Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/1997 Work Session . City of Springfield Work Session MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 The City of Springfield Council met in Work Session in Springfield City Hall, Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 24, 1997, at 6:03 p.m. with Mayor Morrisette presiding. Present were Mayor Morrisette and Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist, Maine and Shaver. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorneys Joe Leahy and Meg Kieran, City Recorder Eileen Stein, Administrative Aide Shari Higgins, Development Services Director Susan Daluddung, Planning Manager Greg Mott, Community and Economic Development Manager John Tamulonis and members of staff. 1. Land Use Law Review . Mr. Kelly introduced City Attorneys Joe Leahy and Meg Kieran who provided information about Oregon Land Use Law. Mr. Leahy reviewed the outline provided to review specific topics ofland use concern. Mr. Leahy explained the general provisions of ORS 197.005; the appointment of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, . ORS 197.030; the Department of Land Conservation and Development, ORS 197.075 (which have separate statutory authority, as the development department implements the rules and guidelines of the commission); Goals Compliance, ORS 197.225; Joint Legislative. Committee as Land Use, ORS 197.125; each cities Comprehensive Planning Responsibilities, ORS 197.175, which implement comprehensive plans, exercise planning and zoning activities, and comply with statewide goals; Land Use Board of Appeals, ORS 197.805 (all appeals go to LUBA, with the exception of the 120 day rule); ORS 197.828, 197.829 regarding rules in which LUBA must abide by and the procedural process which staff must follow; and the Code of Ethics, ORS 244.040. Council asked questions about the Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) explanations provided by Mr. Leahy. Clarification was provided on the Oregon Administrative Regulations (OAR) which are in addition to ORS's and all government must abide by them. Even though they are not legislative enactments, they are legal and but must be consistent with ORS, the Department of Land Conservation and Development, and the Land Use Board of Appeals rules also. . Mr. Leahy explained the difference between Legislative and Quasi-Judicial public hearings. Legislative hearings allow for changes or determinations of rules of the entire city (Development Code changes, etc.) Quasi-Judicial hearings are for site specific issues and the procedural rules are different. For Quasi-Judicial hearings, you (as city representatives) are the judge. The property can not be visited or conversations with any parties can not occur without declaring "ex-parte" contact. Mr. Leahy explained the Quasi-Judicial process centers around fairness. He also clarified that "ex-parte" contact can occur as long as it it declared prior to the public hearing process. The Legislative process is more general for the setting of requirements that are non-parcel specific. He eXplained how each process is appealed and answered specific questions regarding LUBA. City of Springfield Work Session - 2/24/97 Page 2 . Mr. Leahy reviewed the famous land use case of Dolan versus the city of Tigard. Mr. Leahy stated the city planning staff does a good job of getting development needs placed into the community by developers. The Dolan case went to the Supreme Court and the final ruling was in favor of the developer, not the city. Mr. Leahy explained the cases of Art Piculell Group vs. Clackamas County, State of Oregon, Department of Transportation (ODOT) versus Altimus, and Schultz versus the city of Grants Pass. He detailed each case and provided council with the outcome of the case. He explained why their outcomes are important to governing bodies in Oregon. Each case was impacted by the Dolan decision, and whether governing bodies can "take" from property owners. Mr. Leahy referred to a portion of the Dolan decision which states, "To avoid being one, the condition must haven an essential nexus to a legitimate governmental interest and must be related to its nature and extent to the impacts of the development." Councilor Ballew said a "nexus" is a connected series. Mr. Leahy stated there has to be a legitimate proportionality of what impact governing bodies can place on development requirements. . Mr. Leahy said staff must overlay the city's development code with the outcome of the Dolan Case. Councilor Shaver asked if an Improvement Agreement is the same as asking the developer for property or considered a "taking." Mr. Leahy explained why the Improvement Agreements differ, as they try to be anticipatory of all requirements that will be raised. They refer to legitimate requirements and the agreement merely developers to defer the requirement in the hope that an improvement project will occur to assist the developerat a future date. Ms. Kieran explained the appeal process from LUBA into the court system, and which courts can rule on land use issues. She explained why local elected officials are used to defer appeals from LUBA and explained that ordinances adopted by the council reflect what is in the best interest of the city, while conforming to the Metropolitan Area General Plan. She then detailed the interpretation process which must occur consistently under local and state land use laws. Ms. Kieran reviewed the 120-day rule. It states if both cities and counties are involved in land use decisions, they must take action within 120 days from the date the application was deemed complete. Ifthe jurisdiction does not take action within 120 days, then the application is taken to a Circuit Court. The Circuit Court must approve the application unless it can be proven that approval would violate the local comprehensive plan or land use regulations, per ORS 227.178(7). Ms. Kieran explained the driving force is whether or not the application is deemed complete and she eXplained the factors involved with application submittal requirements. There was a discussion of complete applications, the 120 day process from a staff point of view, the liabilities connected to the city, and the implications involved with not complying with the 120-day requirement. 2. Allocation Process for Transient Room Tax for FY 1997-98 . Ms. Daluddung stated she would like some general direction from council regarding room tax fund allocations for FY 97-98. . .~ City of Springfield Work Session - 2/24/97 Page 3 . Ms. Daluddung explained room tax fund direction would assist her department in budget preparation. A revised Summary ofFY 96-97 Room Tax Activities was distributed, as fund amounts changed late today, per Finance Director Bob Duey. There is an additional $15,000 of revenue which has been included in the summary. Council discussed the summary of activities with current unappropriated revenues for FY 96-97 totaling $104,823. Ms. Daluddung explained the ongoing annual obligations which include a 4/9 percentage of room tax revenues being transferred to the General Fund. She also reminded council about new community projects and activities which were funded in FY 96-97, that are not ongoing projects, along with carryover community projects from previous years budgets. Councilor Burge asked about the status of the Oregon River Museum (ORM) and the time frame that is attached to the Challenge Grant funding. Mr. Tamulonis replied their grant did not have a specific time frame associated with it, due to the grant from the Forest Service being the matching funds for our challenge funding. Mr. Tamulonis said the Forest Service Grant to ORM expired in December 1996, but the match to the city had already been met. Council must decide whether or not to disperse any funding. Mr. Grimaldi stated the project has been put on hold and no funds will be released without a council work session discussion. . Councilor Shaver suggested placing sunset dates on community projects or challenge grants. This would encourage use of the funds or the re-submittal of another room tax request would need to occur. Ms. Daluddung and Mr. Tamulonis explained the ongoing annual obligations and no changes were suggested. Councilor Ballew suggested increasing the 4/9ths total of room tax revenues to the General Fund, which could be used to elevate some of the reductions that the Development Services Department have been instructed to make. She also mentioned the Library could use some replacements funds, as they also took a large share of reductions. Councilor Burge agreed and stated with unappropriated revenues still remaining, Ms. Daluddung did have some room to look at funding some positions out of the Room Tax Fund. Council next reviewed the ongoing annual community projects and activities. Council discussed the Museum Coordinator position and at what level it should be funded and what FTE is acceptable for managing the Arts Commission, Museum Committee,' Museum Board of Directors and the Museum. Council, by consensus, gave Ms. Daluddung their approval to calculate different scenarios for the Museum Coordinator position. Councilor Shaver stated he would like to revisit the issue of citywide boards, commissions and committees at their upcoming Goal Setting Session. By consensus, council members agreed they need to review this issue on a comprehensive level. There was a discussion of reprogramming room tax dollars to the General Fund. Council agreed to allow movement of partial (.6 FTE) of Economic Development Manager position to the Room Tax Fund. . Councilor Dahlquist suggested keeping the 4/9th of transfer to the General Fund and to use more of the room tax funds for needs within the Development Services Department. , ,. .,. . . . City of Springfield Work Session - 2/24/97 Page 4 Council agreed if funds were reprogrammed to the General Fund in FY 97-98, it would be hard to return them for room tax needs in the future. Mayor Morrisette reminded council members the last two times that room tax rates were increased, it was by the request of the industry, not by the city. Ms. Daluddung asked council if they would like to make specific decisions now or have the chance to review specific room tax proposals from community groups. Councilor Shaver suggested waiting to allocate all funds and keeping a reserve at this point, at least until the budget is approved. Councilor Maine suggested a future review of the carryover for community projects and activities from previous years project by project, with staff providing input on sunset dates or the anticipation of project completion or challenge grant matches. Councilor Burge asked about the financial status of the Filbert Festival. Councilor Maine stated in 1996 they were financially successful, but did not make a large sum of money. Councilor Ballew suggested the ticket price be increased to assist with entertainment needs. Councilor Shaver suggested the Chamber of Commerce and Filbert Festival be asked to submit proposals, but thatno other community projects be allowed to submit room tax proposals until the budget process is completed. Ms. Daluddung clarified the Development Services Departmentwill present in their budget the addition of .3 FTE back to the Museum Coordinator position. They would also review staffing to the Arts Commission and Historic Commission. Ms. Daluddung said the Arts. ' Commission has asked for .5 FTE. Councilor Burge suggested Ms. Daluddung prepare what FTE is needed to staff her department's boards, commissions and committees and revisit the issue with council. 3. Council Business Councilor Shaver asked to meet with the Finance Committee sub-committee members briefly after the meeting. Councilor Shaver also asked that council members reply to him as soon as possible about the scheduled March 15 council Goal Setting Session. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Shari Higgins ~(f71f~ ATTEST: Qo~ (l)L.2.~ D 'U'ty City Rec~der