HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1999 Work Session
. ,
~
.
.
.
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1,1999
The city of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 1, 1999, at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Maine presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Maine, Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Leiken, Lundberg and Simmons.
Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Senior
Management Analyst Rosie Pryor, City Recorder Julie Wilson and members of the staff.
1. Springfield Station Draft Environmental Assessment and Site Selection Update.
City Planners Cynthia Pappas and Kay Bork presented the staff report on this issue.
The 30-day public comment period for the draft Environmental Assessment concludes
November 9th. This will be the last time the Council can meet and get comments in before
the comment period ends.
L TD and City staff presented the draft Environmental Assessment to the City Council
September 27th. The draft Environmental Assessment has been out for public review since
October 10, 1999. The 30-day public review period will come to an end November 9th.
Staff has received comments on the EA from Councilor Simmons which were forwarded to
L TD and the consultant.
The Springfield Station Steering Committee, Technical Advisory Committee and the
Planning Commission have reviewed and commented on previous drafts of the EA.
Springfield staff from the Planning, Engineering and Traffic Divisions have mostly been
involved with the traffic, storm water, water quality and compatibility issues discussed in the
EA.
The EA does not determine a preferred site, but will be used in the decision making process
for site selection. The Steering Committee will be deliberating on a preferred site at their
November 18th meeting. The Council will be asked to indicate their preference for a site at
a public meeting scheduled for December 6, 1999.
After the Steering Committee has reviewed the public comments they will make a
recommendation to the L TD board for a final site.
Ms. Pappas discussed a type one procedure and if a use was permitted or not. She said this
would be a permitted use subject to special siting. The specific criteria would be considered
during the site plan review process.
Councilor Lundberg discussed page 12, the "no build" alternative. She discussed a potential
conflict between the possible route and the funeral home. Ms. Pappas said during the site
plan review process, these types of issues would be considered.
.
.
.
~
Springfield City Council Meeting
Work Session - 11/1/99
Page 2
Councilor Lundberg referenced page 18, section 3.1.2, relocation. She wanted to know what
type of relocation assistance was. Ms. Pappas explained that federal relocation business
money was available when a project is being paid by the federal government. L TD staff was
available to provide additional information. The LTD representative further clarified the
type of relocation assistance available. The Federal Relocation Assistance Act requires that
LTD assist with advertising and other things necessary and required to help ensure a
business has a successful move. She said there is a cap amount allowed but would need to
further research the issue to obtain specifics.
. Councilor Lundberg, discussed page 28, site g. She asked if there the building had both
upstairs and downstairs apartments. Ms. Pappas responded yes. The group discussed
potential mitigation costs and LTD's responsibility related to this issue.
The L TD representative said the construction schedule would consist of about 6 to 9 months,
depending on program and design.
Councilor Lundberg discussed the need to be able to compare how much fuel and noise is
generated or reduced, by use of bus or personal vehicles. She asked how you would measure
the comparison. Ms. Pappas said she would further research this issue, specifically, the ratio
of how many cars are displaced, resulting in the use of bus transportation being a plus
(reduction of noise, emission, fuel consumption).
Councilor Simmons discussed the definition of development and redevelopment, the
relocation of a new station and siting requirements and the need for data and facts to be
accurate. He also discussed acoustical/sound level matters, noise issues, and environmental
assessment and compliance issues.
Councilor Hatfield said it is important to be sure that appropriate procedure is followed when
L TD considers the apartments that may be impacted.
Councilor Lundberg discussed the different lifestyle people select. She said there are trade-
offs of what people will accept. She said if someone locates in a downtown area, they will
expect some noise.
Councilor Fitch said councilor Simmons did a good job of raising issues of concern. She
said anytime you conduct an environmental assessment, it is a working document and you go
from that point. She said L TD is a good partner and they will come through.
Councilor Ballew confirmed that all council agreed to move forward and clarified that
questions raised by Councilor Simmons did need to be answered.
Ms. Pappas will follow up.
2. An Ordinance Amending Appendix 1, Development Code Fees Schedule, of the Springfield
Development Code - Jo. No. 99-05-124.
Springfield City Council Meeting
Work Session - 11/1/99
Page 3
.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this issue. At the October 18, 1999,
, Council meeting, a public hearing and first reading was conducted of an ordinance to amend
the city's fees contained within the Springfield Development Code (SDC). Following the
public hearing, Council asked staff to provide additional information concerning the fee
increases, addressing questions raised by both the Lane County Home Builders Association
and council during the review. This agenda item is in response to those questions.
Twenty-nine fees are being affected by the adoption of this Ordinance. Of those twenty-nine
fee changes, three new fees are being proposed; Pre-Application Report Minimum
,Development, and Site Plan Review Minor Modification. All changes to the SDC Fee
Schedule are being made to better enable the city to recover 75% of the cost of providing
these services. It is anticipated that these changes will increase revenue by approximately
$35,000.00 annually.
At the October 18, 1999, Council meeting, a public hearing and first reading was conducted
of an Ordinance to amend the city's fees contained within the Springfield Development Code
(SDC). Following the public hearing, council asked staffto provide additional information
concerning the fee increases, addressing questions raised by both the Lane County Home
Builders Association and council during the review. This agenda item is in response to those
questions.
.
At the council work session on March 01, 1999, Council reviewed three types of fees: those
. referenced by the Springfield Municipal Code, those administrative in nature, and those set
by the Springfield Development Code (SDC). Council directed staff to adjust fees to recover
75% ofthe true cost of providing services, based on the average cost, for both city limits and
urbanizing areas. This Ordinance for SDC fee schedule changes is the last in a series of
three Resolutions/Ordinances presented to Council to reach that directive.
During the summer months, staff conducted an outreach program concerning the proposed
fee increases with identified community members. This effort included sending the
information regarding fee changes to the Springfield Chamber, the Lane County
Homebuilders Association, all prominent local builders and developers, identified land use
consultants and engineering firms, and all neighborhood associations. This effort was
concluded in September.
The city received three contacts in regards to the information mailed out to interested parties.
The Springfield Chamber responded by phone that they were supportive of the effort if it
was related to cost recovery. One developer phoned and expressed concern over the site plan
fee. Written testimony was received from one land use consultant and is included
(Attachment C) as part of the staffs response to the public input. The staffs response to the
concern over the site plan fee raised by both the developer and the land use consultant is
included as one ofthe responses in that attachment. No additional contact was made by or
with the Lane County Home Builders Association.
.
The fees changes being recommended are the result of staff reviewing the time and materials
required to complete activity related to the various planning processes. Additional
calculations were made and added to account for department and citywide overhead.
Springfield City Council Meeting
Work Session - 11/1/99
Page 4
.
The overhead percentages being used are considered standard for what the city would use for
other departments and fees. The new fees are based on the average time it takes to review a
particular application type. Several factors are involved pertaining to the fees being
recommended for increase. First is the increase in the recovery expectation from 60% to
75%. Second is the city's effort to more thoroughly include the time of all staff members
involved from both the Development Services and the Public Works Departments. Third, as
additional regulations and mandates are placed upon the review process, more time is
required by staff to complete the application review process. In a couple of cases, where
there was a great disparity in the staff effort required for certain applications (site plan
review) or where staff believed that the continuation of certain activities should be
encouraged (pre-application meeting), additional consideration was given prior to
establishing the new fee.
The first reading of this proposed Ordinance was made at the October 18, Council meeting.
To address the issues raised by Council at the public hearing, staff has completed research
that can be completed at this time. Staff also met with representatives of the Lane County
Home Builders Association to review the information presented by them at the public
hearing. The revised handout provided by the Lane County Home Builders Association is
included in the staff report as Attachment E. Information contained in the packets that will
be reviewed by staff at the November 01, work session is as follows.
.
Attachment 0 isa response by staff to the information submitted by the HomeBuilders
Association at the public hearing, and after subsequently meeting with their representatives.
Staff has provided a review of the proposed fee information utilizing the same proposed 10
lot, 25 lot, 50 lot, and I OO-Iot subdivision breakout, as it would apply to a specific
application process. Identification is made of which fees are required, which are optional in
the process, and which ones are eligible for possible credit on future fees if
recommendations made in the pre application report are followed.
Attachment F is the result of a telephone survey with comparable Oregon cities and the
dollar amount of similar planning fees for those agencies. When possible, staff obtained
information from these cities showing the recovery policy percentage current in effect, or
what their staffs estimate is, of the current recovery percentage. Indications are that
planning application fees charged by jurisdictions vary quite a bit from city to city. There is
not always a consistent pattern for level of fees charged even within cities. Most agencies
were not able to directly address what the expected recovery rate was for their organization
and in response to the question of expected recovery rate, simply relayed what they believed
to be the current rate.
.
Attachment G shows example sheets of how the cost of service was derived, by taking the
detailed time sheets received from the planners working on the various applications and then
applying the standard city overhead percentage. The percentages showed for staff overhead
(10%) and city overhead (31.2%) are consistent with other fee assessments. The department
overhead covers such items as material and services, special mailings, capital outlay,
building, utilities, and some Planning Commission costs. The citywide overhead covers such
items as the city council's involvement, City Attorney's involvement, City Manager's
Office, and the Human Resources, Finance, and Information Services Departments support
time.
Springfield City Council Meeting
Work Session - 11/1/99
Page 5
.
In addition to the above items, during the public hearing discussion the Council raised two
additional concerns. One was the concern that the fee increases might have an adverse effect
on the development of low-income housing. An Attachment B-2 footnote addresses this
concern by stating, "Fee Reduction: Any application fee related to the development of low
income housing or facilities may be reduced 50% pursuant to the criteria of Section
1.070.(4) of the Code." Staff believes that this fee reduction potential will keep the proposed
fee increase from having any adverse affect on the development of low-income housing.
The second area of concern raised by the Council was to ensure that the city has done all that
it can to perform these services in an efficient and effective manner so that citizens paying
for services through the payment of fees are receiving high value. Although this cannot be
addressed in the short term, the staff of the Public Works and Development Services
departments have already begun the planning for a peer review by outside parties to study
and report on the efficiency of the two departments.
Staffwill be available to present and review this information with Councilors at the work
session on November 01.
Attachment B identifies the changes that are being recommended to the Development Code.
There has not been any change to the fee amounts from the recommendations presented by
staff at the first reading on October 18.
.
The staff effort that is involved in the review of Development Code applications is financed
through the General Fund, the Street Fund and the Sewer Operations Fund. The estimated
revenue that may be generated by the fee changes is between $30,000 and $35,000 and
would be recognized in one of the three mentioned funds, depending upon the time and effort
involved in processing of the development application.
City Planner Mel Oberst provided clarification regarding the Development Code fee
schedule. He discussed the effects of a fee increase. Mr. Oberst responded to questions
raised by council.
Mr. Oberst discussed local laws, conditional approval, and compliance regulations and
associated fees. He also discussed credit allowances for non-profit agencies.
Mr. Oberst discussed credit incentives.
Mr. Oberst reviewed attachment F of the staff report. He also discussed cost comparisons,
standards, cost recovery, fees and collection.
Mayor Maine discussed the flexibility our organization and the importance of allowing the
city to be able to achieve and meet the goals set for our organization and community.
Finance Director Bob Due reviewed attachment B of the staff report. He discussed the
Development Code fee schedule. He also provided information regarding process, tracking
of average hours to process applications and the application / assignment of fees to projects.
.
I . .
.
.
.
Springfield City Council Meeting
Work Session - 11/1/99
Page 6
Mr. Duey discussed indirect costs, the cost to provide services, overhead expenses, materials,
and other department costs. Mr. Duey also reviewed the methodology allocation and
application of fees.
Council discussed the process for review, changes in activity, future review of the fees,
annual cost of providing services and indirect cost.
Councilor Leiken discussed comparing our percent of recovery to other organizations. He
also raised the issue of recover of costs. Development Services Director Susan Daluddung
said recovery is based on actual staff cost. Recovery fees were further discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson
~~~
Mayor
Attest:
~.
City Recorder