Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/6/2010 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2010 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting F Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 6:30 p.m., with Mayor Leik ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Leezer, Ralston, Simi Pishioneri. Also present were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney J Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff. 1. Discussion of Developer .Input on Planning Fee Adoption Schedule and Interim Site Plan Review Fees. ~~ Development Services Director Bill Grile presented the staff report on this item. Rec the development community had identified areas of potential efficiency improvemen ongoing and results had the potential to alter the costs of providing planning service; adopt a planning fee ordinance this summer and have to revise it this fall, Council w; adoption of an updated planning fee ordinance to allow more time for the interactive continue. In the interim Council was asked to adopt site plan review fees designed to pressing inconsistencies identified by the FCS cost/fee analysis. STING OF ~D >om, 225 Fifth n presiding. .ons, and e Leahy, City :ion of Proposed ;nt feedback from s. The work was Rather than s asked to delay process to address the most The briefing memo included in the agenda packet, included draft changes to site plan review fees designed to bring site plan impervious area fees in line with actual costs calculated during the FCS _ - - analysis. The fees targeted the areas initially identified by individual applicants as problematic and by stakeholders during review of-the Development Fee Study and feedback sessions. Council was asked to consider adoption of these fees by emergency ordinance at their next regular session on July 19, 2010. The balance of planning fee changes would be brought forward after the process and standard review work was completed; the interim changes proposed would have minimal .impact on the overall fee schedule adopted this fall. Mr. Grile said staff's intent was to bring a full scale fee proposal to Council before summer recess, but they had decided to defer most of the fees except those related to impervious surface factor. Staff was proposing to bring an emergency ordinance to Council on July 19 to lower the site plan fees portion that was based on the impervious surface calculations. He referred to Attachment 1 in the agenda packet that identified the proposed fees. Mr. Grile said staff had an excellent meeting with a set of invited members of the development community:. builders, realtors, architects, engineers, and consultants. During this meeting, staff received input from the attendees that they took seriously. From that input, staff would like to take time working on solutions. City Manager Gino Grimaldi led the meeting and others 'iu attendance were Mr. Grile, Public Works Director Susie Smith, and City Attorney Joe Leahy. The meeting lasted nearly 2 hours and those attending provided input that was sometimes difficult, but niecessary, to hear. The concern from the Hyland's and the HomeBuilders Association (HBA) was that it would be premature to set fees before looking at the .City's procedures and standards. . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 6, 2010 Page 2 Mayor Leiken said he appreciated that staff met with this group. It was very important. This was something we should have done before, but he was glad it happened now. Those attending the meeting had invested in our community for years and it was good. they brought the issues forward. It was good ` to air things out and determine what needed to be done to get b_ ack to `The Springfield Way' . He thanked Mr. Grimaldi, Mr. Grile, Ms. Smith and Mr. Leahy: Mr. Grile said they wanted Springfield to be the first choice for investing~and growing a quality community, so they had some work to do. . Councilor Ralston referred to a chart with the charges in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. He said he liked that it was simple. He asked if additional fees would be collected~during other aspects of development if the cost recovery was set at 60%. Mr. Grile said that was correct. This was for only one portion of site plan.. Councilor Ralston said he remembered when Council wanted to recover 80%, but that amounted to a large amount of money for impervious surfaces. He was considering either a 60% recovery or 50% recovery. The larger percentage the City got on cost recovery for larger projects, the more burden it placed on the developer. Councilor Simmons said when someone built a development, pervious surface could be used rather than impervious. He had never heard what the price difference was in the two types of asphalt. He asked about the cost difference and benefits to the storm system if a developer were.to use pervious surfaces rather than impervious. He had seen it used in other areas in the northwest, but didn't know the .difference in cost. He wondered if the City could encourage pervious surfaces. Mr. Grile said he did not know much about pervious surfaces. There had been issues'with pervious surfaces at developments such as MountainGate, and he had heard that they sometimes clogged. This . fee was a charge.. on impervious surfaces. If someone wanted to propose some stormwater management technique that did not require an impervious surface, that would be an issue they could review with Public Works. . Councilor Simmons said he would like to know the cost difference and if it was soi should encourage as best practices that could benefit the City for stormwater and N other areas- that were pervious that were not beneficial, yet had been required. He fe considered as part of this review. He concurred with staff's recommendation regarc issue, but he would like to know more about those alternatives. Mr. Grile said George Walker from Environmental Services could provide a memo Councilor Pishioneri concurred with staff. He said this appeared to look more fair. of 60% cost recovery. . Councilor Leezer asked if they would provide Council with the questions asked. at staff's responses. She wanted to hear what the questions were at the meeting. Mr. Leahy said staff was at that meeting to respectfully listen and didn't provide rE thing the City )ES. He noted this should be g deferral of this subject. was supportive meeting and ~~ City of Springfield " Council Work Session Minutes July 6, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Grile said there would be a response to those questions as they went through the ~p ocess. Councilor Lundberg thanked staff for taking the initiative and working with the development community. She felt Springfield lost track of who we were and what we wanted to accomplish. It was a sad day when developers said it was easier to work with Eugene than Springfield. That didn't set well with the community's goals. She liked that they were taking one small part because the bigger part needed more work. The City had gotten to a place where the charges were too h 1g~, and we were also regulating ourselves so much it became discouraging to developers. She wanted the City to try to be a little more nimble, as difficult as that could be for a government agency. She wou~ d support 50% because they could change it if needed once they saw the affect. It was also difficult to know what the percentage was based on, so it would be good to take another look at the costs. Mr. Grile said when staff brought back the full study to Council, they may find that they. want to set different recovery thresholds for different charges. The HBA agreed. Some of the fees were much too high, and some were much too low. There may be reasons why they wanted some of ~tl~e fees to stay low if they would stimulate development. In the meantime, they needed to deal with the big problem and then work on the other issues that ranged from customer service, procedures, and standards, to making Springfield the community of choice for investment. Mayor Leiken asked if staff would be addressing site plan reviews. Yes. Councilor Simmons asked if the further review would include the Accela program. There could be some great efficiencies in that program. Mr. Grile said it would, but the biggest problem was where the City had imposed requirements that didn't return the benefit they were intended to return. He gave an example of a buildin~ in downtown that wanted to add a second story and it required a site plan review. The City had more creative ways to accomplish the same outcomes in those types of situations that cost less and took lens staff time. The .challenge was to work with engineers, consultants, the development community and staff to figure out what was trying to be accomplished and the easiest, least expensive. way to get the e. We wanted a quality community in Springfield, which did require some regulation. Councilor Ralston said he was glad they were taking this in small parts. This was the oiggest area of conflict and they may find the other areas were less significant. He was fine with either 50 or 60% recovery. He wanted to stimulate development and agreed that they.could change it later. He spoke regarding pervious surfaces and the risk of getting contaminants in the groundwater. ~ e wasn't sure putting time and effort into pervious surfaces would solve anything. Councilor Pishioneri said he had chosen 60% because it would be easier to move from 60% to 70% if they found they needed to increase the cost recovery. He asked about the affect of a 10 or 20% increase. Mr. Grile responded. , Councilor Pishioneri said he was fine with either 50 or 60%. Mayor Leiken said he would like to know how much revenue was generated by prop compared to land use and other fees: If they were interested in getting revenue to the to look at how to expand the property tax base, rather than fees. He was concerned tl ;y taxes ity, they needed were charging City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 6, 2010 Page 4 more and more in fees. He was glad they were not focused on 80% cost recovery. ThD y should be focused on what we could do to make it easier to do business in Springfield. People at the meeting had been in Springfield for many years and their concerns raised some flags for him. He~vanted to make . sure they looked at the fee structure to make sure the developer's investment would expand the tax base, and increase revenue to the City. ADJOURNMENT . , The meeting was adjourned 6:55 p.m. Minutes Recorder =Amy Sowa ~I J C~ idney . Leiken May Attest:. . 1J?iU~t--~ -Amy Sow City. Recor er l