HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 Council MinutesAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/21/2016
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. February 8, 2016 – Work Session
b. February 16, 2016 – Work Session
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY FEBRUARY 8, 2016
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday February 8, 2016 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, 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.
Councilor Ralston was absent (excused).
1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Strategies.
Erin Fifield, Community Development Analyst, presented the staff report on this item.
The purpose of this annual action plan is to indicate how the City intends to use Federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to fulfill the goals established in the Eugene-Springfield
Consolidated Plan. Identifying strategies is one of the first steps to creating the One Year Action Plan.
Each spring, the City Council approves funding allocations for use of CDBG funds for the next fiscal year. The proposed uses of funds are described and submitted to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) each year in a document called the One-Year Action Plan. The Action Plan must be submitted
to HUD by May 15, 2016. The proposed uses of funding must align with allowed uses of funds and with the local community needs and strategic plan identified in the 2015 Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan.
The City’s CDBG program currently is undergoing transition, and has many pending past projects.
HUD is concerned that the City is not drawing down funds and completing projects in a timely
manner. The Council Briefing Memo includes a draft proposal for CDBG funding strategies which holds the Council’s current CDBG priorities constant, while providing options which address HUD’s
concerns.
The Draft Springfield CDBG One Year Action Plan section will be published for public comment in
March 2016 and the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) will hold a public hearing on the Draft. Following the public hearing, the CDAC will recommend to Council 2016/17 CDBG funding allocations. Council’s approval for funding allocations for the CDBG One Year
Action Plan section is planned for May 2, 2016. Ms. Fifield said staff reviewed past allocations to find a pattern of how the Council prioritizes. She
referred to the Council Briefing Memorandum and noted that they believe the City will receive about $450,000. Prior year funds to carry over are about $100,000, giving the City a total of $550,000. She noted the chart outlining the current programs the City has funded. All of those projects totaled about
$390,000 which left a balance of $160,000 of unallocated funds. She described the options staff
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 8, 2016 Page 2
drafted for Council consideration for those funds. Each option has pros and cons associated with them.
HUD will need to be consulted to determine if these options are feasible. Staff is recommending Option 3 to provide more time for the City to decide how to focus those funds.
Mr. Grimaldi said there have been prior discussions about the amount that goes into Administrative costs. They are working on reducing that amount from the CDBG funds, and taking it from the
General Fund. Options for doing that would be presented during the budget process. He noted that the staffing would remain the same and is appropriate.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was fine with the actual staff costs being captured and paid out of CDBG funds as long as they are transparent and accurate. If they can’t show the cost is warranted, he’s not
supportive. He would like to see where in the General Fund those funds would be taken before he
could support that. He confirmed the $160,000 was money rolled over, and not lost.
Ms. Fifield said the funds could be used for land or building acquisition or street improvements. Any
of the projects would be for low-income neighborhoods.
Councilor Pishioneri said that should be identified in the option. Councilor Woodrow asked if they could have an Option 4 and allocate the funds now.
Ms. Fifield said the first two options are possible ways to allocate those funds. If there is a change in the allocation, there is a process through HUD.
Councilor Woodrow said in looking at the past projects, the environmental review was missing. She
asked for clarification.
Ms. Fifield said the environmental review is a HUD requirement as part of the process. Council
allocates funds to a project, and before they are to begin the project, the City needs to do an
environmental review to determine if there is a negative impact to the environment. There are 15-20 specific questions for this review. If after this review, staff determines there are no negative impacts,
they can move forward. It was hard to say if those reviews were missed in the past, or if the documentation was misfiled.
Councilor Moore said she is interested in the City purchasing land in the future for low-income housing. She is not sure putting in sidewalks is the best use of funds. She liked the idea of coming up with other projects for the surplus funds. One idea she would like Council to consider is a no-interest
fund for low-income families for home repairs. Councilor VanGordon said if they chose Option 3, they could make the allocation in August or later.
That is his preference so they could take some time to think about how to spend those funds.
Councilor Wylie said she likes Option 3 and looking at other strategies to meet the needs. She is
alarmed at the amount of staffing costs. Normally it is about 10%, but this is nearly half. You have to match the hours people are spending on projects to the cost. She wants the money to go to the actual
projects.
Councilor Moore said she knows how much time staff time is needed for the paperwork for Federal
funds, although if we can cut costs, she would be supportive.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 8, 2016 Page 3
Mayor Lundberg said many Federal programs are not efficient. Congressman Peter DeFazio said he is
taking on the Flagstone issue and is not happy with HUD. With those rules, we do environmental assessments (EAs) all the time, so a huge amount of money goes towards those EAs. Staff time is
needed to follow-up on those that didn’t get done as well as the projects that aren’t done. SPROUT received funds for a sprinkler system that they have not installed yet. There are enough projects out there that need work, so it makes sense to keep those funds to give staff the opportunity to take care of
those issues. She spoke regarding crosswalks and sidewalks. One of the techniques for the M Street project was to improve the streets and sidewalks by providing CDBG funds for those that didn’t have
the funds to pay for their improvement. It makes a difference to how a neighborhood looks and how
children feel about their neighborhood. She is not opposed to spending funds on those types of projects. She is a proponent of holding onto the funds for now. Staff has enough to do with the
projects that aren’t completed. She would like to give staff time to clean up the books and work on the
HOME funds.
The rest of the Council was fine holding those funds.
Ms. Fifield said they will come back in April. She will also talk to HUD to see what it means to hold
back the funds. Mayor Lundberg said we have had held back funds in the past.
2. Review and Discuss Proposal from Development Advisory Committee to Streamline Development Reviews.
Anette Spickard, Development and Public Works Director, and Mary Bridget Smith, City Attorney,
presented the staff report on this item. She noted that several of the DAC members were in the
audience. These people had spent substantial amount of their own time to work on this committee.
The DAC was charged by Council to examine the Development Code and make recommendations to
Council regarding modifications that could enhance the City’s competitiveness for new development investment. The DAC has developed two concepts that would streamline the review process. Certain
policy issues have been identified that require Council discussion and direction to the DAC to help shape the final form of their proposals. The policy issues are discussed in further detail in Attachment 1.
1) The role of public involvement in development applications 2) Applicability and competitiveness of development review process 3) Timing, cost, and coordination of a Development Code amendment to create proposed process
The DAC has two proposed concepts for streamlining the development approval process. Both methods could improve the City’s competitive position in the local market and provide security to
developers, however there is a significant difference in the timing, cost and applicability of the two approaches. The simplest improvement the DAC recommends expands upon the City’s existing
ministerial building permit and site plan review procedures by expanding the definition of what
applications can qualify for the Minimum Development Standards based upon the size of the footprint involved. If Council agrees with the approach, staff is prepared to move this recommendation forward
for implementation.
The second proposal of the DAC is the creation of a new application process in the Development Code
that would create a “ministerial review” that would require the City to approve development
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 8, 2016 Page 4
applications that meet all of the criteria contained in a checklist. The City Attorney’s office has
analyzed this proposal and has highlighted a number of issues that Council needs to be aware of and understand the implications of before instructing the City to create this new process in the
Development Code. This proposal will require a substantial investment by the City to create the code amendments and process through the Planning Commission, Council and through the state for approvals.
Ms. Spickard said the City Attorney’s office has evaluated the proposals and prepared a memo
regarding several issues to be considered as Council moves forward. They would like to discuss the
policy decisions and process with the Council.
Councilor VanGordon said it would be helpful for staff to walk through the two proposals. There have
been a lot of great things that have come from the DAC. This is the hardest thing the committee has tackled and has risen to the point where Council input is needed regarding policy.
Mayor Lundberg thanked the DAC for their work. This committee started in 2011 so they have put in a lot of hours and it means a lot to our growth and our community.
Councilor Moore said she recalls that they had turned over some of the application process and plan reviews to the Planning Commission that had formerly come to the City Council. She asked if that
related to what they would be discussing tonight. Ms. Spickard said the first proposal is to take the minimum development standards and expand the
definition of who would qualify to use those processes. A chart with the process is included in the agenda packet. The first three have already been simplified. The second proposal is to develop a new
process called a ministerial review which would be between a simplified review and a regular site plan
review. That would be a new process and would involve code and process changes which would be vetted through the Planning Commission. With the ministerial review, if a commercial development
that’s already zoned appropriately that does not require a plan amendment, came in with all of the
documentation that met a specified checklist, it could be approved. The checklist would have to be drafted so staff would not have to make any assessment of the items.
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said currently a Type II review process would mean that the applicant/developer would come in to make an application with their site plan review, notice would be
given to surrounding property owners with the nature of the development. It would then go to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and then the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) if needed. Some of the issues with site plan are the application fees and the discretionary standards that
are used in a Type II application. Those discretionary standards might require an exercise of judgment, which provides some flexibility. The DAC is suggesting an idea of having less flexibility, but more certainty, which could mean less cost. It would mean making the standards more straight forward. If it
was a ministerial process and there was no notice posted or sent to property owners, they would be appealed through the Circuit Court. They would not be considered land use decisions. They could still
have some ministerial standards that are developed for the site plan tract and still do notice, which
could protect the developers in some situations. A ministerial process is more straightforward, with less process and less risk of getting into an appeal situation.
Councilor Wylie asked if there was a waiver process for the ministerial review.
Ms. Smith said part of this was based on the process that occurs at the City of Eugene. Staff can look at pulling out a standard that does have some discretion, which is known as ‘adjustment review’. That
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 8, 2016 Page 5
could be pulled out as a Type II process with notice, etc. The intake would be different, but we could
offer the adjustment review or variance for access.
Mr. Grimaldi said in looking at the ministerial review, the Council needs to weigh being accommodating to the development community because it is good for the community as a whole, with the desire for neighboring properties to have the ability to provide input on how it impacts them. He
noted the example of the cell tower near the Relief Nursery.
Councilor Moore said this could also take less staff time if it is just a checklist.
Mr. Spickard said they would still need to go through the full application and review it. If there is
something, they could pull it for an adjustment review to go through the full process. There would still
be staff time in processing the applications. Currently, they have a Development Issues meeting with the developer and representatives to go through all of the questions to determine the best way to get
the application through the process. That meeting would not occur with the ministerial review. There
would also be no cost to provide the notice to neighbors.
Councilor Moore asked if there was a cost savings for the developer. Ms. Smith said it is not only the idea of saving themselves from an appeal, but also the certainty to the
developer and more efficiency. There would be public input if the ministerial review went forward because it would include code changes.
Councilor VanGordon said the DAC feels it is important to send public notice, but is more interested in looking at the order the work gets done, certainty and time saved. It would be appealing as a
developer to have a checklist to review to know they had what they needed to move forward. We are a
community of 60,000, and we don’t have a lot of development. He feels the DAC needs to do some more work about where in the City this is the most applicable, and how many actual developments
would use this process. That would help them determine the time and energy they would spend on
City resources to move this forward, the legal issues, and weigh those against any benefit. Determining where in the City this would be useful, the easiest way to capture a straightforward
process for as many developments as possible, is the direction he would like to go. Councilor Woodrow said there will be certain projects that will fall under different parts of this
process. She asked if it would be five or six years before we could implement something like this due to the process. She asked what type of projects this would apply to.
Ms. Spickard said as a reference, in 2014 and 2015 they processed 85 projects through the minimum design standard (MDS) minor, major and site plan review. All were done in less than five weeks. Of those in site plan review, they identified two of the eight site plan reviews that could have gone
through the ministerial process. The Swanson Mill was done as a Type I process and staff was able to work with them very quickly which gave them certainty in their decision to rebuild in Springfield.
They try very hard to apply the tools available with the developers. It is hard to know how many in
the future would fit into this process.
Councilor Wylie asked how the cost to the developer figured in with the different processes.
Ms. Spickard said they have not yet set up a fee for the ministerial process. Currently, they charge
about half of what it costs in staff time for planning fees. This would be a separate fee.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 8, 2016 Page 6
Councilor Wylie asked if the ministerial would be less cost than either the minor or major.
Ms. Spickard said they had not yet talked about that so could not say.
Councilor VanGordon agreed that it would only be a guess at this time.
Councilor Wylie said she would like to know how hard it will be to accomplish. It may be a wonderful tool, but if it is going to be a burden on the City, they would need to reconsider. The gains need to be
weighed against the costs.
Ms. Spickard said the department does not have money budgeted for this project. They would need to
identify General Fund resources to figure out how to create this process.
Councilor Wylie asked if there are other communities that have done the ministerial process.
Ms. Smith said the City of Eugene currently does this process. She will find out information from them on the cost.
Councilor Moore said 5 weeks seems reasonable and quick. She is not sure how much time this would save. It sounds like it would put a strain on staff and the benefits may not outweigh the cost. She
would like to hear more about that. If they wanted to make it a long range process, that would be fine. Councilor VanGordon asked if the two projects that could have gone through the ministerial review
would fall under an expanded MDS minor process.
Mr. Ruettgers said it is likely they would not.
Councilor Woodrow asked what the factor about the ministerial review that makes it more
competitive.
Councilor VanGordon said it could be time, but could also provide certainty and reliability.
Mr. Grimaldi said the City is frequently competing against other jurisdictions when it comes to economic development. If we don’t have land that is ready to go and there is any uncertainty, the
developer will go where there is certainty. Mayor Lundberg said the complaint is that there is some uncertainty. In the past, they had talked about
having a master developer category which is where the ministerial review could go. The developers hire their own architect, engineers and planners and come in having done their homework. They don’t like to come in with no certainty. She referred to examples where things could have gone smoother.
Their goal should be to be as competitive as anyone else out there and the developers should have certainty. She doesn’t want to overhaul the Code, but wants to be priced competitively and provide
some certainty. If that is the master developer category, then that is what should be considered. The
developers that have all of their information and homework done should be able to go through the system more quickly. We need more information to make a decision.
Ms. Spickard said she had taken notes on what the Council wants: cost benefit analysis, master developer concept, and trade-offs in doing the ministerial review. She asked if they wanted the DAC
to look at those issues.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 8, 2016 Page 7
Councilor Wylie said they want the nuts and bolts look at what this is going to take in terms of staff
time and effort to put this process in place.
Mr. Grimaldi said it sounds like Council wants more information about the ministerial process. Mayor Lundberg said she thought the master developer category was being examined and would be
tied in with the ministerial review. She asked if the Council can allow for an expedited process without changes to the Code. She would like to move farther ahead than they are now.
Councilor Moore asked if they could take what we already have and make it more efficient.
Ms. Smith said that is what the expanded MDS was trying to accomplish.
Ms. Spickard said they could move forward with implementation of the expanded MDS to see what
kind of impact it creates. We have the expedited process already in place, but staff could look in terms
of a master developer.
Mayor Lundberg said it sounds like there is concern that people wouldn’t be notified and there would be an appeal. Five weeks may seem like a long time to the developer if they have already been doing pre-work. The master developer category is a way to recognize established developers. She would like
to see if we can get there without doing a full Code amendment and get the message to developers about any changes that would help the process.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:37 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
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 16, 2016
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, 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.
1. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 6, Vehicles and Traffic, Adding Section 6.112 to the Springfield
Municipal Code, Unlawful Transfer on Vehicular Portion of the Right-of-Way.
Chief of Police, Tim Doney, presented the staff report on this item. The proposed amendment would
prohibit motor vehicles from stopping in the roadway for the purpose of transferring property to
pedestrians, and would prohibit pedestrians from accepting property from drivers or passengers of vehicles unless those vehicles are legally parked.
Staff is requesting that Council discuss the potential for such an Ordinance in Springfield; and to provide direction to staff to continue or not continue development of such an ordinance.
Chief Doney said this is not a panhandling ordinance, but rather a safety and traffic flow issue. This moves the activity onto private property with the permission of the property owner, or to a legal
parking area. There are a number of other cities that have enacted a similar ordinance. With this ordinance, those engaging in a transfer of property would be fined up to $50. He noted charitable organizations that collect funds from drivers at intersections. There is a process for those groups to file
appropriate paperwork through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to allow those activities. This ordinance moves that activity out of the roadway and onto safe areas. He had witnessed
times when people soliciting money had stepped into traffic and vehicles had stopped suddenly.
Chief Doney said if something like this was enacted, staff would put up signs to alert people to the
ordinance. When he was employed in Medford, a similar ordinance was enacted. They noticed that
once the signs went up, the activity went down. Cottage Grove has issued no citations, and issued several warnings. Medford, with a population of about 80,000, has issued 6 citations. Staff would
promote the education to the citizenry. Councilor Pishioneri said this would not apply if a person stops to assist someone that is broken down
and off the road. Those people could still help out with gas money or fuel because they are not in the roadway.
Chief Doney said that is correct. It would not be a violation. Councilor Pishioneri noted several charitable organizations who would not be affected. He noted that
last week when at the intersection of Highway 126 to Main Street, a young teen was sent out of her car
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 16, 2016 Page 2
to give someone money along the side of the road as the light turned green. This was definitely safety
related. He understands people want to show compassion, so he feels the way it is written is fair and includes the ability to allow that. This tries to create a safe situation.
Councilor Woodrow said there is a lot of concern in seeing people in traffic transferring money while lights are changing to green and causing traffic delays. It is a safety issue for drivers, pedestrians and
those receiving the funds. She asked how the minimal amount of fines issued was determined.
Chief Doney said in his experience, there was a lot of education that went out and there was a lot of
value in the signage. That would be something staff would look at for heavily trafficked areas.
Councilor Moore addressed a concern from a caller and asked if this would prohibit someone from
giving to those in need publicly.
Chief Doney said it would not. It was modeled after an ordinance that was drafted down south and
related to traffic and safety, and not the right to give funds or services to others.
Councilor VanGordon said safety along our roadways is an important issue in our community. He is very interested in hearing public comment and hearing what they have to say.
Councilor Wylie said sometimes when handing out funds, it takes time to come up to get the funds, and some people hold onto the giver. She hopes people support agencies that assist. There is an unintended consequence that they may receive less funds. Overall she’s supportive of the safety
features.
Chief Doney said at a particular intersection in Medford, the activity was moved to a shopping
complex with the approval of the property owner, allowing the activity to continue.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the fine would heard at the Municipal Court.
Chief Doney said it would be heard at Municipal Court and is not a jailable offense. He didn’t
anticipate this being a heavy handed approach, but more a public education campaign. Last year, they did have a lot of pedestrian fatalities.
Mayor Lundberg said people looking for and distributing cash could also be considered distracted driving. She agrees they should move forward.
Mr. Grimaldi said if Council wants to move forward, they will schedule a public hearing on this ordinance before Council makes a decision.
Council agreed with that course of action.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 16, 2016 Page 3
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa City Recorder