Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/2011 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2011 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 28, 2011 at 6:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE. Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri,.VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Assistant City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Council Ward Redistricting. Bill Clingman from Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) presented this item. On July 11, 2011 September 26, 2011, and November 14, 2011 Council met in work sessions to review information presented by Mr. Clingman from LCOG regarding 2010 Census data and Council ward boundaries. During the November 14, 2011 work session, interactive software was used to adjust the boundaries "live" based on Council direction. Council chose to start with the Growth Scenario map and made several adjustments to the boundary lines. Based on those suggested changes, Mr. Clingman created a proposed final ward map for Council's final review. Once the final boundaries were determined, staff would prepare a final boundary map for Council ratification after the first of the year. Mr. Clingman noted the areas where the boundaries had been adjusted, and blocks that had been divided in order to make a straighter line. Councilor Woodrow asked if the line between Ward 5 and 6 was the way it was discussed at the last work session. Councilor Pishioneri said yes it was how they had discussed. Mr. Clingman discussed other options that were discussed in that area. Councilor Woodrow said it was a hard line to follow and was difficult to distinguish the two wards. Councilor Pishioneri explained why the line had been left in that location. Councilor Moore asked if there had been any input from the citizens. Mr. Grimaldi said no comments had been received in the City Manager's Office. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 28, 2011 Page 2 Councilor Wylie spoke regarding Ward 2. She said the population in Ward 2 was still quite low compared to Ward 3. Mr. Clingman said they started with the Growth Scenario which kept the population in Ward 1 and 2 lower to accommodate for growth. Ward 3 had also lost some population. Mayor Lundberg said this was based on growth and Ward 2 included Glenwood, which had a lot of potential for growth. Council consensus was to move forward with this final map. 2. Amendments to the Springfield Development Code Sections 5.5 -100 -125, 5.17 -105, 5.17 -120, and 4.2, Modifying Site Plan Review and Minimum Development Standards and Procedures. Planning Supervisor Jim Donovan and Civil Engineer Matt Stouder presented the staff report on this item. They introduced Shawn Hyland, Chair, and Eric Hall, Vice Chair of the Joint Work Team (JWT) committee. The JWT proposed numerous recommendations streamlining City processes and procedures, resulting in significant savings in time and money to the City and development community. Examples included streamlined site plan review, MDS and traffic impact study requirements, implementation of paperless review procedures, initiation of updated customer service trainings, and improved communication with review staff. The set of.proposed code changes before the City Council tonight reflected that portion of the JWT's efforts requiring code amendments prior to implementation. The Springfield Planning Commission reviewed the proposed code changes and public testimony on November 1, 2011 and forwarded an Order and Recommendation of Approval for City Council consideration. The Springfield Development Code Amendment Staff Report and DIP Summary outlining the proposed amendments and full suite of efficiency recommendations from the JWT were contain_ ed in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. A Council Briefing Memorandum addressing four areas of public testimony that the Planning Commission wished the Council to review was included as Attachment 2 of the agenda packet. Mr. Donovan said they would be reviewing the summary of the JWT recommendations Mr. Stouder referred to page 26 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet which showed the timeline for the process. In June of 2010 the City Manager, Department Directors of Public Works and Development Services, along with the City Attorney met with the development community for a listening session where concerns were expressed. Following that meeting, the City Manager and Department Directors directed staff to meet with those same development representatives. Staff met in September 2010 with representatives from the development community and went over areas of concern. During that meeting, a self selected Joint Work Team was formed and identified the following areas of focused efficiency review: 1) site plan review process, 2) city departmental roles in development review procedures and, 3) overall customer service in the development review process. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 28, 2011 Page 3. Mr. Stouder said over the next year, the JWT met approximately fourteen times over two -hour lunches to address the identified issues. An open house was held to present the recommendations to a larger group of the development community. He explained some of the recommendations which included the following:.site plan review submittal .and process improvements; expanded minimum development standard procedures; revised traffic impact study requirements; paper and process reductions; customer service training; and increased communication between departments and the development community. The JWT recommendations resulted in cost savings and efficiencies for both the development community and the City. Mr. Donovan noted that the complete list of JWT members was on page 27 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet and included the following: • Jim Donovan, City of Springfield/DSD • Matt Stouder, City of Springfield/PW • Brian Barnett, City of Springfield/PW • Dave Puent, City of Springfield/DSD (Retired prior to end of process) • Michael Liebler, City of Springfield/PW • Joe Leahy, Emerald Law /CAO • Monica Anderson, Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers • Craig Horrell, Hayden Enterprises • Shaun Hyland, John Hyland Construction Inc. • Mike Evans, Land Planning Consultants • Eric Hall, Eric Hall Architects • Carole Knapel, KPFF Consulting Engineers • Rick Satre, SchirmerSatre Group • Kristen Karle, St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County, Inc. • Renee Clough, Branch Engineering • Ed McMahon, Lane County Home Builders Association The first topic discussed was site plan review and process improvements. He noted the issues that were brought forward. The preliminary work was outlined on page 27 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. He discussed the steps taken to address the concerns. They went through the submittal requirements, expanded the MDS provisions and reduced the site plan review. He explained how that process -was streamlined, including making some Type II developments Type I development. That allowed those projects to be handled by staff instead of going through the Planning Commission. He noted that they would continue to try to get the process complete in 30 days rather than the 180 days allowed. He spoke regarding MDS which was not raised as a deterrent to development. Councilor Pishioneri asked if changing certain projects to staff level would cause an issue regarding subjectivity rather than objectivity. He asked if it created an environment that could bring about an appeal. ° Mr. Donovan said making site plan review a staff level review endeavored .to take out some of the subjectivity by providing check lists for criteria. This would provide clear standards that either met or didn't meet the criteria. The final decision would be made by the Department Director. Type I didn't typically include an appeal process as it either met or didn't meet the criteria. He provided an example of minimum setback standards. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 28, 2011 Page 4 Mr. Stouder said the JWT made other decisions to make more efficiency improvements such as reduction in paper plan submittals. The revised site plan submittal checklist included more flexible guidelines for site deed and title submittal requirements, reducing the number and /or frequency of title reports required. Another reduction in paper production included site plan review. Current site plan pre- submittal and review procedures required an applicant to submit approximately 25 paper copies of site plans and documents for the creation of legal records and review procedures. The number of plans currently required was a significant cost to produce. Staff had implemented a proposal that reduced the number of paper copies to 3 -5 paper copies and circulated to site plan review partners using'email and Laserfiche technology. The implementation of this JWT idea was reducing preparation costs for the applicant and saving handling time and storage costs for the City while preserving communication and review opportunities for internal and external development review. Mr. Stouder said another outcome of the JWT was to increase the preparer's list. The list of qualified professionals that were allowed to stamp and /or submit site plans for review had been increased to reflect current levels of expertise across the development community. The proposed changes would allow principal consultants more discretion to determine the number of design professionals necessary to prepare less complicated development proposals. Mr. Stouder said another issue was Public Works' role in development review and the site plan process. Public Works (PW) was a co- author of the development process and supported the results of the JWT. Some of the areas Public Works staff was involved included flexibility to defer numerous site plan requirement when applications were submitted in reference to infrastructure requirements. He explained further. Information needed to make a decision up front was still needed, but the detailed accounts could be deferred until later in the process. Mr. Stouder said in PW the engineering and transportation divisions had merged. That merger coincided with the beginning of this process. The development community had provided positive feedback about that change. Additionally, the recommendation of the JWT was to restructure the traffic. impact study requirements. He explained further. Staff had also worked to increase availability of staff engineers and supervisors. Mr. Donovan said customer service in development review was the third topic addressed. The department ethic had been woven throughout their effort to reduce paper and streamline the process. He acknowledged the role PW had taken in providing better customer service. Leadership had been changed, a new-physical setting had been. put into place and the two departments were going through an organizational review. Staff was also going through a new customer training program and new ethics and principle had been put into place. The principles were: City of Springfield Development Services Principles • Encourage growth and development that improves community livability in a sensible, well planned manner. • We work to get to "yes" within our regulatory framework. • Risk is permitted and encouraged. The preference is to take risks in an effort to get to "yes" rather than saying "No ". • It is necessary to say "no" at times since everything will not fit into our regulatory framework. How we say "no" is a critical customer service skill. • Employees are empowered to make decisions and be creative problem solvers at the lowest levels of the organization. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 28, 2011 Page 5 • We work as a team and speak with one voice. Internal differences are respected and considered healthy as long as they are addressed directly and resolved in a timely manner. • Decisions are made in a timely and confident manner. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM SER VICE PRINCIPLES L We're glad you are here! 2. We appreciate your needs. 3. We ask that you respect our responsibilities. 4. We are your partners not your opponents. 5. We will work together to accomplish our common goals! Mr. Donovan said the new principles had increased communication and responsiveness. The recommendation from staff was adoption of the code amendments. If Council chose, they could discuss the testimony and input from the Planning Commission. Mayor Lundberg said she would like to hear from Mr. Hyland and Mr. Hall about the process. Mr. Hyland said it was a good process and there was give and take among the team. The JWT wanted more, but as they moved on realized they were taking steps in the right direction. The ultimate goal was to make it easier to get a project built in Springfield. He felt they were getting there, but there was still a lot of work to be done. He felt. the core group worked well together and came out with a good result. It wasn't ultimately what everyone wanted, but was a good compromise and they were able to get results. He would like to see the group continue moving forward with those members that would like to continue. Mr. Hall said the JWT met quite intensely about a number of things. At some point it became evident that something needed to be developed. That had been done and it was now coming to fruition. He felt they had solved some of the easy problems. He noted that a developer was anyone who developed large projects to someone changing the use of their facility. In Eugene, there was not the same site plan review process and minimum standards process. All of the review was done as part of the building permit process. There was still work to be done, but it would require a lot of courage and take a lot of strong direction from Council as it would be rethinking core processes regarding land use. He had noted that over the years it had gotten harder to work in Springfield. One of his core allegiances with the City of Springfield was that they had always worked to get things done. He noted that some of the issues had been solved, but there was still a long way to go. Mayor Lundberg said she was very happy they were doing this. She was pleased with the participants and how it spelled out how we could be a City that helped development. Councilor Ralston said Council would be making decisions about code amendments. He asked when that would happen. It sounded like there was a lot more to do. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 28,2011 Page 6 Mr. Hall said it was the Council's call as City staff served at their. pleasure. His understanding was that if there were specific goals Council wanted to achieve, those could be addressed through this process. The committee included representatives from all aspects of the development community. As noted in the Planning Commission comments, the committee was served well with people doing the work in the development community. There were communities that had written clear and objective standards that involved criteria around housing and other development that could be reviewed in a traditional plan review process that was viable. Mayor Lundberg said there were .recommendations about how to proceed. This was not the end and the City had opportunities through this process. Councilor Wylie complimented the team on the service principles as they reflected a willingness to work with the customer. She would like to continue the process and would also like to look at other cities' processes to see what might work better. Councilor Woodrow said she also would like the JWT to keep going. She wondered if it could be a shorter time line to make things move along faster. Councilor Moore spoke regarding development fees and cost recovery. She understood that development fees had increased a lot over the last couple of years and she would. like to look at that issue as well. Mr. Grimaldi said a fee study was done prior to this process that resulted in a recommendation from a consultant. The City delayed the higher fees as they went through this process. That issue would need to be considered along the way. Mr. Hyland said the JWT had talked about the fees, but once this process was approved staff could more easily assess the actual costs. Getting this approved would get people into Springfield with an easier process. Fees were another issue and did need to be addressed at some point. Mr. Grimaldi said the fees were based on the number of hours to do a process and that had changed. Councilor Moore thanked them for their hard work. Mr. Hall said the fees were tied to the service, so they needed to know what they were doing and how much that cost before adjusting the fees. Mr. Donovan said they started out with three goals and met those to date. There was more work to do regarding the Development Code and policies. During the initial meeting with the development community, former Directors Susie Smith and Bill Grile, and City Manager Gino Grimaldi, implemented an immediate decrease in the impervious incremental fee. Staff was recommending a work session to discuss work plans, priorities, whether to have a sitting committee or issue specific committees, and whether the Planning Commission or City Council would appoint people to the committees. Mr. Donovan said two issues were brought up during the Planning Commission meeting and were addressed on page 2 of Attachment 2 of the agenda packet. The first was that MDS should be triggered by change. of use category. That had been done in Section 5..15- 110(a)(2) in the Development Code. The second item was to clarify and expand the list of persons permitted to prepare and submit City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 28, 2011. Page 7 applications. That had also been done under Section 5.17 -120 in the Development Code. The third item was to expand the MDS Major standards to apply in non - residential zoning districts. The JWT was not recommending that change take place. He explained the reasons for that recommendation. The fourth item was to continue the Developer Input Process and the work of the JWT in future process review and code update projects. Staff's recommendation was that Council direct staff to maintain communication with the current Joint Work Team and City Council with progress reports; to develop a process to establish a Council authorized committee to continue the work begun by the Developer Input Process and Joint Work Team once sufficient data was gathered on the impact of implemented efficiency improvements; and to schedule a Work Session with City Council in the Spring to review the staff recommendation and finalize the process to create such a Council authorized committee and solicit membership interest from the community. The participants on the JWT were leaders in their professions. Councilor Ralston said the work done was phenomenal. The group now understood the City's perspective and the City understood their perspective. It made sense to keep the same work group together if they were willing to serve. So much work had been done and both sides had learned a lot during this process. Councilor VanGordon said this was great collaborative work. The important thing about this process was continuous improvement. We needed to keep moving forward and he would like to see this work continue. He would also like to listen to ideas people had to make our system better. Councilor Pishioneri said he was goal oriented, but also believed in tactical thinking. When it came to the Code, staff needed to look at it closely and consider the bigger picture. This showed that everyone on the Council wanted to do the _best job for the citizens, but there was a balance. Change of use was always important and needed some type of review. He provided an example. We were moving in the right direction and needed to do it .in a well thought out way. He thanked the members of the JWT for their work. Councilor Moore said she would like to get word back to the Planning Commission about how much she appreciated their work in reviewing the recommendations. Mayor Lundberg thanked everyone for their commitment. The City needed to do what they could to help keep the economy moving forward. Mr. Donovan said this would come to Council for a public hearing next week. 3. Asset Management System Replacement. Assistant Public .Works Director Len .Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. He acknowledged staff that had assisted with this effort including Technical Services Manager Brandt Melick who was lead on this effort. Other staff involved included City Engineer Ken Vogeney, Maintenance Manager Brian Conlon, Information Technology Director Rod Lathrop, IT Database Administrator Dan Haight, and Finance Director Bob Duey. Mr. Goodwin said the City built the system that managed the City's assets through creative measures by staff. This asset management system was over ten years old and was now obsolete. Vendors no longer supported critical system components and the number, frequency, and severity of system City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 28, 2011 Page 8 failures had increased to a point that staff from the Public Works Department and the Information Technologies Department had concluded that even though the Capital Improvement Program contemplated replacement over a number of years, that immediate migration to an updated system was required to prevent catastrophic system failure. Springfield, like many other cities, did not have the resources to set aside money to replace the system. Other systems had been replaced at large expense. Although the current budget appropriated $100,000 for planning of the migration, staff had been able to accomplish the planning without use of those funds by involving industry leaders. By focusing only on replacing current functionality, the cost had been constrained to $807,000 in capital funds and $177,000 in operating funds. Staff developed an implementation option which took advantage of favorable trends in the costs of other capital projects and did not require any additional funding beyond that available in unexpended revenue bond proceeds and other existing resources. Mr. Goodwin noted the cost savings the City had experienced with low bids on projects over the last .z few years. Those funds could be moved into this project. There were no additional projects that could be done with these funds because the City didn't have staffing to manage additional projects. There were some things that couldn't be done with the funds. He explained. He spoke regarding lowering the bail bonds sold in the next round and how those savings would not be a significant amount. . Councilor Pishioneri asked Mr. Lathrop if he agreed with the estimate on system failure and if Option 1 was the best remedy. Mr. Lathrop said Option 1 would be the best, cheapest and most secure alternative. The company that supported the integration between the asset systems and GIS systems was no longer in business. IT could keep the hardware working, but not the software. Councilor Ralston said Option 1 solved the problem in two years and cost less than Option 2. Councilor Wylie asked how badly this was needed Mr. Goodwin said this was more .important than many of the other projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and was more likely in the long run to save the City money. Councilor Moore asked if the AIRS system was separate. Yes. She asked if the new system came with back -up maintenance from the company. Mr. Goodwin said the AIRS project depended in part on this system. This system provided the addressing for AIRS. These components would come with maintenance; however, staff would be talking to the City budget team during the FYI 3 budget process about taking steps to create reserves to more fully implement replacement of both hardware and software over a five to ten year period to prevent this type of situation again. Councilor Woodrow said it was similar to replacing a car when fixing it became too expensive. Councilor VanGordon said Option 1 was best for cost mitigation, but it was important to look at the next steps so we had the ability to expand. He was in favor of Option .1, but would like to continue to expand and rely on technology. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 28, 2011 Page 9 Mr. Goodwin said Mr. Melick had a spreadsheet showing how Option 1 was continued in years 3, 4, and 5, and modules for the street system and for other advancements. There was no funding for those at this time. Councilor VanGordon said when they came back he would like to see how funds could strategically be saved for the future. Councilor Pishioneri asked if there was a way to better position ourselves for the AIRS replacement in this process. Mr. Melick said the technology being considered for this project relied on web services and those web services would support the Accela application and AIRS replacement system. They were looking at providing systems that enabled that information to flow into other systems without having to repackage and reformat other servers. They were trying to get systems that were not only scalable and flexible, but could also be more transparent in how they fed information to AIRS. This system couldn't replace AIRS, but would feed it information more efficiently. Mayor Lundberg said Council preference was for Option 1. She understood the issues involved when systems were changed and old systems failed. There came a critical point when it was imperative to upgrade. She agreed with Councilor VanGordon that they needed to have the flexibility to upgrade as technology changed. She commended staff.on locating funding for this project. Mr. Goodwin said staff would present changes necessary to accommodate this purchase in a supplemental budget., They would also be presenting to the Council during the December 5 regular meeting a request to authorize the City Manager to sign a contract for the first element of this system. It was critical to get that piece signed before December 31 as it.would save the City $50,000. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor ;If Attest: � Amy So City Recorder