Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/2011 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSIONMEETING OF' THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2011 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 14, 2011 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri,_ VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Matt Cox; City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff. Councilor Wylie was absent (excused). The Planning Commission joined the City Council for the first item on the Work Session. Those in attendance were Planning Commission Chair Johnny.Kirschenmann, and Commissioners Steve Moe, Frank Cross, Bob Brew, Stacy Salladay, Greg James and Denise Bean. 1. National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Presentation. City Manager Gino Grimaldi introduced Ed McMahon, Executive Vice President of the HomeBuilders' Association of Lane County who had organized this event. Mr. McMahon thanked the Mayor, Council and Planning Commission for the opportunity to bring this presentation to them. He introduced Dr. Elliott Eisenberg, Senior Economist from the National Association of Home Builders in Washington D.C. Dr. Eisenberg was here to discuss how new home building positively affected growth and economic development in Springfield. Copies of The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Sprin~eld, Oregon -Comparing Costs to Revenue for Local Governments and The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Sprin~eld, Oregon - Income, Jobs, and Taxes Generated were provided to the Mayor and Council, and Planning Commission members. Dr. Eisenberg presented a power point presentation. He spoke on the process of home construction. It began with the construction phase which brought jobs; materials; local fees, taxes and contributions. The ripple or feed-back from construction was wages spent in the local economy. These first two phases lasted about 8-9 months and occurred simultaneously. These phases brought in more than usual economic growth. The occupancy phase included earnings spent in the local economy. This final phase went on as long as the house was occupied. The government needed to serve all the new housing, as well as the existing housing, so the question was whether or not housing paid its own way. Dr. Eisenberg noted that the model did not say building housing would stimulate the local economy. Rather, it was job creation that resulted in increased demand for housing. He did note that housing equaled jobs. Dr. Eisenberg referred to a chart showing the model during the construction phase. These included inputs and outputs related to construction of housing as it related to the economy. He referred to City of Springfield - Council Work Session Minutes March 14, 2011 - Page 2 another chart showing the model during the ripple phase,.which also included inputs and outputs related to income and taxes. During this process, the spending was big, but the amount that remained locally was less. He referred to a chart showing the model for the occupancy phase, which included inputs and outputs that continued over a longer period of time. Dr. Eisenberg said they looked at construction in Springfield, but surrounding areas also needed to be considered when looking at where people lived, spent their money, sent their kids to school, etc. He discussed the Springfield-Eugene multiplier which only captured spending that stayed in the metro study area. He provided examples of spending that stayed in the study area, and spending that didn't stay in the study area. There was no causal relationship between manufacturing and production of services that were produced worldwide, and local housing. Dr. Eisenberg said the model had been in place since about 1997. The model had been updated and changed. slightly. He noted that there were two reports (those distributed at the beginning of the meeting) and said he would be discussing the highlights from the part of the study concerning Income, Jobs, and Taxes Generated. The inputs to model included: average house price; average raw lot cost; permits and infrastructure; and annual property taxes. He noted the average costs in Springfield and discussed how those averages compared nationwide. Dr. Eisenberg referred to pages 5, 6 and 7 of the report. He discussed the impact of building 100 single-family homes in Springfield regarding income, taxes and jobs. The construction phase would produce about $13M and 187 jobs, the ripple affect about $6.SM and 115 jobs, and the occupancy affect about $3.SM and 56 jobs. The jobs created through the occupancy phase of 100 new homes were permanent and needed to serve those new homes. Dr. Eisenberg discussed California's growth over the last 40 years. During that time, the housing prices rose at an exceptionally high rate, yet the income rate had not increased at the same rate. This had brought California to a place where people living there wanted to leave and those living somewhere else couldn't afford to move there. Dr. Eisenberg said the City needed-to provide services. It cost about $6000 per house in Lane County to pay for those services annually. That figure did not including intergovernmental transfers. The capital per household was about $15,000 to build the infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc. Dr. Eisenberg said there were also costs to building and the question was whether or not the benefits were higher than the- costs. According to his study, the benefits did pay for the costs, with an operating surplus of $3.4M the first year, and a net income of $1.7M after taking out the investment and adding the interest. The long-term benefit would remain stable even if the investment costs increased. Housing paid its way in about a year. Some houses of lower cost may not pay their way, so higher end housing was paying the difference. ` Dr. Eisenberg provided two explanations of why what he was saying was true. The property tax was $3000, but the taxes generated by the house were $8680 per year. He spoke regarding the number of children per household in single family homes, which was nationally 0.6. He performed several examples showing that housing paid its way. Dr. Eisenberg closed saying that housing and growth were beneficial to the community Councilor VanGordon asked what Dr. Eisenberg would do as a policy maker. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 14, 2011 Page 3 Dr. Eisenberg said he would reduce SDC's at least temporarily. Some cities had lowered those fees. He would make the permit process easier on developers. He would also go through the Code to determine what was needed and what was no longer. needed. An overlay. district was another option~to consider. He would give the builders an opportunity to build what they thought would sell in an experimental area. He explained other incentives regarding property tax reductions to get builders in to a neighborhood. _ Councilor VanGordon asked about Springfield's SDCs. Dr. Eisenberg discussed how increases of different amounts affected who could buy a home. He could provide an analysis specifically for Springfield and Lane County and provide that information to Mr. McMahon. He would like to see SDCs lowered by a couple of thousand dollars, at least temporarily. It would be helpful to developers if they could have an extension on permits. Development Services Director Bill Grile said the City already allowed permit extensions. Councilor VanGordon referred to the multiplier effect. He asked about the multiplier effect on money spent on other things besides housing. Dr. Eisenberg said there were four sectors of economy that had big multipliers: government, health care; automobile manufacturing; and construction. He explained the multiplier effect of each and noted that housing was essential because it was one of the higher multipliers. Councilor Moore said Springfield had looked at growth. A lot of our planning was based on our expected growth. She asked if he was suggesting they throw out that planning. Dr. Eisenberg said he was an economist, not a planner. Neither planners nor economists could tell what was going to happen in the future. Both were needed to make decisions, although they w.ouldn't always agree. _ Planning Commissioner Brew referred to Dr. Eisenberg's comments that more expensive houses were more likely to pay their way. He asked if Dr. Eisenberg was advocating building large houses only. Dr. Eisenberg said he was not. There needed to be a mix and a balance. The average number was what they needed to focus on, not the individual number. The key was not to force people to move rather than be able to stay in town and buy or rent the size home they wanted during the different stages of their life.. He explained. Planning Commissioner James said the planning piece was important. The growth and development had occurred in a thoughtful way, making Springfield very livable. The median price for a home in Springfield was very affordable. He applauded the City Councils for their hard work-over the years. He appreciated Dr. Eisenberg's presentation. ~ . Dr. Eisenberg said those that wanted copies of the reports could contact Ed McMahon, who would provide electronic copies. 6:54 p.m. The Planning Commissioners, except Steve Moe, left the work session. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 14, 2011 Page 4 2. Downtown Parking Enforcement Project Update. Management Analyst Courtney Griesel presented a staff report on this item. City Staff had been working to progress the adopted 2010 Springfie;ld Downtown Parking Management Plan. Work began in 2010 with extensive research and further advising from Rick Williams Consulting. It was staffls intent to update Council. on the status and progress of the Downtown Parking Enforcement Project as it pertained to the capital construction project estimates, administration activities, outreach and enforcement, and requirements on future development. As currently outlined and recommended, the total cost to construct the on and off-street Downtown parking facilities was estimated to be between $130,000 and $150,000. The improved infrastructure and parking facilities were intended to maximize the current parking supply and strategically support the development of a vibrant, growing and attractive destination for shopping, working, living, recreating and entertainment. For this reason, staff may be looking to Downtown Urban Renewal dollars available to fund the construction component of this project. Ms. Griesel presented a power point presentation on this item. The Parking Plan identified the themes, principles and main goals of implementing a downtown parking enforcement program. The timeline for the plan supposed the budget was available. Currently, staff was looking at capital.construction estimates and operational issues regarding enforcement, and how to roll it out to the public as smoothly as possible. Parking Zones A, B and C had been identified in the plan. At this time, Zone A would be for free 2-hour parking on the street, Zone B would be free 3-hour parking or by permit, and Zone C would be unregulated with an option for residential permitting. Ms. Griesel said that Mr. Williams surveyed and inventoried the entire parking plan area: With that information, they determined the construction estimate. Staff and the consultant agreed that the .size of on-street parking stalls should be in the range of 19-21'. Within that range, when possible, they would prefer the 21' size. Some of the leftover spots could be used for compact vehicles. Ms. Griesel noted that the consultant provided his recommendations about striping, signing, number of spots, and.length of stalls. Staff looked at three different striping scenarios (T stalls, L stalls, platooning). Currently, the City only had T's. She explained some of the issues with T stalls. The best case scenario would be L's. She explained how that would be more beneficial. This was the recommendation from the original plan. Councilor Ralston asked how many spaces were lost if they went with the Ls. Ms. Griesel said they could retain the same number of stalls; but could lose the maximum size of stalls. She was able to work with the consultant on a hybrid model called platooning with two L's separated by one T. That scenario was the staff's choice, and the consultant's recommendation. Councilor Pishioneri said Eugene had small stalls with large buffers between Ms. Griesel said she had been working closely with the Eugene Parking Manager. Their parking spaces were small, and maneuvering spaces were large, and the Eugene Parking Manager felt they were too big. Springfield talked with public works to see;how they felt about the size. Councilor Pishioneri said he would like to know the size of the average stall in Eugene. Ms. Griesel said she would find out. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 14, 2011 ` Page 5 Ms. Griesel said it would cost about $15,000 for striping the whole project. All of the current on-street striping would need to be removed. With the plan, they would be able to add about 150 parking spots to the on-street quantity regardless of the striping design. Ms. Griesel said the next component of the plan was the signage. Staff would likely recommend that all current signage be pulled from their current locations as they were not in efficient locations. The recommendation from the consultant was to place "them at bookend locations. With the smaller blocks in Springfield, visibility would be adequate with bookending. The City's sign shop felt they could make the signs for about $30 a sign. The majority of the work was in prep work as well as installation, which was about $400-$500 per sign location. The estimate of signs costs overall was about $75,000. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the estimate was based on the signs being installed by Public Works staff or by a private contractor. Ms. Griesel said the cost was based on a mix of both. There were some components that Public Works staff could not do with the core drill because it was 12 inches. That would have to be contracted out. City staff would install the signs and make the signs. ~ _, Councilor Pishioneri asked if 12 inches was standard or if it could be tapered to something smaller. Ms. Griesel said she could find out if the 12 inch core was a requirement. She noted that staff was considering changing out the Depot District signs, as they could conflict with future wayfinding signage. The concept was to identify to a driver where they could get off into a lot to park for free, or with a permit. Some lots would include both permit and public parking. All signs with a large P were free for 3 hours. Other spots would say `pay to park' or `permit parking'. She further explained some of the parking signs. Councilor Ralston asked how much the City would be charging for permit parking. Ms. Griesel noted some costs of public and private lots as examples. They could charge more (approximately $90/ 3 months) for premium lots and less (approximately $60/3 months) for non- premium lots. No fees had been set for parking yet. Councilor Woodrow said at those rates, the premium was only about $1 a day. Ms. Griesel said the charges would make it cost neutral and -would riot be set to make a lot of revenue. Councilor Pishioneri said if someone came in from out of~town, the signs needed to be clear. He also asked if any of the proposed signs could be made to work if the .City went to metered parking in the future. . Ms. Griesel said if they went to meters later, the signs would most likely come down and be replaced with meters. She had not spent a lot of time on the metered issue. Additional small signs could be added to the bottom of the signs for additional information if needed. Councilor Woodrow asked about disabled parking. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 14, 2011 Page 6 Ms. Griesel said the current standards for disabled parking on-street allowed people with disabled permits to park for double the amount of time posted. On-street handicapped could be added if requested, but it was not the safest location for handicapped parking. The priority was to make the off- street as user friendly and accessible as possible. When looking through the off-street parking lots, they looked'at redesigning the current handicapped spots to make them more accessible. Councilor Woodrow noted the term "node of highest occupancy" and asked for a definition. Ms. Griesel said that referred to the busiest place in downtown. The permit program, as far as project administration, was important to pay for the person doing the enforcement. Tickets would also play in, but would be quite low. There would be a lot of Municipal Code revisions during this process regarding. enforcement and ticketing. There also needed to be provisions to allow residences to request parking permits. Councilor Woodrow asked about the recommendation to phase the 3-hour to 2 hour parking, and when that would occur. Ms. Griesel said it would be about 3-5 years after the first ticket was written. A lot of it depended on the economy rebounding and the ability to build up the off-street parking. There were some charging scenarios and activities that would need to occur to shape how we changed from three-hour to two- hour. The Springfield Courts would feel a substantial impact, especially in the beginning, so staff was working with them to make sure they would be ready to go with the appropriate technology and equipment. Eugene staff had been willing to meet with the Springfield Court staff to discuss what worked and what didn't work. Ms. Griesel referred to the four different enforcement scenarios. She explained each of those scenarios. They included anon-profit agency enforcing, afor-profit agency enforcing, partnering ,~ jurisdictions, or the City of Springfield. The final scenario with the City enforcing was similar to .current practices, but would become its own division or department. Councilor Ralston said he felt the cheapest scenario would be the best. The last thing he wanted to do was to have a City employee do the enforcement because of the costs. Overall the plan was good and he supported the recommendations. He felt good work had been done. Ms. Griesel said they were trying to make this as full of a picture as possible and would then prioritize it for the budget. Staff would get the enforcement scenarios priced out, do the revenue forecasting, and bring the full financial picture back to the Council for direction. Councilor Ralston asked about the spots planned for Zone B and how much revenue was projected with the fees noted. Ms. Griesel said about $15;000 - $20,000 per lot, but there were costs that would be subtracted at implementation. Councilor Ralston asked about the revenue after the initial costs to implement. Ms. Griesel said she would.bring that back when she came. back with the scenarios. Councilor Ralston asked about intermittent enforcement. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 14, 2011 Page 7 . Ms. Griesel said it would be unannounced or scheduled. Doing intermittent brought in a lower rate; full time enforcement would bring in more revenue. Discussion was held regarding enforcement on foot or with a vehicle. It was a large area for a group to cover on foot. Councilor Pishiorieri thanked Ms. Griesel for the information. The purpose of downtown parking was to trigger more activity for downtown merchants, not as a revenue generator for the City. It was to assist downtown businesses, so fit in with urban renewal. He liked the platooning, but would like more information from Eugene. He appreciated the four scenarios of how it could be managed, but was not interested in entering into an agreement with afor-profit agency. He felt staff was on the right track and could come up with something for the Council to make their decision. Ms. Griesel said the goal today was to let Council know things were moving along and to make sure she was looking. at the right'things. Councilor Pishioneri asked to look into the start up cost of signage and striping and how it could be done at the lowest cost. Ms. Griesel said the sign package would need to be approved by Council. Councilor Ralston asked how those with handicapped permits would know about the extended time on timed parking. Ms. Griesel said those that received handicapped permits received information on the uses of the permit. Councilor Moore asked if the permits would be stickers or hanging. Ms. Griesel said they would issue hanging permits. She explained the benefit of using that type of permit. Councilor Moore asked about existing City controlled lots. In the future, she would like to look at pervious types of pavement for City owned lots to help with the water run-off. City staff noted that pervious surfaces had a high maintenance responsibility and cost. Ms. Griesel said. they could provide the information on pervious surfaces when. they brought this topic back for further discussion. Councilor Ralston said there were a number of lots that were not City owned. He asked. if those lots could implement permitting. Ms. Griesel said those places could put in permitting and some already did. Councilor VanGordon asked if the premium permit would be good in all Zone B areas. Ms. Griesel said a premium permit would be good only for the designated lot. r City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 14, 2011 Page 8 . Councilor VanGordon said starting out simple would be best, but he would like to look at a rotating option later. He would also like to look at the Municipal Court costs. Ms. Griesel discussed some of the things to consider when looking at rotating options. She said some of the cost for implementing this program included the equipment and software needed for enforcement. Without the software, it would need to be done with paper andmanual tracking, which was very labor intensive. Software was the most cost effective. Councilor Moore asked if people could pay online. Ms. Griesel said that was the hope: They could require that in a contract or provide it at the City. Councilor Ralston asked how they would know if someone had been parking for too long. Ms. Griesel said there was software with license plate recognition and GPS capability. She explained how that would work. Some places did use chalk~and the person doing the enforcement manually marked the tires. Mayor Lundberg said she liked the stall platooning, the signs, and the offstreet parking. She wanted to see how businesses would know about getting a permit and securing parking for their employees: One of the. goals was to make the permits work for businesses. She would like to see all the scenarios of enforcement. It was important to see how it would be done. She felt they were moving in the right direction. ~ ' ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7: 40 p.m. Minutes Recorder -Amy Sowa J Attest: Amy Sow City Reco er _ ~~ ./ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor ~`