Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/2010 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting r! MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2010 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 8, 2010 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Lundberg, Leezer, Simmons, and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff. Councilor Wylie absent (excused). 1. Stormwater Systems Development Charges. Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. The City had been unable to implement a new Systems Development Charges (SDC) Methodology for the stormwater system as adopted by the Council in July, 2009, because the Lane County Board of Commissioners had yet to act on an amendment to the Public Facilities and Services Plan adopted by the Council in July, 2009. Staff sought Council's direction with respect to presenting for action a modified project list which would permit the City to move ahead based on a modified Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) project list to incorporate only those projects that were located within Springfield city limits adopted on February 1,2010, and an appropriate SDC rate resolution. Now that the City had adopted a single jurisdiction PFSP amendment, it was possible for the Council to move forward with implementation of the Stormwater SDC Methodology adopted in July 2009. Staff had prepared a modified project list to conform to the projects included in the PFSP and drafted several options for implanting the rates which resulted from applying the SDC Storm water methodology to that project list. These options included alternatives to phase the increases in a manner consistent with Council's direction with respect to full implantation of Transportation and Local Wastewater SDCs. Mr. Goodwin said staff would bring the project list and resolution setting Stormwater SDCs to the April 19 Regular Meeting for Council consideration and action. He noted that the change that resulted from using the single jurisdiction PFSP instead of the multi-jurisdictional PFSP, was very minimal, about .02/square foot in the Improvement SDC. Staff would bring a reduction of the Improvement fee in April, which reflected the fact there were not as many new capacity increasing projects in the PFSP as there were in the 1970's and 1980's when the original PFSP was adopted. There were more projects that were in existence that could use the Reimbursement SDC. The two fees would bring the total fee to $55.27/square foot. Mr. Goodwin said staff was asking Council to defer action on the resolution and adoption of the project until April 19 because under the SDC Statutes, a change in a project list which resulted in an increase to the fee required a 30 day period and request for possible public hearing. Although the Improvement fee was being decreased and the 30 day period may not be required, staff felt it was consistent with citizen's ideas for fairness to hold this 30 day period. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 8, 2010 Page 2 Mr. Goodwin referred to the three options in Attachment 1 ofthe agenda packet (see below). All of the options called for a change in the Improvement fee the day following the resolution. Staff suggested that date because of the reduction in the Improvement fee. Staff suggested Council impose an Improvement fee on that same day in an amount to make the total fee exactly the same as it was currently, until they chose to make any increases as specified in the options. Option 1 - phased implementation - apply the new Improvement SDC in full for all uses effective April 20, then apply a portion of the Reimbursement SDC so that the combined new rate equals the current Improvement SDC only rate between April 20 and June 30. The full rate would be implemented effective July 1,2010, when Council plans to implement the full SDC rates for Transportation and Local Wastewater as welL Option 2 - full implementation of the new Improvement SDC for all uses effective April 20 and implementation of a portion of the Reimbursement SDC so that the combined new rate equals the current Improvement SDC only rate between April 20 and April 30, with the full Reimbursement SDC going into effect on May 1. This option implements the full combined Storm water SDC rate for all uses 2 weeks after the public hearing and two months in advance of the implementation of the full Transportation and Local Wastewater rates. Option 3 - phased implementation - apply the new Jrnprovement SDC in full for all uses effective April 20, and implementing a portion of the Reimbursement SDC until April 30 so that the combined new rate equals the current Improvement SDC only rate between April 20 and April 30, then apply a portion of the Reimbursement Fee to achieve 50% of the increased fee between May 1 and June 30. The full rate would be implemented effective July 1,2010, when Council plans to implement the full SDC rates for Transportation and Local Wastewater as welL This option most closely parallels the phasing for implementation of the Transportation and Local Wastewater SDCs, but is also the most complex and most likely to engender confusion. Councilor Simmons said they still wouldn't collect enough to build, maintain and expand the system for growth. Mr. Goodwin said until they had a PFSP project list that included projects inside and outside the urban growth boundary, that was correct. Councilor Leezer said Option 3 was more of a gradual way to get to full amount. Mr. Goodwin said Council's direction had been to bring to Council on March 15 a resolution increasing the fees partway April 1, then all the way on July 1. Because of the 30 day time period, they suggested through Option 3 that the fees were increased partway on May 1, then all the way on July 1. Council agreed this was difficult. Mayor Leiken asked Council if they had a preference of options to provide direction to staff. Option 3 was the favored option at this time. Councilor Lundberg asked if this would be for public comment. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 8, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Goodwin said it would be open for public comment on April 19. He had provided the HomeBuilders' Association a copy of this information. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 5:37 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa . Attest: ~---- Amy So City Rec aer