfortable
and knew the parking advisory committee reviewed this carefully. Employers will need to determine
how many permits they purchase for their employees. This is a better system than the previous system,
and was more equitable. We have nice signage and markings on the street for parking. It is still good
and there is a lot of free parking for patrons. She's happy with the work done by the committee.
Councilor Moore asked about potential revenue and the City's cost for enforcement.
Ms. Griesel said initially there will not be net revenue, but the Springfield Economic Development
Agency (SEDA) will absorb some of the gap. People will gradually purchase permits, with that
increasing towards the winter. The revenue is to the City, but there will be a flat fee management
contract with an enforcement entity. The goal is to increase revenue from permits and decrease
revenue from citations.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the court involvement regarding citations
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 6, 2015
Page 4
Ms. Griesel said they are looking at something called administrative adjudication. People could still
appeal a ticket through the Courts, but there will be administrative authority for someone to hear
details from the person receiving the citation about why they would like the ticket dismissed. They are
looking at a process that would include an open administrative hearing about every other week where
people could sit with trained staff to discuss the citation. Staff would have the authority to reduce,
dismiss, or settle on the citation. This is an option to address concerns rather than through a formal
court hearing, and could be done at a lower cost. A volume increase of this amount would be too
much for current Court staff.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if they were able to get a comparator of number of violations in other
cities.
Ms. Griesel said it was very minimal. They had heard from other communities that about 2% of all
tickets issued came back with concerns. The difficult part is in the start-up phase, but the goal is to
have a total of 2% violation rate. It may get to the point where part of the revenues from the program
will go into the operation of the program.
Mayor Lundberg said there were also those that didn't pay their parking fees. She asked if staff could
provide information in a Communication Packet after the program has been up and running.
Responding to a concern of the Mayor, Ms. Griesel said there was no booting in Request for Proposal
(RFP). During the pilot phase, it would be a very mild enforcement environment. They did ask those
that bid on this how they would handle the unpaid.
Council was fine with staff moving forward.
Mayor Lundberg said it is something new and there are questions and concerns, but they know it is
something needed.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how the committee came up with the recommended fees.
Ms. Griesel said the parameters were based on those set by Eugene, Bend and Salem. The range
proposed didn't get much higher than $30. There was more discussion about which lot should be
premium.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the business owners were on a different page from the rest of the
committee, or if it was collaborative.
Ms. Griesel said it was very collaborative. The area of the most conversation was about how to use
the parking lots for special events parking. There was acknowledgement that the rates needed to be
significant enough to move parkers off the parking spaces in front of the businesses' building. They
wanted to make sure the spaces are freed up for patrons.
Mayor Lundberg said they used to get special parking permits for half or full-day events. She asked if
they would have some type of accommodation for those events.
Ms. Griesel said the committee would like to take on the task of that type of situation. The structure
they have identified utilizes the Main Street lot first and a portion of the Library lot. When they meet
for their quarterly review meetings, downtown businesses and the City could request spaces for events.
The committee would hear and approve as appropriate those requests.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 6, 2015
Page 5
Mayor Lundberg said that needs to be well publicized.
Councilor Moore confirmed enforcement was only during weekdays
2. Discuss Subdivision Application Fee Comparison
Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor, and Matthew Ruettgers, Building and Land Development
Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
During a recent subdivision project the developer asked for a comparison and discussion of
Springfield's application fees and process as compared to the same application in Eugene. In
response to the developer inquiry staff has reviewed both processes and fees to compare the respective
benefits associated with each model. Staff shared this discussion with City Council in a June 19, 2014
Communication Packet Memorandum. This work session is to address questions raised by Council
concerning the timing of fees in the Springfield model and whether the collection point for some
upfront fees could be deferred to a point later in the process.
The subdivision processes in Springfield and Eugene are essentially identical with nearly all the same
steps/milestones starting at Tentative Plan all the way through Final Plat. The primary difference in
each city's approach to working with developers is the timing for the review of engineered
improvements. The majority of the detailed review in the Eugene process occurs late in the process at
the time of the Public Improvement Plan (PIP) application and building permits; while in the
Springfield process much of this detailed review occurs early in the process during the Tentative Plan
Application. The timing of these reviews also determines when the fees for the service are charged.
Both approaches have competitive advantages for the developers in specific areas of the residential
market.
Mr. Donovan explained that Springfield charged the majority of the fees at the beginning of the
process rather than the end to help cover costs, get detailed information about the proposal, and to
move the application through the process as easily and efficiently as possible. He explained in more
detail. Eugene did things differently and charged more of the fees at the end of the process. The final
costs in Eugene are approximately $500 more in Eugene compared to Springfield. He spoke regarding
deferrals and incentives.
Mr. Ruettgers said the big savings the developer would see with the deferral process is that they
wouldn't have to put all of the money up front so could finance less. Our application costs for the 78 -
lot model was about $66,000, a portion which was deferred to tentative approval. The cost savings in
that example would be the interest they would not have to pay for that deferred amount. Typically, the
process in Springfield from preliminary submittal to final decision is about 60 days which would equal
about two months' interest. Depending on the size of the project, the interest could be anywhere from
$100 to $1000.
Mr. Donovan said the deferral was a sliding scale based on the size of the development. That might be
attractive to a smaller developer in terms of financing costs. Technically, the City is actually
subsidizing the development by holding those costs. It is low risk and not a high amount in terms of
the full City budget. In the past when doing these types of deferrals, they would generally ask for
some sort of hold or down payment up front. The timeline under Oregon land use laws is 120 days.
Have a deferral when making a land use decision can cause additional issues. Internally, there is staff
time involved in tracking deferred payments.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 6, 2015
Page 6
Mr. Ruettgers said for the entitlement process, the cost to the developer would be the same; they
would just save some on the interest.
Councilor Woodrow asked if Springfield was in the position to lose competitively to Eugene by
requiring more payments at the beginning of the process.
Mr. Donovan said staff has only heard from one developer about this concern. This developer was
very experienced in both cities.
Mayor Lundberg said if the old system didn't work there would be no development, but there was a
good amount of development. She had talked with Councilor VanGordon who was in favor of the
deferral. She wanted to have a process in place that was straightforward and efficient for the developer
who was familiar with the process and had everything together. She would like recognition and give
and take with those well-known developers that could get them through the process more quickly.
Those seasoned developers are willing to take the risk in higher costs if their engineer missed
something.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if the Mayor wanted a change in the process.
Mayor Lundberg said for those developers that are correctly zoned and have everything gathered, she
would like a faster process.
Mr. Grimaldi said this would be a change in the process. The other options are to keep the same
process, but defer payment. He asked if the third option mentioned by the Mayor was for developers to
be pre -approved for a site before they know what project they are building
Mayor Lundberg said they would only be pre -approved for a planned project if they had everything in
place and didn't need a site plan review.
Mr. Grimaldi said that would be a change.
Mr. Donovan said they would need to work with the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and
bring some options back to the Council. It ranges from something like a `master builder' program to
other options currently being discussed. Changing the process is possible, or they could put together a
pilot program.
Mayor Lundberg said maybe it is a `flexibility' policy depending on the person doing the development
or building.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if Council would like staff to do a deferral on a trial basis while they are
examining the alternative process.
Councilor Pishioneri said he likes current practice regarding deferrals. He wants to do what is best for
the developer at the least cost possible throughout the process. For those developers that have done
their due diligence and have their paperwork done, there should be a system that allows a faster
process. Those that don't have experience should go through the full process.
Mr. Donovan said the developers that use the system, recognize the benefit in the long run.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 6, 2015
Page 7
Councilor Moore said deferrals are additional tracking and work load for staff, which translates into
more cost. If the current system is working, she didn't see a need to change.
Councilor Woodrow agreed with the flexibility option and working with the developers according to
their needs.
Mayor Lundberg said if the project is held up, it is the developer's risk not the City's. She would like a
happy medium.
Mr. Donovan said it would be appropriate to look at a master builder concept. That could be addressed
and discussed with the DAC.
Mayor Lundberg asked staff to bring that idea back to Council.
Mr. Grimaldi said it may take some time to do it correctly.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
4t -UJ A --
Amy Sow
City Recorder