Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/2010 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, September 20,.2010 at 6:25 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Wylie, Ralston, Simmons, 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. Councilor Lundberg was absent (excused). 1. Ward 3 Vacancy Process. City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented the staff report on this item. Due to the resignation of Councilor Tern Leezer, the Ward 3 City Council position was vacant. Council needed to determine the process in which to fill this vacancy. The Springfield Charter stated that when a vacancy occurred on the Council, the position shall be ~" .filled by appointment by a majority of the Council. The process leading up to that appointment was left open for the Council to decide. The last time a Council position was vacant, the Council chose to advertise, provide applications for interested citizens living within the correct ward, interview all applicants and appoint a new councilor. If the Council chose to move forward with this same process, staff would begin advertising for this position immediately: This would allow ample time for the recruitment and interview, so the new councilor could be appointed in November 2010. Council agreed to move forward with the process identified in the agenda packet. . Mayor Leiken suggested Council talk to people that lived in Ward 3 that might be interested. . Councilor Wylie asked for the boundaries of Ward 3. ~l~r. Grimaldi explained the boundaries. Councilor Ralston noted that the ward map was included in the back of the Council binder. 2. Sewer User Charges. . Environmental Services Division Supervisor Tim Schuck presented the staff report on this item. , Section 4.218(1) of the Municipal Code that required the financially responsible person who owned an assessed property for a local wastewater project be billed for monthly sewer user fees, regardless of City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 20, 2010 . Page 2 whether the property was connected to the local sewer, was repealed May 17, 2010 via Ordinance 6255. The new ordinance took effect for all bills rendered on or after June 17, 2010. Staff was -asked to assess the impacts of providing a credit for monies paid to those who were affected by this repeal. ,Current City Code provided an option to credit users for water consumed and not discharged into the system and was limited to twelve months preceding a request for credit. In all, there were a total of 15 accounts affected by the code change. Staff analyzed four different scenarios including: one-year credit, five-year credit, ten-year credit, and issuing no credit. In this analysis, the City would absorb the Regional portion of the credit as the decision to repeal the code was a local decision. Depending. on the amount of time Council chose to credit, the financial impact to .the City ranged from $0 to $42,400. Since many of the properties,had changed ownership and renters over the years, staff could face significant challenges if Council chose to extend a credit longer than one year as staff would have difficulty locating previous owners and tenants. , Council could opt to issue a credit to be applicable for the payment of System Development Charges ~. when the customer connected to the sewer system. However, this credit may not benefit those who actually paid the fees as not all customers were home owners. Staff was recommending Council consider aone-year credit to the SUB utility bill for sewer user fees paid by the current resident of the property poor to the ordinance change. Councilor Pishioneri thanked staff for putting this together. He felt that if a person living in the home was the same resident that had been affected for the entire time, they should receive the full credit. If there had been multiple owners, the current owner should receive the credit for as long as they had lived there. The original ordinance was intended to encourage people to hook up to the sewer system. He would like staff to draft a way to use the credit towards people getting connected to the sewer system. Councilor Simmons said staff had thought this through carefully. It would be most fair to provide .the credit for up to one year as it treated everyone equally. He felt the one year option was the most reasonable. The reason most. of these 15 residents were not connected was because the cost was too high. He referred to the Cherokee Drive LID and said if the City started offering credit to those homeowners to connect to the sewer, it affected the rate base. The ordinance had been in effect, was now finished, and staff had made a reasonable suggestion that should be accepted as fair and equitable. If they tried to go back 10 years, it could be very expensive and time consuming for staff. Councilor Ralston asked how many of those 15 residents were not hooked to sewer. All of them. The goal was to get them on the sewer system. Eventually, they would need to hook up. If a resident had been living there for the full ten years and had paid the fees, it seemed~~valid to put that money towards hookup. Councilor Pishioneri referred to the Cherokee Drive issue and how this issue was. different. The goal . was to get people hooked up. Staff already knew how many people had moved during the last ten years. The City should prioritize this to get the residents hooked up due to environmental issues ..related to septic systems. It was an opportune time for the City to facilitate that option. . City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 20, 2010.. Page 3 Mayor Leiken said since this had been going on for 10 years,. it was not time sensitive. He asked staff to do an analysis of.Councilor Pishioneri's option to see if it was doable and bring it back to Council at a future work session.. Mr. Grimaldi said it would be good to know the cost. to hook up to the sewer. If the rebate was . insignificant in relationship to that cost, it may not provide incentive. Councilor Pishioneri said that would provide the information needed to determine if it balanced. Mr. Schuck clarified that the credit would be for the current homeowner up to 10 years. Yes. Councilor Ralston asked if there was a sewer line running along that road. Mr. Goodwin said most of the homes were located in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Schuck asked if Council wanted information on just the SDC~'s or also on the cost for a contractor to connect the lateral. Councilor Pishioneri said it should include the cost of SDC's and an estimate of the cost to hook up. Mr. Goodwin asked if Council wanted staff to make a distinction between owner occupied properties and rental properties. Council said owner occupied only. Councilor Simmons said if they started to look at the cost of hookup and SDCs, they would be looking at large. figures. He wanted to have the information on the costs to hookup, plus the SDCs, plus the cost for on-site hookup, plus the cost for decommissioning the old septic system. It would be a lot of money. They also needed to know what it would cost the City in infrastructure costs, which were born by the ratepayers. They needed to make their decision based on those facts. The right thing to do .would be to give the money back, but there were other things to consider if they were going to talk about hooking them up to the sewer. Mr. Schuck said the credit would currently come out of revenue. He also noted that the City was looking towards a future bond and debt service ratio needed to be considered. 3. Downtown District Urban Design Plan. ..Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. At the July 12~' joint work session with the Planning Commission, the Council endorsed the Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee's recommended action plan for revitalizing Springfield's Downtown District and directed staff to: 1. Prepare adopting resolutions; 2. Identify, initiate and prepare amendments to the Downtown Refinement Plan and/or Springfield Development Code and/or Springfield Municipal- Code to implement the plan. The committee's recommendations were the work product of a 13-month Downtown planning process conducted by Development Services staff. The consultant team led by Crandall Ara.rnbula, P.C. worked from June 2009 -June 2010 with the Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee, a Technical ' City of Springf eld Council Work Session Minutes September 20, 2010 " Page 4 ~ ~- Advisory Committee and an Oversight Team consisting of City department managers to prepare a renewed vision and strategy for revitalizing Downtown Springfield. The plan and strategy had been coordinated with the concurrent Downtown Parking study and work performed by Rick Williams Consulting. The plan addressed the key role of urban design and a strategic implementation plan in successful downtown revitalization. The Downtown District Plan project.was initiated by the Council on July 7, 2008. Adoption and implementation of the plan would establish the City's expectations and support for Downtown's further development as a viable mixed use district. Adoption of the Implementation Strategy would ` demonstrate the City's commitment to a course of action that was' designed to stimulate private sector investment. , Downtown redevelopment was a key strategy for accommodating future growth. Adoption and implementation of the plan would initiate a series of actions (as outlined in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet) that would require continued dedication of City resources. Ms. Pauly explained the process and the two resolutions that would be presented to the Council during their regular meeting. Staff was also asking Council to initiate possible amendments to the Development Code and possibly the Municipal Code. Staff would be looking at the codes to determine what changes might be needed. She would be meeting with the Historic Commission next week to look at that further. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the Parking Plan included the current parking situation and the potential implementation of parking enforcement downtown. Ms. Pauly said the first action would be for the Oversight Team ta~determine implementation and develop proposals. They would be meeting the first week of October. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:48 p.m. Minutes Recorder -Amy Sowa Attest: . Amy Sowa City Retor r