Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/2002 Work Session . . . . . MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY, mL Y 22, 2002 The Springfield City Council met in work session on Monday, July 22, 2002 at Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Jesse Maine Meeting Room at 6:02 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Lundberg, Ralston and . Simmons. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Kim Krebs, and members of staff. 1. Locally Controlled Street Fund Revenue Sources. Public Works Director Dan Brown and Technical Servi~es Manager Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this issue. Mr. Brown said the City FY03 Street Fund expenditures will exceed its revenues by $1.2M and the fund will be virtually depleted by the end of the current fiscal year. The State Legislature controls the Street Fund revenues and the Lane County Board of Commissioners, which means it is unlikely that either body will increase those revenues to the City in the near future. Public Works staff has worked with the City Council to review potential locally controlled revenue sources to support Street Fund activities. Staff has now concluded, in consultation with the City of Eugene staff that Springfield should join with Eugene in enacting a local fuel tax in the amount of$0.04 per gallon effective January 1,2003. Staff has also concluded that a Transportation System Maintenance Fee CTSMF) should be enacted to provide long-term stability for the Street Fund, but that this fee should not be implemented until January 1,2004. If the fuel tax is imposed, it will provide revenue sufficient to fund street programs FY 04 at a cost of $22.80 per year per driver. The TSMF would cost the average single-family residences approximately $1.50 per month, the average business $10-15 per month and the heaviest traffic generating businesses up to $200 per month. Eugene council is holding a public hearing tonight on Eugene's proposedTSMF. Mr. Brown said Eugene staff presented the fuel tax proposal to their council and they are waiting to schedule a public hearing pending the decision ofthe Springfield City Council. Councilor Simmons said he favored the fuel tax process because it seems most equitable. The application of who would pay the fuel tax is in question. He asked ifthe state exemptions would apply. Mr. Goodwin said it would be crafted with the same identical exemptions as the state fuel tax. Councilor Simmons said he had some reservations on the Transportation User Fee (TUF) and TSMF because of the equity in the process. Some people would pay more than they benefit, and others would pay less. He said he was supportive of the fuel tax collected at the distributor level. Mr. Brown said they have not done much work on the TSMF. There is ample opportunity to evaluate it further and look at other options. , Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - July 22,2002 Page - 2 . Mayor Leiken said in the last discussion, it seemed that the council consensus was that they were more supportive of a fuel tax, but not totally enthusiastic about the TSMF. Councilor Fitch said the $0.04 cents seems equitable, if that would truly take us from the deficit. She is not especially supportive ofthe TSMF, but not totally against it either. She said she was pleased to see that we would have an opportunity to review and explore options over the next 17- 18 months, as we must do something. Councilor Ballew said the roads in the city are the most visible infrastructure; therefore, there isn't much choice the $0.04 cents would provide the funding needed. She would suggest at least looking at the TSMF issue. City of Eugene Public Works Director, Kurt Corey responded to questions of Councilor Lundberg regarding the fuel tax amount. Mr. Corey said they have looked closely at what was realistic for both Springfield and Eugene. Councilor Hatfield said that in February there was a general consensus of .035 cents. Council directed staff to come back with .04 cents in order to make the fund whole. Mr. Bmwn said staff in Springfield is attempting to generate $1.2 M in revenue for FY04, and Eugene staff is trying to generate $9 M. Because of that, Eugene is attempting a TSMF and fuel tax combination. . Mr. Goodwin said the tax would be imposed at the point of purchase, however 84% of gas stations are within the corporate limits of Eugene or Springfield. There was discussion regarding the outcome ofthe citizen survey related to road and street conditions. . Councilor Lundberg said she would be supportive of the public hearing, but would not be supportive of the TSMF. City Manager Mike Kelly said most of the e~ergy to date has gone towards the fuel tax in Springfield and Eugene. The County Commissioners are still thinking about it as a countywide issue. They may be discussing it, along with the vehicle registration fee, but it is not something they are putting a lot of high energy into at this time. It may mean that Springfield and Eugene make decisions on this issue prior to the county making the same-decision. Councilor Ballew discussed the TSMF and our use of Springfield Utility Board (SUB) for billing. She would like us to investigate how much it would cost for us to do our own billing to see if it is feasible, etc. Councilor Simmons said it's not only the cost of billing and receiving, but also the cost to the consumer. As it is, citizens are paying all the fees in one spot, which is easier and less costly for them. We could compare what sanitary sewer and storm sewer user fees cost us to collect. While it might save the city money, the public might have to pay more. . Mayor Leiken said Councilor Elect Stu Burge is present with us tonight and asked if he had any comment. , Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - July 22, 2002 Page - 3 . Councilor Elect Burge said he is not up to speed on the issues, and will defer to the present council. Councilor Ralston said he is reluctant to support anything that is called a tax, 'however, he supports the $0.04-cent fuel tax. He does not support the TSMF at this time, in light ofthe fire and life safety levy in November. The further we keep the two separated the better we are. After further discussion it was council consensus to have staff prepare paperwork and schedule a public hearing in September for a $0.04-cent fuel (propane, diesel, gasoline) tax. Staff was directed to work closely with the City of Eugene to make sure the language is consistent. The public hearing would include the fuel tax only, not the TUF or TSMF. Mayor Leiken said when preparing the staff report for the upcoming public hear, it would be important to note that we have not had a tax increase since 1993, and that this proposed fuel tax would be constitutionally set aside for road maintenance. At the time of the public hearing, the public needs to know that this is being proposed because it is up to the elected officials at the municipal level to address these issues, as the state is not able or willing to do so. 2. Design Standards and Procedures Manual- Policy Issues and Adoption Schedule. . City Engineer AI Peroutka presented the staff report on this issue. He said development of a City of Springfield Engineering Design Manual was identified as a customer service need through a survey of developers and engineers performed by the Engineering Division two years ago and through feedback from a panel of developers organized by Development Services to discuss the development review process. The feedback staff received from those two sources was that a written design manual would provide better up-front information to private engineers and cut down on the need to go through multiple submittals in order to meet the city's requirements. Development of an Engineering Design Manual has also been a desire of City Engineering staff for a number of years. Mr. Peroutka said City Council last reviewed staff's plans for completion of the Manual in November of last year. The Council has also seen the draft Manual Chapters 3 and 4, which addresses the storm water quality and storm water quantity management, as background information for the recently approved Springfield Development Code amendments dealing with water quality protection. The draft manual has been available for review since November and comments have been solicited form the engineering and development community through notifications ofthe draft availability in hard copy and posted on the City's web site. At the direction ofthe City Council, an executive summary ofthe Manual was also developed and posted on the web site to highlight those items, which maybe of particular interest to the engineering and development community. . After City Council discussion and direction, staff proposes to place the draft in final form and conduct an open house for the development and engineering community during the summer recess of the council. Notifications would be sent to all interested parties, and would include the executive summary of the Manual, the web site address to view the Manual, and also information regarding how to obtain a hard copy of the draft. The notification would also include the date of the public meeting on the Manual to be scheduled shortly after council returns from their recess. Mr. Peroutka said staff expects to conduct the public hearing and adoption of the Manual by the City Council by September/October, 2002. . . , Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - July 22, 2002 Page - 4 . Mr. Peroutka said only a handful of issues related to the draft Engineering Standards and Design Manual are of sufficient policy or financial implication to be of interest to the councilor to the development community. He highlighted the information contained in the Council Briefing Memorandum related to the points of interest. He said the most significant issue is the water quality facilities that serve multiple ownerships and take drainage off of public roads. He highlighted the listed pros and cons of public ownership of these facilities. He said staff feels the pros outweigh the cons. Councilor Ballew said there is nothing wrong with public ownership, but she's not sure the city has to assume that liability. Mr. Peroutka responded to a question of Council Ralston related to detaining and processing drain water. Mr. Pero,utka said he is not referring to one development that serves only their property. When it serves multiple properties and we are trying to fit an agreement together with an association, that is where it begins to be much more difficult to assure performance of the responsibilities. Councilor Ralston said provided that we take over control, there should be some mechanism in place, such as a special district. Councilor Fitch said she would like some input from the Risk Manager in regards to insurance issues. She said city ownership or drainage district decisions are not clear. . Councilor Simmons said we need to have the word qualitative written into the language. The issue on significant assembly ofthe ponds is that we need to have public maintenance. If you look at the examples of the bio swales, the one at Symantec is the classic example a good thought gone array. Sooner or later we pay the money, or we take care of it ourselves. We need to think more comprehensively about it, in order to meet certain discharge. standards, rather than where to place the trees. We need to think about the long term. When looking at the pros andcons, the public should maintain them. He doesn't think we can create another district. He agrees there is some liability. It is the city's responsibility for waters that emanate from the city. Councilor Lundberg said it is important to have a mechanism in place. It is not a question of why the ponds are there, but that there are a purpose for them. She is not opposed to including it in the CCR or association fee, or as a business fee in order to protect the waterways. Councilor Ralston supports taking over public ownership and maintenance, as long as the initial cost is borne by the developer or owner. Mr. Peroutka confirmed that would be the process. Discussion was held regarding the fees, costs and benefits to individuals, the city and the developer. Mayor Leiken said as long as we enact a policy for the development community thatis consistent, ultimately the developer would be able to incorporate it into their cost analysis. . Mr. Kelly said the draft can be changed during recess, or if no changes are recommended, we can take this to the public hearing and bring back some fmal options. . Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - July 22, 2002 Page - 5 . Councilor Hatfield said it makes sense to obtain comments, and then schedule another work session in September/October to discuss issues regarding feedback from the homebuilders. He isn't sure ifhe prefers public ownership of ponds or not. He would like Mr. Gibons to look at this from the Risk Management point of view. He feels the public hearing should probably be delayed. Councilor Simmons requested a list of detention ponds that are under city ownership. He commended the staff for the effort put into the development of this manual, and said it will serve the community well in years to come. Councilor Fitch said we have an urban growth boundary, and we need to proceed in order to give people the capability of developing in those areas. She would like to keep this moving forward. , This could be brought forward at a work session in September followed by the public hearing in October. She believes the issue of city ownership can be decided once council receives answers to their questions. Councilor Ballew said Springfield is becoming more and more a city, and as things become more complicated this manual will be a valuable tool for the community. 3. Options for Implementing Article 40 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts. Planner III Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this issue. He said the purpose of this work session was to discuss and select a proposed implementation strategy for applying mixed- use zoning in areas currently designated for such development. . On June 3, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6015, incorporating Mixed Use zoning into the Springfield Development Code (SDC) as Article 40. The addition of this article in the SDC was intended to achieve several objectives, including; compliance with existing refinement plan policies; compliance with newly adopted TransPlan land use policies calling for nodal development; fulfilling Council Top Priority Targets for redevelopment of Glenwood and downtown with a mix of land uses within pedestrian friendly urban villages; and completion of periodic review by implementing mixed-use zoning. Mr. Metzger highlighted the information contained in the Agenda Item Summary (ArS) and Council Briefing Memorandum (Attachment 1), which discusses the existing circumstances regarding mixed-use zoning implementation and includes several options for council consideration. Those options are: · Option 1 - Council Initiated - Staff would analyze existing refinement plan policies, recommend changes where needed, and suggest to council the type of mixed use district that best implements the revised plan. · Option 2 -Council Initiated - Without analysis or change, staff would recommend the type of mixed-use zoning district that best fits the intent of the existing refinement plan policies for council approval. . · Option 3 - Property Owner Initiated: The Planning Commission would receive and decide upon zone change applications submitted by property owners seeking mixed-use . I zonmg. . Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - July 22, 2002 Page - 6 . Each option requires different amounts of stafftime. Planning Division Manager, Greg Mott, recommends option 1, which would require some adjustments in the Work Program for Special Project Planners. The current Work Program is outlined in an attached document. The items that would need changed or modified would include periodic review responsibilities and/or grant funded projects. State or federally mandated tasks cannot be easily changed. Some projects related to council goals may need to be reprioritized. Councilor Ralston said it would be better and more official to go with Option 1 from a planning standpoint. Councilor Simmons said he agrees Option 1 is most appropriate. Councilor Ballew said she isn't sure which option would take us to the next path. Councilor Lundberg suggest that the work plan be reprioritized, in order to accommodate Option 1. She knows it is a significant investment of time by staff. Is it more time consuming and costly to review the plans now or to have to back track later in time? Mr. Metzger said by reviewing and changing it now, would save stafftime and frustration later. Councilor Fitch asked a question related to a comment on attachment 1-3. "Note: It is assumed that property owner initiated zone changes would not be processed during the workil1g phase of either Option #1 or Option #2." She said if that were the case she would like to have a very hard time lines. . Mr. Metzger responded to Councilor Fitch's question. Councilor Hatfield asked how it would affect TransPlan inidentifying and protecting nodes. Would this be separate from nodal development? He mentioned that it is important to continue with the owner initiated mixed use as well. Mr. Metzger said technically it is separate, but it's an advantage because of the areas that are identified as nodal sites. We will receive professional consultation from state subsidies to evaluate the refinement plan areas. After further discussion, council consensus is was to proceed with Option 1, with the understanding that they would continue to allow owner initiated changes, and that this is not intended to slow down the development process. 4. November 2002 Ballot Opportunity for PolicelFire Staffing. Police Chief Jerry Smith and Fire Deputy Chief John Garitz presented the staff report on this issue. At the July 15,2002 work session meeting, the City Council directed staff to continue work on the concept of a November 2002 serial levy for police and fire department staffing. In addition, council had specific questions for staff to research and report back on. Chief Smith said Advanced Marketing does not recommend consolidating the two ballot measures. At this time staff is seeking council direction on language and amounts for the levies. . . Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - July 22,2002 Page - 7 . Councilor Ralston said it his opinion that the Fire and Life Safety measure would succeed. He said he has always supported adding the police officers, and supports adding the 6 officers for $IM. He is not opposed to asking for what we need. He said we have a better chance ifthey are separate measures on the ballot, but would like to see this run as one campaign. Councilor Simmons said it is obvious the fire station fulfillment is important. He supports the Police Planning Task Force's (PPTF) approach to requesting or{seeking the full amount, with the caveat that we reduce that amount by some amount, if the COPS Grant application is successful. He said at this point, he feels the intent to state to the voters is that we will reduce that levy by an amount that is prudent, and explain that over the next 3 or 4 years we will shave off that amount. He feels the Executive Team needs the flexibility to achieve the net result of reducing the crime process. Mayor Leiken asked Councilor Simmons if the PPTF was unanimous in their recommendation for the full amount of the levy, and asked if they were prepared to assist with the campaign. Councilor Simmons affirmed that it was unanimous, and they are ready and eager to assist with the campaign. . Councilor Elect Burge said a strong case can be made for the need to expand both services and he has always been supportive of them. He feels, however that this is a not a good way to support basic service. It is a short term, band-aid type general fund subsidies. He said the general fund is overspent, and this would be a short-term band-aid approach. He questioned what would happen at the end of the 4 years, would we then have to go back to the citizens, asking for additional funding. He said if it is then turned down, would we then have to eliminate staff or services that we provided on a temporary basis from the initial funding of these measures? He said basic services ought to be supported by property taxes, not a band-aid approach. Councilor Fitch said in a perfect world we would have the tax base, she agrees with Mr. Burge. She said there has been a lot of hard work on behalf ofthe council leadership to develop the JO- Year Prospective for stabilized funding. She said those discussions are ongoing; however this is the best option we have at the moment. We are not talking about cutting; we are talking about adding additional service. We have lived within our means, but we have constantly had the public come back wanting the unmanned fire station funded and better response for police. Ideally this would be a permanent increase in the base. But this is not an ideal world, and this would provide us time tb explore more options. She is supportive to go forward if it can be kept to $1.00 or under combined, utilizing some of the police grants in the process. Councilor Lundberg said we are looking at a library district, fire district, and they all take more money. There are still two measures, and people will basically either campaign for one or the other. She doesn't want to pit one against the other. They have been having discussions about a police levy for a long time. She is not comfortable with two levies and one campaign. She supports going forward with a police measure at this time, keeping our focus on one issue, rather than putting them together as one measure. Councilor Ralston said he agrees with Councilor Fitch that this is the only option available to us at this time. He doesn't agree that we are pitting one against the other. . Councilor Hatfield said we are looking at a fire district, and also a library district. He said the 10- Year evaluation of service levels has been a new approach, but sees this as a positive one. There . Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - July 22, 2002 Page - 8 . are going to have to be some solution to municipal finance in the state of Oregon. He said he agrees with Councilor Elect Burge that this is a band aid approach, but at this point there are only two options: 1) do nothing; or 2) go to the public, explain the facts, present a 5 year levy, and if we can't provide a permanent solution to the funding issue, we will come back in the 5 years. This is the best solution in the short term. Councilor Ballew said with police and fire both there, voters may lean toward the one with the lower amount than the other. She doesn't think having them separate is the best strategy. Councilor Elect Burge said given the circumstances for funding, he is not sure the request to enhance those staffing levels is that urgent. IncreasIng staffing will not make the difference if there is no capacity, no punishment available. Is it actually going to reduce crime? He likes the idea that it would provide a more visual appearance in the community, but it takes a long-term solution and plan as opposed to short term, There was discussion about the majority of the voters and market and assessed values oftheir homes. . City Manager Mike Kelly provided a quick history of the many challenges the city has faced financially. He said after Ballot Measure 47-50, council had to deal with the issue ofreducing and cutting over a period of 2 years. Then a conversation with the community was held to ask citizens where they wanted to make the extra cuts. They said no, don't make the cuts on the most important services such as police, fire, and library. That was in 1999 or 2000. Thereafter this council said we want to take care of the general fund deficit not asking for voter help, and bring revenues and expenditures in line. We have been working hardto do that. We are getting closer, but are looking at additional cuts in the years to come. This council also said we can offer citizens more services if they want to pay for those services. November of even numbered years provides an opportunity to do that. Council decided to move forward to allow citizens the opportunity to decide through fees, ballot measure, or some other means to increase services. Now ifthe council chooses not to go forward with both of these levies, they can look for $2 M within the existing service, in order to make room for these positions. Ifthe council is supportive of the campaign it will take some leadership by the council as well. Councilor Fitch said she would like council to look at option 2 for both Police and Fire and Life Safety, and that we allow the citizens to provide us their input at a public hearing on July 29th. She would like to direct staff to develop the ballot language for both measures at this time. Mayor Leiken said Councilor Elect Burge has some good points, however throughout this process each one ofthem have know that this would not a long-term fix, and that this is the hand that they have been dealt. One of their goals is to develop a long-term strategy. Ifthese two measures are successful there will still be a lot of work to do. He is hopeful that citizens and elected officials alike will be supportive of this approach. He spoke about the capacity issues at the lane County Jail, and said staff is currently evaluating this issue and working with the county. He said he would support both levies, and support evaluation of a long-term strategy on the capacity issues. . Councilor Hatfield agrees with Councilor Elect Burge except for his conclusion. He said this council and staff have made the decision that we are going to live within our means. He said he does not mind telling the public that these are additional services. He does want to talk about accountability, sanctions, and alternatives for low risk low priority offenders. He agrees with . . . . . . . Springfield City Council Work Session Minutes - July 22,2002 Page - 9 Mayor Leiken that a long-term solution be sought. There should be no competition between the two departments for these two ballot measures. After further discussion, council consensus to proceed with a public hearing on July 29 at 7:00 p.m., and that Option two would be used to base both the ballot titles on. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Kim Krebs ~