City Council

City Hall City of Olympia 601 4th Avenue E Olympia, WA 98501 Information: 360.753.8447 Meeting Minutes City Council Tuesday, September 24, 2013 5:30 PM Conference Room 112 Ad Hoc Community Renewal Area Committee 1. ROLL CALL Present: 3 - Mayor Stephen H. Buxbaum, Mayor Pro Tem Nathaniel Jones and Councilmember Steve Langer OTHERS PRESENT Community Planning & Development (CP&D) Staff: Director Keith Stahley, Director Leonard Bauer, Program Assistant Robert Hornbein Citizens: Jerry Parker, Shelby Hentges 2 BUSINESS ITEMS 2A 13-0771 Approval of August 23, 2013 Community Renewal Area Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes The minutes were approved. 2B 13-0768 Approval of August 29, 2013 Community Renewal Area Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes The minutes were approved. 2C 13-0770 ORAL REPORT - Review Draft Component A Investment Strategy: City of Olympia Opportunity Areas The September 24, 2013 draft of EcoNorthwest’s Component A report was reviewed and discussed, and revisions proposed. Mr. Stahley summarized the process of developing this draft and provided an overview of the content. He discussed report details information about five “opportunity sites,” as well as an overarching strategy for pursuing redevelopment in Olympia. Mr. Stahley said an ideal outcome for this meeting would be for the Ad Hoc Committee to reach agreement on how this report would be presented to the City Council on October 1. Proposed revisions include: • Adding language to express the City’s desire to change the culture of how community development takes place in Olympia by being more proactive in building partnerships with developers and engaging them in the land use process, City of Olympia Page 1 City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2013 rather than being reactive and waiting for permits to be submitted. • Including the report’s conclusion in the introduction and executive summary . Reviewing the draft provided the Ad Hoc Committee with the opportunity to look at how Component A recommendations would be implemented, and how recommendations could help the City take a more proactive approach to community development. General agreement was reached that Component A of the consultant’s work could: • Help create a framework for bringing the City’s community development aspirations to fruition, help inform the process of transforming CP& D’s current culture and reactive approach to community development, and provide a framework for developing an approach that is more proactive. • Help inform and improve transportation planning. Discussion also took place on how Component A could help inform and guide the Capital Facilities Plan. Mayor Buxbaum spoke of looking at what is missing from the Capital Facilities Plan rather than creating something new, as well as looking at how the Planning Commission's Capital Facilities Subcommittee can do its work differently. He proposed a possible structure for a roundtable. Another aspect would be how Component A and a new approach to community development can improve transportation planning. Mr. Bauer commented that it could be valuable to look at how to frame the opportunity areas in a way that would help move the Capital Facilities Plan forward. Councilmember Langer raised the question of how the report’s recommendations and proposed strategy would be accomplished in terms of City staff and budget . He recommended developing a clear staffing strategy to implement a more proactive community development approach. As a preliminary step, this strategy should be presented to Council to give Councilmembers an idea of what it would look like. Mr. Stahley pointed out that the report addresses Ad Hoc Committee concerns regarding practical steps the City can take to build capacity to implement a more proactive community development strategy. Mayor Buxbaum expressed the need to first get Council’s consent on Component A , then address staffing changes that will be required to implement a new community development strategy. The discussion was completed. 2D 13-0769 ORAL REPORT - Consider Next Steps for Community Renewal Area Process and Component B, Including: Community Renewal Area Boundary Proposal, Governance Structure, Role of the Citizens Advisory Committee, and Action Plan City of Olympia Page 2 City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2013 This discussion focused on what a more proactive community development approach might look like and next steps to make this happen. Discussion items included: • The need for more stakeholder and community involvement. Questions around this topic focused on how to develop partnerships and get stakeholders to participate and bring ideas forward. Councilmember Langer would like to find ways to bring property owners, developers, community members, the City, and other stakeholders together to make things happen in the “opportunity area.” Ideally, this would be a collaborative effort that recognizes the resources each party can contribute to the process. • What a more proactive approach to community development would require in terms of City resources, including staffing. • Integrating this new approach with the City’s Capital Facilities Plan. • The need and value of convening a community development roundtable consisting of developers, community representatives, City representatives, and other stakeholders. • The Ad Hoc Committee’s role; whether it would continue to exist and be involved beyond completing the CRA project, or whether an ongoing Council committee would be created to look at broader community/economic development issues. • The Citizen Advisory Committee’s (CAC) role; particularly in regard to community involvement. • The more proactive approach would engage a variety of stakeholders/partners in an action-oriented process that brings a shared community development vision to fruition, replacing the current, reactive approach that waits until a land use permit is submitted. • The need to be clear and inclusive with City Council and the general public regarding Component A and establishing a community renewal area. • A more proactive approach to community/economic development represents a new way of conducting community planning and development “business,” and could be confusing to the public. • Because this new approach could be confusing, there will likely be a need for a dialogue about how to introduce it to the broader community. There is a need to consider how to explain this new methodology for community renewal. Following this discussion, the topic turned to what next steps would be needed to continue moving forward with developing and implementing a more proactive approach to community/economic development. Councilmember Langer proposed the idea of bringing property owners, developers, investors, neighborhood residents, and the City together to identify ways to make things happen within the opportunity areas. Key questions would address what is possible, what steps and actions are necessary to get things to happen, and, in the opportunity areas that fall into the “nurture” category (where solely market-driven development is unlikely to happen), how to get the ball rolling. Councilmember Langer observed that the Component A recommendations were too general for property owners. City of Olympia Page 3 City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2013 Mayor Pro Tem Jones said in addition to looking at capital facilities investments within the opportunity areas, it would be important not to lose sight of needed development regulation changes. Mayor Pro Tem Jones revisited what would be necessary to develop the City’s internal capacity to take on a new approach to community development and shared his perspective on what success would look like, citing three conditions: • Developers and the development community would be willing to work with the City. • The City’s capacity is developed and capable of taking on the work , particularly from a staffing standpoint. • The Planning Commission has a role to play and is capable of taking on that role. Mayor Buxbaum shared his perspective on what this process looks like; the City facilitating conversations with different stakeholders who are willing to come to the table, and that Component A is the beginning and provides a framework for this to happen. Councilmember Langer said the key element for this approach to be successful was for it to pencil out; without adequate funding nothing can happen. Mr. Stahley concurred with the Ad Hoc Committee’s comments and said next steps would be to look more closely at the specific “opportunity area” sites and develop a model for a more proactive community development process, and that this model can come out of the next steps. Mayor Buxbaum added that the five sites identified and discussed in Component A are ones the City is interested in, and some type of development will occur on these sites regardless of the level and type of involvement the City has in the process. He revisited the idea of a more proactive approach to community development, observing that the current model for community development is that the City is open for business, waiting for developers to initiate a land use permitting process. He wants to change that model to one that is more planning-focused that would identify areas the City is interested in and go after what the City wants. The Ad Hoc Committee discussed next steps and a tentative timeline for moving forward. The first step would be to convene the CAC in early November, followed up by a Council study session where the CAC’s work would be presented . Before ending discussion of this agenda item, Mayor Pro Tem Jones asked members of the public, Shelby Hentges and Jerry Parker, if they had any comments regarding what they heard. Ms. Hentges, who is involved in land development, said the Ad Hoc Committee’s discussion could be viewed both positively and cynically. On a positive note, she said it would be amazing if the City could actually establish a more proactive approach to community/ economic development. From a cynical perspective, she expressed some doubts about the model, saying that too much public involvement can mire a project. City of Olympia Page 4 City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2013 She expressed that with this type of approach, where development is more community driven, a disconnect could occur between what the community wants and what is feasible from a market standpoint. Ms. Hentges also posed a question about what would happen if the City presented a plan for a more proactive approach to community/economic development, but the community was not interested. Mayor Pro Tem Jones responded to Ms. Hentges’s concerns. Because eliminating all conflict would not be possible, it would be important to create a credible process to get buy-in. They should have no illusions about there not being any naysayers. Credible benchmarks would need to be established so people who wanted to become involved could have good information. Ms. Hentges agreed that more predictability is needed in the land use process. Mayor Buxbaum described some of the ingredients needed to create a more predictable process. One of the City’s goals should be to build a high level of agreement around sub-area plans and the Comprehensive Plan; this would help create predictability for both developers and property owners. The question was raised about what predictability looks like for developers. Ms. Hentges said that, from her perspective, one of the difficulties is the lengthy process involved in moving a development proposal through the permitting process and the risk involved because of the possibility that time and interest will be lost, as well as the added expense if a land use application is rejected or has to be revised. Another concern she expressed is the possibility of land becoming devalued because the community agreement and/or the community’s vision doesn’t jive with market realities. Councilmember Langer said he would like to see an annual review of the Comprehensive Plan by the neighborhood associations, and sees the City’s role in this process as providing information to the neighborhood associations to remind them of what they agreed on. Mr. Parker agreed that a more proactive land use process is needed, and commented on the anti-development mentality that exists within the community. Most of Mr. Parker’s remarks focused on next steps, particularly regarding Component B. He commented on the idea of forming a development roundtable, noting a fundamental question for him is what role the public will play. He said a disconnect exists between the Capital Facilities Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, that there is no connection between the former and the land use goals stated in the latter. He also observed what he sees as a lack of the CAC’s involvement in the CRA process, pointing out the last meeting was in July, and that, as a member of this Committee, this has been discouraging. He commented on the need for a demonstration project, the need to explain the connection between community renewal and downtown, and the need to engage the broader public in identifying potential CRAs. City of Olympia Page 5 City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2013 After receiving comments from Ms. Hentges and Mr. Parker, the Ad Hoc Committee moved to considering next steps for creating a downtown CRA. Mayor Buxbaum expressed the need for more work with small groups of CAC members as a preliminary step to convening the whole CAC. He also envisioned a study session with City Council and the CAC as a necessary step to ratifying Component B. Moving forward, the Ad Hoc Committee would need to report to City Council on what has been learned and the progress made concerning three topics: • CRA boundaries • CRA governance structure • CRA action plan Mayor Buxbaum observed that the Ad Hoc Committee would need to be prepared to make recommendations to City Council, and it would be desirable to put the CAC in a position of being more included and to hold a CAC meeting prior to the next Council study session. Councilmember Langer confirmed the Mayor’s intent that the next steps would involve the CAC before going to Council. Mr. Stahley asked what questions would be put before the CAC to consider. Mayor Buxbaum responded that the questions would look at drafting a CRA ordinance, deliberating on and determining the CRA boundary, deciding on a CRA governance structure, and developing an action plan. The action plan is incidental to the other decisions and could be driven either by a Downtown Master Plan or a community engagement process. The issue of how to fund the CRA was then brought up. Mayor Buxbaum stated it would cost the City $8,000,000 over the next five years to keep Percival Landing open. Mayor Pro Tem Jones asked where the CRA fits in. Mayor Buxbaum commented on the need to inject reality into the process and evaluate the most important needs of downtown. The Isthmus is linked to Percival Landing from the standpoint of public infrastructure. Tools that can be brought to the table are needed, as well as a lead-in project for revitalizing downtown. Mr. Stahley commented that a Community Renewal Plan (CRP) is required to establish a CRA, but it can be vague if acquiring specific properties and it can be readily amended. He distributed the EcoNW Status Report that presents what has been accomplished to date on the CRA project. Mr. Stahley indicated that if the City was going to go beyond the consultant’s current scope of work , it would be necessary to look at what else would need to happen and whether the City has the budget to extend the work. He mentioned that EcoNW was calling for an additional $9,000 to broaden their work and it would be important to consider next steps for the CRA City of Olympia Page 6 City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2013 project because this would impact the consultant’s work. Mayor Buxbaum summarized what he saw as the process for establishing a CRA, which was to answer the three questions discussed earlier. To answer these questions it would be necessary for EcoNW to complete their analysis of downtown (Component B) then convene the CAC in early November. The next step would be to present the CAC’s work to the Council at a study session, followed by a decision on how to proceed in early 2014. Mr. Stahley asked for clarification and confirmation of next steps outlined by the Mayor. Points clarified included having EcoNW involved in the early November CAC meeting and that the purpose of this meeting would be to get feedback from the CAC on the next steps of the CRA process. Following the CAC meeting would be a Council study session, then rolling the CRA project into the Council retreat. Mayor Buxbaum commented that the scoping for downtown needs to include what is known about Percival Landing. He also identified two questions that need to be addressed prior to the CAC meeting. The first is the role the Land Use and Environment Committee would play; the second is the relationship between the CRA and Downtown Master Plan. He indicated that answers to these questions would help to inform the CAC’s conversation. He also sees value in having the Ad Hoc Committee review the consultant’s recommendations, and to be involved with and review the CAC’s work. Discussion then briefly turned to the draft Downtown Feasibility Study (Component B). Mayor Pro Tem Jones asked if a draft of this report was ready for the Ad Hoc Committee to review. Mr. Stahley responded “no” - only a rough outline. The report was scheduled to be completed by the end of October, but the main recommendation that will come out of Component B is not to build office space downtown. The discussion was completed. 2E 13-0772 ORAL REPORT - Consider CDBG Process Proposal Discussion of this agenda item, and item 2F, took place within a general framework of how CDBG funds could be used to fund CRA-related projects. Three items were discussed: 1. Clarifying the distinction between community development and economic development. 2. Establishing a clear process. 3. Determining whether CDBG funds could be distributed through a multi-year allocation. A general topic discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee is that there is no clear City of Olympia Page 7 City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2013 understanding of, nor a process for clarifying, the meaning of economic development. Mayor Buxbaum indicated this is a needed discussion, and he would like to identify procedural actions that can be taken. Councilmember Langer said a critical piece is whether CDBG funds are revolving funds. Mayor Buxbaum inquired whether it would be possible to expedite the CDBG process to fit the CRA project timeline. Mr. Bauer indicated that early to mid-November was the deadline for developing a consolidated plan. He also brought up another point for consideration; that 70 percent of CDBG funds need to be directed to low-income projects, but that eliminating blight doesn’t necessarily fit that requirement. Councilmember Langer asked if demolishing the Isthmus buildings, acquired earlier in the year by the City, could fall within low-income requirements. Mayor Buxbaum indicated that if community renewal were undertaken as an Area Benefit project, the Isthmus properties are in a census tract that qualifies. He further indicated that creating a park is an eligible Area Benefit project that would meet both criteria of blight removal and serving low to moderate income. Mr. Bauer commented that the City would need to have a specific project and a consolidated plan to move forward. Mayor Buxbaum asked if a Section 108 loan could be used, and is there an opportunity for the City to borrow Section 108 funding. He also asked if the City could take on part of demolishing the Isthmus buildings. Mayor Pro Tem Jones asked about transferring money into a revolving loan fund . Mayor Buxbaum observed that the City would have a choice on how long to take to pay back the loan. He also mentioned the City has a housing-related revolving loan fund that could be converted to a multi-purpose revolving loan fund. This change would need to be approved. Mayor Pro Tem Jones commented that exploring the definition of economic development as it relates to CDBG funds would be valuable, and expressed interest in seeing examples of what other communities have done. The discussion was completed. 2F 13-0773 ORAL REPORT - Status Reports and Updates Including Section 108 Loan Program and Other Emerging Economic Development Issues City of Olympia Page 8 City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2013 This discussion of this agenda item was combined with item 2E. The discussion was completed. 3. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m. City of Olympia Page 9