Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/24/2008 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CIIT COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2008 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 24,2008 at 5:33 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Police Plannin2 Task Force (PPTF) Application Review. Police Chief Jerry Smith presented this item. Four of the 'At Large' positions on the Police Planning Task Force, (PPTF) are vacant. Fred Simmons has completed one four-year term and is eligible for reappointment. Steve Singleton has completed two four-year terms and is not eligible for reappointment. Bruce Weber and Diana Garcia have both moved away from the City, and are no longer eligible. The Task Force has received four applications for the existing at-large vacancies as follows: . Fred Simmons has applied for a second four-year term. . Stacey Doll is a graduate of the Citizen Police Academy Alumni Association. . Richard Parnell is an active member of the Emerald Amateur Radio Society (EARS) and is also a graduate of the Citizen Police Academy Alumni. . Jack Martin is a graduate ofthe Citizen Police Academy Alumni Association. All four applicants meet the requirements to serve as At-Large members of the Police Planning Task Force. A formal recommendation to the Council will be made at the work session. Chief Smith said a subcommittee of the Task Force interviewed these applicants and found they were all good citizens. The subcommittee recommended appointment of all four applicants to the PPTF. Council agreed to the recommendation. 2. Historic Commission Interviews. City Planner Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. There is one vacancy on the seven-member Historic Commission. The recruitment for this vacancy opened on October 3, 2008 and closed on October 31, 2008. Three candidates applied: Kerry Barbero; Kimarie Lamb; and Michael Olsen. Ms. Lamb has previously applied for a position on the Historic Commission. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 24, 2008 Page 2 The Municipal Code states that the qualifications for membership on the Historic Commission include being appointees of Willamalane Park & Recreation District or Springfield School District # 19; or specialists with expertise in the fields of architecture, history, architectural history, planning, or archeology who live within the Metropolitan Area General Plan boundaries; or residents, electors, or property owners within Springfield. The School District and Willamalane were invited to appoint representatives to fill this vacancy and both organizations declined. State and Federal funding of the City's historic preservation activities stipulates that a majority of the Commissioners have professional qualifications in a field related to historic preservation. Four existing members possess these qualifications. The vacancy on the Commission is the result of the death of Roxie Metzler, who served on the Commission off and on for 14 years. Springfield Municipal Code Section 2.500 states that any vacancy on the historic commission shall be filled by the Mayor and Council for the unexpired portion of the term ofthe member creating the vacancy. Ms. Metzler's term expires December 31,2010. Recommendation from the Historic Commission was to appoint Kerry Barbero to the Historic Commission. Councilor Pishioneri asked if Ms. Barbero's past experience with the Evanston Urban Renewal Department was similar to the urban renewal district that Springfield had in place. Ms. Markarian said she believed it was. The Council discussed the questions and determined which Councilor would ask which question. 1. Mayor Leiken: Why are you interested in serving on the Historic Commission? 2. Councilor Ralston: Have you attended a Historic Commission meeting? 3. Councilor Ballew: Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become a Historic Commissioner. 4. Councilor Lundberg: Do you have any hands on experience with a historical project as far as renovation? 5. Councilor Woodrow: Describe your familiarity with the City's historic resources. 6. Councilor Pishioneri: The Historic Commission meets the second Tuesday of every month from 5:30pm-7:00pm, with occasional special meetiJ?gs and sub-committee meetings. Commission members are also asked to provide input and feedback from time to time via email in between meetings. Will you be able to commit to the time requirements for the Historic Commission? The Council interviewed the following candidates: · Michael Olsen (Mr. Olsen distributed a document outlining suggestions he had for the Historic Commission.) . Kerry Barbero The third applicant, Kimarie Lamb was not able to attend due to illness. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 24,2008 Page 3 Mayor Leiken welcomed each candidate. The Councilors introduced themselves and the ward they represented. Mayor Leiken explained to each applicant that Council would be deliberating this evening and would make a decision about the appointment. The applicants would be notified shortly. Following the interviews, the Council discussed the candidates. Both were highly qualified and had a great interest in serving our community. Council concurred with the Historic Commission recommendation to appoint Ms. Barbero, but strongly recommended finding another position for Mr. Olsen. It was noted that Sean Van Gordon, a current Historic Commission member, had recently been recommended to serve on the Planning Commission. Ms. Markarian said she could contact Mr. Van Gordon to see ifhe was interested in stepping down from the Historic Commission position when he took on the duties of a Planning Commissioner. If so, Council could bring in Ms. Lamb and Mr. Olsen to interview for that position. It was also noted that the Library Board would have a vacancy in the near future and Mr. Olsen would be an excellent candidate for that position. Councilor Pishioneri provided a copy of Mr. Olsen's application to Library Director Rob Everett, who was in the audience. 3. Review of Transportation System Development Charge Proiect List and Proposed Fees. Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. On October 20, 2008, staff presented a recommended project list for Transportation Systems Development Charges (SDCs). Staff have now updated the Project list based on the conversation with Council on October 20, and developed several implementation alternatives for Council discussion. After reviewing the project list, staff removed some projects that were duplicative and other projects which would not provide additional capacity, and therefore could not be funded from Improvement SDCs. Staff also checked the cost estimates to assure that there were consistent with current planning assumptions. Using the existing methodology to determine the maximum SDC, analysis of the revised list indicates that the cost per trip end would go from $113.95 to $278.89, rather than $265.60 as mentioned at the prior briefing. Staff have also developed alternative implementation strategies for the Council to consider. These include: 1) Implement the maximum possible fee. 2) Remove the increased support (Le.loca1 match) for State projects from the project list and then calculate the fee. 3) Remove other projects not likely to be constructed in the near future and then calculate the fee. 4) Use an alternate approach to allocating the cost of growth on State projects, which . reduces the share eligible for SDC funding. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 24,2008 Page 4 5) Phase implementation by imposing a fee that represents only a portion of the maximum possible fee, with a further review at some later time. Staff recommends that Council direct that staff give notice that it will present a revised Transportation SDC Project List, consisting of the full list shown in Attachment 2, for adoption and that staff will propose that Council either: 1) adopt the maximum possible fee ($278.89) indicated by applying the existing SDC methodology to that project list; or 2) adopt a fee of $224.34 and direct staff to review the fee with Council at the time of adoption of a Local Transportation System Plan, or in two years, whichever is earlier. Mr. Goodwin noted the current economic conditions and said staff had come up with some alternate options to address that issue. He discussed staff's recommendations. Currently, the City was conducting a land supply study that could affect the urban growth boundary (UGB). If the Council chose to increase the UGB, that could affect the project list and SDC fees. There was also the possibility of a development triggering additional infrastructure that could affect fees. If Council determined not to increase the rate to the full amount generated by the existing methodology, they could do so knowing that in the next couple of years Council could have another opportunity to look at it again, perhaps in better economic times. It was difficult, however, to predict what the City would need to construct in terms of necessary transportation infrastructure over the next two to five years. He explained what could occur if Council did not impose the maximum fee and a development triggered additional transportation infrastructure. In that case, the City would not have funding to support that infrastructure, putting additional pressure on developers and the development community to come up with resources to make that happen. Reimbursement Districts were another option. Mr. Goodwin said staff did recommend Council either impose the full amount, or if they choose a different amount, to consider the project list and determine which were program projects. They asked that Council still adopt the full project list so that in the event one of those future projects happened to be the one that came next, the City would legally be able to use SDC revenue on that project. He would like to walk away with the ability to put a notice in the paper in perhaps January, that the Council would be considering an increase in the SDC fees during a public hearing. That would give staff the necessary tools to get the process started. Councilor Ballew asked that in the future, staff provide subtotals for some of these in order to allow better tracking. She asked ifpage 2, plus page 3, plus page 4, plus page 5, plus page 6 totaled the Grand Total as listed on page 6 on Attachment 2 in the agenda packet. Yes. She asked for further clarification on the other charts. Mr. Goodwin explained how the figures were tracked. The difference between the two tables related to the distinction of how the projects on page 6 were calculated. He explained further. Councilor Ballew referred to the Project List on Attachment 2, page 3, the Glenwood Project 836. She noted that this project was also listed on Attachment 2, page 5 with different amounts in the two columns. She asked if these were two different projects or if this was duplication. Mr. Goodwin said it could be duplication. St~ff would check into it further. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 24, 2008 Page 5 Councilor Ballew said it was difficult to see where the charts originated from. She gave an example of one of the figures that she was confused about. Mr. Goodwin said the growth dollars should track back to the end columns in Attachment 2. He explained the distinction between the two tables. He discussed the ODOT projects. Councilor Ballew said proposing more SDC money by assigning deficiencies funding to the State was somewhat arbitrary. She asked if that was defensible. Mr. Goodwin said the City of Albany was considering the same question. The City of Salem used the method staff was recommending. If it turned out the cost of the increase in capacity was greater than the State share, then some of the cost for improvement would go to the State and not be chargable to the SDCs. The theory behind the first approach, which Salem was using, was that the ODOT system existed to serve the needs of the State transportation system, not to serve the needs of the cities. Therefore, they were responsible to improve the system. Other cities took another approach. Salem had not been challenged, and their methodology had been in place for two years. Councilor Woodrow asked what would happen if the City didn't increase the SDCs. Mr. Goodwin referred to Attachment 7, the current [ffiancial plan for the Transportation Improvement SDC Fund. It was in need of revision because staff had anticipated the recession would occur in 2010, not in 2008/09. The City did need to reduce the revenue projections somewhat. At present, the City was spending down reserves. The City should end the year with about $1.2M left in reserves in the improvement SDC Fund and would fall to less than $.5M in 2012, assuming no change. If the City didn't increase the SDCs, he would expect that financial plan would worsen due to the current recession. Staff would likely report that the Improvement SDC Fund would remain solvent through 2011 and 2012, but not further. If any sort of development that required capacity enhancement came forward, our financial plan would be greatly challenged. Councilor Woodrow asked how the reserves would be affected if Council adopted staff's recommendation. Mr. Goodwin said if the economy came out of the recession in 2010, it could result in doubling the existing SDC reserves by 2011 or 2012. Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Goodwin to go through the project list to see if there was any potential for any of our projects that could be funded by economic stimulus funds, such as the Franklin corridor in Glenwood. Mr. Goodwin said staff was talking with representatives from Washington to consider the possibility of using some of the money to improve streets on the local system to bring them up to urban standards. That would be something staff would focus on. They would also focus on the 'add lanes' project at GatewaylBelt1ine, which was ready to go. Staff would make a strong argument that should be funded by a stimulus package. The question of whether or not we actually had the money to fund that project or could redirect money to fund it would need to be addressed. A lot of things on the project list were not planned well enough to move forward for City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 24, 2008 Page 6 the stimulus package due to timing issues. Staff was putting together a list of sample projects to give back to Washington for guidance in creating that stimulus package. Mayor Leiken said it was worth a look. It would be a great help if the State b~cked out the local match. He would like to see the list of possible projects when staff brought this back in January. Mr. Goodwin said there were a number of bicycle projects in the list that could be developed quickly and could be in time for the stimulus. Councilor Lundberg said she was more interested in phasing and looking at what we could do to get the numbers under control. She was interested in the infill theory for two reasons: 1) it may not be as impactful; and 2) there wasn't a great deal of housing going on currently. Builders that might be stalled now might be interested in looking at something smaller. She would like to encourage infill on a small scale with reduced fees. She asked for a chart showing where we were regarding fees, where everyone (other cities) else was, and where we fit into the scale, not only for residential, but all building. She suggested looking at building starts and tracking that for several months. Increasing fees would only make it harder for people to start building. Councilor Ballew said she appreciated the huge amount of work that staff put into this report. She felt the City needed to start sooner than later in collecting the needed SDCs. The City had an out of date system that needed to come up to standards. As part of the new methodology, periodic updates needed to occur so that as the rates were raised incrementally, we could track the fees and the costs. She urged Council to give Mr. Goodwin the go ahead to schedule this for a January public hearing. She said the fees charged were a small percentage of what it actually cost to build and any charge would go to the beneficiary of the service. She asked staff to make an estimate of the percentage of the increase for an average home. Councilor Ralston said it looked like there were two recommended options regarding the fee. He said he favored the second option because the City wasn't going to stop growing and we needed to charge for the cost of that growth. Councilor Lundberg said she was struggling with these increases. She saw on a daily basis all that people were going through with this economy. It was difficult to look at raising fees without stopping for a moment. She agreed with the Mayor regarding the stimulus package to help with infrastructure to get people back on track. The City needed to help get through this recession as the local government and figure it out so it was fair. Mayor Leiken asked if the public hearing needed to be done in January or if it could be delayed until February or later. Mr. Goodwin said the public hearing could be done at Council discretion. He cautioned Council that the City was also looking at methodologies for local wastewater and storm drainage, which would have similar increases to be considered. He discussed the timeline and how delaying this issue would compress it with the other fees. He said he understood Councilor Lundberg's concerns. If all fees were done at once, it would magnify the issue, as would be expected. Each time this was deferred, they ran the risk of creating even more concern. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 24, 2008 Page 7 Mayor Leiken said he had talked to Ed McMahon from the HomeBuilders Association (HBA) early in the day and noted that Mr. McMahon was in the audience. He and the Mayor had talked about holding a mini-summit before the end of the year to discuss a local stimulus with representatives from the HBA and the local lending institutions for building and development industries. The lending institutions were looking more closely at applicants' financial information before loaning funds. The Mayor was interested in sitting down with these folks to decide what could be done and what we could propose. An increase in fees was probably needed at some point and he didn't want to hold up staff. He valued the partnership with the staff and the community, and was not interested in making the community unhappy, but the City needed to be in a position to be ready when the recession was over. Mr. Goodwin said if Council directed, staff could give notice of the hearing and action, but that could be changed at some point at Council's discretion. Councilor Woodrow asked what impact there would be on Option 2 if five projects could be funded through the stimulus package. Mr. Goodwin said it may not impact that in that way. It could mean that if some projects could be funded with the stimulus package, the City could do other projects on the list. It would position the City to be able to respond to real development need. Councilor Woodrow agreed with the Mayor. We needed to make this as less painful as possible. Option 2 was the best bet now given the fact that Council could come back before January 20 and reschedule if needed. Councilor Pishioneri said he agreed that Option 2 was the most prudent. Looking at the future and the expansion ofthe UGB, the costs would be significant. Infill was less expensive, but we needed to be prepared for future growth. He felt it was prudent to move ahead slowly. Mayor Leiken said this was very difficult. Council knew this would be challenging, but they didn't expect the economic downturn so soon. They could say they were passing this on to development, but it was actually being passed on to those that would be paying in the end. The projects were a lot of front end costs, but infrastructure needed to happen somewhere. Council needed to stay on top of this and could defer this if they chose. He appreciated that staff had been in contact with the HBA. Councilor Lundberg was seeing the impact of the economy in her daily job. The City needed to work with all businesses involved in the development industry. Mr. Goodwin thanked Council for the compliments. Staff realized they were presenting the Council with very difficult choices and they were not happy about that. They would prefer to bring smaller increases to Council for consideration. Staff was doing their best to provide accurate information. Councilor Ballew said Council was reluctant to pass the costs on to the citizens, but someone had to p'ay. The City needed the money to build the infrastructure and staff was telling Council the City would run out of money if something wasn't done. Mayor Leiken said the majority of the Council seemed to prefer Option 2, other than Councilor Ballew, who preferred Option 1. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 24,2008 Page 8 Mr. Goodwin said staff would publish a notice for a public hearing on January 20,2009 to adopt the full project list and a recommended fee of $224. Council could determine if they wanted to change the date of the public hearing. Councilor Ballew said if the City received funds from the stimulus package, it would lower the amount needed from SDCs. Mayor Leiken said he and Mr. McMahon would speak on the phone tomorrow and start pulling folks and ideas together. 4. Letter to Lane County Board of Commissioners Regarding Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAP A). Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery presented the staff report on this item. The Board of Commissioners may consider whether or not to give notice of their intent to terminate the Intergovernmental Agreement under which LRAP A exists. If the Council chooses to support that action, the attached letter (as approved or modified) will be sent to Lane County. Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAP A) has acted as the Lane County area air quality control authority in place of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) since 1967. Five regional partners (Lane County, City of Eugene, City of Springfield, City of Cottage Grove and City of Oakridge) have financially supported the operation expenses of LRAP A with little review of program goals and attainment. Springfield will pay $56,758 in FY08-09. Required regulatory services performed by LRAP A, as well as the DEQ in other counties, include; Violation Detection, Enforcement, and Reporting. In addition to the required air quality services, LRAP A provides educational programs to Lane County area residents, supplemental environmental project capabilities to businesses in violation of air quality standards, locally targeted programs like the Oakridge Warm Home, Clean Air Program, and the ability to dedicate resources to the exploration and marketing of new technologies. LRAP A currently monitors air quality in Lane County with approximately 19 full time employees (FTE) and 10 local monitoring network sites. This area falls within the DEQ's designated Western Region along with 11 other counties (Benton, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk and Yamhill). The DEQ currently employs 117 FTE, 23 of which staff the Air Quality Program in the 11 other counties of the Western Region. Councilor Woodrow said he received a call today from Amy from Sierra Pines, who said they really appreciated working with LRAP A. Amy was also on the Citizen Advisory Committee for LRAP A. She had also told Councilor Woodrow that Sierra Pines had a very good working relationship with LRAP A, far less than with DEQ or others. Amy had said Sierra Pines would be happier if the City decided to continue with LRAP A. Councilor Ballew said the letter stated the issue well. Every year, the City was getting farther away from resources and expenditures matching. She asked if the letter was to find out the intent of Lane County regarding continuing support for LRAP A. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 24,2008 Page 9 Mr. Towery said that was correct. Councilor Ballew said this was a good thing to do at this time because of the six-month notice requirement. LRAP A provided a higher level of service that we could no longer afford. The letter did not commit Springfield to anything. Councilor Woodrow asked if the City's financial donation was about $56,000. That was correct. He asked if LRAP A would have to turn responsibility over to the DEQ if the County decided to withdraw and Springfield followed suit. Mr. Towery said if Lane County withdrew from the intergovernmental agreement, LRAPA would no longer have the ability to exist. It was his understanding that under the statute the County had to be a party to the IGA to allow the other jurisdictions to participate. There was a population threshold for service by LRAP A that required the City of Eugene to participate. If either Eugene or Lane County pulled out of the IGA, LRAPA would cease to exist. If any of the other parties pulled out, LRAP A would continue to exist but with a different service area. Councilor Pishioneri asked if a different service area would be excluding Springfield's city limits if Springfield pulled out. Mr. Towery said that was correct. Councilor Ralston said if two of the three jurisdictions (Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield) pulled out, it would dissolve the IGA. But if Springfield withdrew and Eugene and Lane County did not, LRAP A would continue to exist, but Springfield would have no representation. Councilor Pishioneri asked if LRAP A could still enforce in the City of Springfield if Springfield withdrew. Councilor Ralston said he believed they could and Springfield wouldn't have anything to say about it. Mr. Towery said staff would check into that and provide clarification to the Council. Mayor Leiken said he appreciated the comments from Sierra Pines. He noted that his relationship with DEQ had been superb when he ran his business, which was highly regulated. He referred to Councilor Ballew's point that the City's revenue was not looking good for the future. The Budget Committee would be looking at all IGA's. This IGA required a notice and this letter was that notice. He felt it was good to send the letter out now to provide notification. Mayor Leiken asked about the start time for tonight's Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) meeting. City Recorder Amy Sowa noted that the notice for the SEDA public hearing had been noticed at 7:00pm. ADJOURNMENT City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 24, 2008 Page 10 The meeting was adjourned 6:50 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Attest: ~~ Amy S a City Recorder