HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/24/2012 Work SessionCity o£ Springfi ald
Work Session Meeting
MIIVLJTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COLTIV CIL HELD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2Q, 2072
The City of SpringF eld Council met. in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fiftfi
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, September 24, 2012 at 530 p.m., with
Mayor Lundberg
presiding_
ATTENDAN C'E
Present ware Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pisfiionari, Van Gordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and
Woodrow_ Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
] _ Mobiles /Manufactured Homes Park Closure 7aaformation_
Management Analyst Courtney Griesel presented the staff report on dais item_ Ms_ Griesel introduced
Karen Clearwater, the State o£ Oregon Regional Advisor to the Department of Oregon Housing and
Community Services, who was in the audience and available to answer questions_ Ms. Clearwater was
a resource to help staff understand State requirements of housing programs, including the mobile
home park issue_ She also introduced John Van Landingham £roni Lane County Legal Aid and
Advocacy Center. Mr. Van Landingham was another resource wfio was very familiar with legislative
actions regarding housing. Although the City was not legally responsible for providing relocation
benefits to park residents affected by private closure, with changing ownership or possible nearby
development, residents had become increasingly concerned -about the future of their parks and
understanding their rights_ Staff was providing, in advance of any closures notifications, a range of
possible ways the City might address Future park closures.
Since 2004, city staf£bad on several occasions visited with mobile home park residents to discuss
issues related to potential park closures. Although no notices of closure had been issued and no parks
had closed within Springfield's UGB during this time, Staff felt that it would 1— beneficial to provide
Council and City leadership with up -to -date information about resident rights as tenants of a mobiles
home park. The information presented here was compiled from multiple sources including the State o£
Oregon., the Manufactured Home Owners of Oregon (MHOO), and the Oregon Housing and
Community Services Department-
Ms_ Griesel said there were a large number of parks througbout the region and a large number in
Springfield. As redevelopment and changes to land use was discussed, they needed to acknowledge
the possible issue of displacement of mobile home park residents. She reviewed States requirements for
closure of a mobile home park_ Park owners ware required to provide 365 days notice of closure and
tenants were eligible for tax rebates_ Thera ware soma gaps in the State requirements such as the
rebate coming after the person had to move_ This and other issues presented additional hardships.
There was a time when cities could adopt additional requirements, but Springfield did not take any
action at that time. There was some benefit in adopting those types of requirements as it addressed
some of the gaps that ware missed with the States requirements of $5000, $7000, and $9000
reimbursements_ Staff wanted to discuss looking into some type of program in which tba City looked
at different resources or actions to take with residents of mobile hoarse parks facing relocation_ This
would be separate from any legislative action as it wouldn't involve the City imposing new
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 2
requirements for the developer, but rather looking at what the City could do to assist and could be
case -by -case. An example given was if the park were in an urban renewal district, they could be
eligible for urban renewal funds. Room tax could also be used if the development was related
somehow to room tax activity. A third source of funding could possibly be Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
Ms. Griesel said staff s request was for Council to direct staff to spend some time in the mobile home
park communities, asking them questions to learn what the important topics were, their biggest
concerns and what type of support the City could offer. Staff would then come back and work with
people such as Ms. Clearwater and Mr. VanLandingham to craft a framework for a program that could
be used in the event of a mobile home park closure.
Councilor Woodrow asked if when they said case -by -case, they meant by park. Yes. She asked how
they would set parameters for each case.
Ms. Griesel said that was what they hoped to determine by spending staff time on this topic. They
wanted to understand the housing alternatives the population was interested in, having staff dedicated
to assess or find resources for each situation. Staff would need to talk with individual tenants to
determine their needs.
Councilor Woodrow asked how staff would ask those questions.
Ms. Griesel said they had talked with other agencies about partnering with the City to assist in the
research.
Councilor Woodrow said often when people heard someone was going to come to talk to residents,
they feared the worst.
Ms. Griesel said it could cause alarm, but the discussions needed to occur.
Councilor Woodrow said it could alleviate some of those fears if they had an advocate that could stay
after to answer questions.
Ms. Clearwater said the University of Oregon's Planning School had offered to provide interns so it
wouldn't be the City asking the questions, but rather an intern doing research.
Councilor Woodrow said residents could be nervous about these conversations. She felt they needed a
method that would support the residents once the information seeking started so they had someone
they could talk to and someone that was listening.
Councilor Ralston said this wasn't a new subject. He had been on the Housing Policy Board (HPB) for
many years and the time when the City had an opportunity to respond was very brief and gave the City
little time to respond. He understood the issue, but felt if the developer wanted to do something
different with the property it was up to the developer. Perhaps the City could put some mandates on
the developer to help fund relocation. He didn't know where the funds would come from in the City
unless it was the City doing the redevelopment. It was inevitable redevelopment would occur. If the
developer thought there was a high end increase in property value, perhaps the City could make the
developer come up with funds to assist. He was not opposed to helping find low- income housing for
those displaced, but the City didn't have funds.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 3
Mr. VanLandingham said State law pre - empted the City's ability to impose additional financial
obligation on the developer.
Ms. Griesel said the City could impress upon a developer the importance to do more for the tenants,
but we could not require them to do more. As partners we could encourage that assistance.
Mr. Grimaldi said from the community perspective, if this were to occur in an area that the City
wanted redevelopment to occur, we could justify using urban renewal funds to assist.
Councilor Ralston said it was not the City's responsibility.
Councilor Pishioneri said he saw this as an opportunity. He would like to know how many mobile
homes were uninhabitable. If there was a potential development and homes would be displaced, the
City would see a large increase in tax proceeds. The City could use that increase in tax revenue to
assist those being displaced. He liked Option 3 or a combination of 43 and #4. This was the time to
start scoping out areas for redevelopment. That was the purpose of SEDA money and Glenwood
would be a great place for those funds. He thought it would be beneficial for staff to talk with mobile
home park owners to hear their ideas.
Councilor Moore said a major concern was that people would be confused by being approached. She
suggested staff leave a packet of information with a contact name and number. It may not be the City's
responsibility, but councilors were representing citizens of Springfield, and Springfield was a very
compassionate place. There were many things we stepped up to try to assist with that were not the
City's responsibility. She felt that we should do whatever we could. She asked about current State
legislation she had heard about regarding this topic.
Mayor Lundberg said it was regarding first right of refusal for residents of mobile home parks. It was
introduced by Nancy Nathanson.
Mr. VanLandingham said he had drafted that legislation which was called "Opportunity to Purchase ".
This was part of a proposal that was pulled because of the complexity, but could be reintroduced in
2013. The bill was intended to either allow park residents or a non - profit to purchase the park and
preserve the park. The parks in Glenwood would not be preserved as that was a redevelopment area so
that was not likely a solution. There were other efforts to assist residents and non - profits.
Councilor VanGordon asked if a local park had closed since Eugene had changed their rules. No.
Ms. Griesel said there had not been any in Eugene. but there had been one in Oregon.
Mr. VanLandingham said four cities adopted more regulation than the State. Those were Eugene,
Bend, Wilsonville and Clackamas County. Bend and Wilsonville have similar rules, which were
stronger than those in Eugene. Their rule got challenged in Clackamas County Circuit Court and was
found to be unconstitutional. That was appealed to the Court of Appeals, who reversed it on different
grounds. By then things had changes and it was settled. Eugene's ordinance was less severe than
others and could survive a court challenge.
Mr. Grimaldi said the City of Roseburg was a good example of moving mobile home parks
successfully. In that situation, the mobile home park was in the way of the airport so the City was able
to provide additional money to help move the residents.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 4
Councilor VanGordon said having a solid policy was critical. His concern was the difficulty in
discussing this with the residents in order to collect the information to be the basis of the policy. Our
goal was to hear from them so the City could form a policy to address their needs. His preference was
between Option 43 and #4. Having non - profit partners would be key and staff needed to do the
research ahead of time. As people were transitioned out of housing, he would want to know how much
low- income housing was available in the City and if we had the capacity to accommodate those
relocated. That would be important information to provide to residents from the first meeting. This
was a very emotional issue and it would be easy for people to get the wrong impression if the steps
were not done right.
Councilor Wylie said the City needed to encourage low- income housing and be supportive with
appropriate funds. If the City became aware of closures, they needed to make sure there was low -
income housing available by working with partner agencies. She asked about the age of the mobile
homes that couldn't be moved.
Ms. Griesel said those 1976 and older. There were some movers that would move that age of home,
but there was significant liability. Our building code wouldn't approve that age of structure to be
placed in City limits even on private property. They may find that even now there were homes that
would fail inspection and be considered hazardous. She spent a weekend going through miscellaneous
parks taking inventory of mobile homes and found the typical age of the homes were 1972 -1974.
Some parks did include newer homes, and some older homes were in very good condition.
Councilor Wylie said she was concerned that some people were getting taxed on an $80,000 mobile
home yet would only get $9000. When the City worked on this before she believed they found a
number of vacancies in mobile home parks in the area.
Ms. Griesel said there were currently about 60 vacancies in Springfield. Total spaces that could
possibly be relocated were close to 1300.
Councilor Wylie said we should be working with a tangible number of homes and number of families,
and how we could assist. She did agree that the City didn't have money, but there were many other
things the City could do to assist and provide resources.
Ms. Clearwater said she toured the parks in Glenwood and there were not a lot of vacant spots, but
there were many travel trailers such as 5`h wheels and campers. The people living in those units would
not be eligible for any State funding. Many of those were on blocks and no longer had wheels.
Councilor Wylie asked Mr. VanLandingham if he had sense if the legislature would be looking at
assistance for mobile home park owners again.
Mr. VanLandingham said other than the Opportunity for Purchase issue, there may be a request for
lottery backed bonds to assist residents or non - profits to purchase park,$. There was a lot of
competition for lottery backed bonds.
Councilor Pishioneri noted that there were some very nice mobile home parks in Springfield. He was
concerned that once people thought there was an interest in redevelopment of a mobile home park,
every single home would lose value as no one would be interested in buying a home that would soon
be relocated. They needed to look at every park at the same time or they could devalue a property. The
City had a responsibility to have a plan because it was inevitable something would occur. He felt it
was great work by staff. The City didn't have the funds, but we had tools to assist.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 5
Mayor Lundberg said she supported Options 43 and 94. She agreed that mobile home parks were like
neighborhoods with specific characteristics and people very invested. Some were actually rental units
and not owner occupied, which was a different scenario. It would behoove the City to look at what
was going to occur because the City did create the Glenwood Refinement Plan which included
redevelopment. The City wanted redevelopment so we had an obligation to our residents. She referred
to the housing project between the Roth's and HAFSA as a great example of a private developer and a
government agency working together to provide low- income housing that could benefit those
dislocated from a mobile home park. The City needed to be sensitive to those that had planned on
living in their home for years. Many residents were elderly. She agreed that each case needed to be
looked at separately and each park needed to be included so no one was singled out. It was going to be
extremely difficult for the elderly to be moved. The City had great partners with non - profits and we
needed to look at all options funding. There was potential for set asides in the CDBG funds for this
type of thing. She supported staff s recommendation.
The Council was fine with Options 43 and #4.
Ms. Griesel said staff would work on outreach. Their goal was to come back to Council with clearly
laid out structure and alternatives including costs or resources.
Councilor Moore asked if the Council could be provided with information on park values.
Ms. Griesel said they could get that information.
Councilor Ralston said he felt they would find out that individual dwellings were being taxed for more
than they were worth. That should be taken into account if possible.
Ms. Clearwater said the park owner was assessed, not the mobile home owner as it was considered
personal property. They could get appraisals or opinion of values. They were only assessed when they
were located on the homeowner's property.
Mr. VanLandingham said there was a State statute that allowed four counties, including Lane County,
to exempt them from being taxed as personal property if the value was less than $12,500.
Ms. Griesel said their goal was to put some frameworks together and talk with Council before doing
the outreach.
Councilor Pishioneri asked for the establishment date of the mobile home parks.
Ms. Griesel said she could provide that information.
Councilor Moore asked if those parks outside City limits were on septic.
Ms. Griesel said there was a park in Glenwood that was on sewer, but others were on septic. The City
didn't have a good inventory from the County on that information.
2. Progress Update for the Main Street - McVay Alternatives Analysis (AA).
Senior Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. Following the July 9r'', 2012 work
session, City and LTD staff had worked together to address overall project strategy and next steps in
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 6
the context of Council input. Since the July 25'`, 2012 Council Communication Packet memo, project
"next steps" had been modified slightly.
City and LTD staff had worked together to organize a project framing seminar that would help elected
and appointed officials and key staff from each agency learn about project framing techniques. These
techniques would help officials and staff gather input from diverse communities of interest, assess the
input, respond appropriately to the input and communicate to the communities of interest in a
meaningful manner. The framing seminar was scheduled for October 25th, 2012 and would be lead by
Larry Wallack from Puget Sound University. The seminar would include a mix of elected officials,
appointed officials and key staff from both agencies. He would like to invite the Mayor and one other
councilor to attend.
Mr. Reesor said this project framing process would help determine common values for the community.
They would be working on communication techniques for communicating a project and the goals of
the project, and uncovering issues from the beginning. He noted some of the questions that would be
addressed during the seminar that were listed in the agenda item summary.
City staff would present what was learned from the framing seminar to the Council on November 26th
during a work session. At the January 14th work session, LTD and City staff would present a draft
project governance structure and high level concept work plan that would propose key milestone
points in the project requiring Council input. The draft governance structure would propose a project
team structure that would likely include Council and LTD Board representation on key project teams.
Later work sessions would help create a problem statement and address potential solutions responsive
to the problem statement.
Mayor Lundberg said it sounded like they were now on the right path and working jointly with LTD.
Mr. Reesor said they were hoping both agencies would be working side by side at the staff and elected
official level.
3. Update on the Draft 2012 Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan.
Planner Mark Metzger said Rebecca Gershow, Senior Planner from Willamalane, was here to present
a power point on this topic.
Ms. Gershow said she was also the project manager on Willamalane's Park and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan project. She noted that Willamalane Superintendent Bob Keefer was on his way
and Board Member Greg James was in the audience.
Ms. Gershow said her focus would be on Willamalane's Highlights of Improvement, which was
Chapter 3 in their draft plan. Willamalane was developing a 20 -year plan that responded to their
identified community needs regarding parks and open spaces, recreation facilities and programs and
services for the Springfield area. It provided a 20 -year action plan to ensure the most effective use of
community resources.
Ms. Gershow referred to a map showing the planning area which was basically the urban growth
boundary (UGB) except for two areas where it extended beyond the UGB. She discussed the process
framework which included Project Start-up, Determining Needs, Developing the Plan and Adopting
the Plan. Last time she spoke to Council, they were at the Determining Needs phase and reported on
their Community Needs Assessment, Appendix A in the Plan. That assessment included the vast
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 7
majority of the community input including surveys in English and Spanish, teen focus groups and a
community fair. They spoke with about 2000 people around town. Analytical work was also done to
get to their Community Needs Assessment results. Today they were at the bottom of the Developing
the Plan section. They had a draft plan, their Board had reviewed it, they were getting partner input,
and it was posted on their website for the public to provide input. After getting Council input, they
would go back to their Board on October 10 to begin the Adopting the Plan section. Following the
October 10 public hearing, they would be submitting their Refinement Plan application jointly with
the City and County. They would be coming back to Council in early winter for a decision on the
Refinement Plan.
Ms. Gershow referred to the draft plan outline: 1) Introduction; 2) Planning Framework; 3) Highlights
of Improvement; 4) Strategies and Actions (including plan maps); 5) CIP and Operations Plan; and 6)
Performance Measures. She described the planning framework which included elements that guided
their planning development such as core values, vision, mission, goals, strategies and actions, and
performance measures. She read Willamalane's vision and mission. There were eleven different plan
goals which described the outcomes that were to be produced by implementing the plan. These goals
included: 1) Provide opportunities to enjoy nature; 2) Provide diverse park and recreation
opportunities; 3) Support youth development; 4) Support seniors and people with disabilities; 5)
Provide enriching family experiences; 6) Promote well - being, health and wellness; 7) Provide safe
parks, recreation facilities and programs; 8) Support community economic development; 9) Strengthen
and develop community partnerships; 10) Preserve the natural environment; and 11) Increase cultural
understanding.
Ms. Gershow noted the themes that ran through their priority projects in the Plan: Collaboration;
Glenwood and Downtown; Thurston Hills Ridgeline; Connections to Waterways; Opportunities for
Active Play; Reinvestment; Resource Conservation; and Recreation Programs. She discussed in more
detail each theme and how they were addressed in the Plan.
Ms. Gershow pointed out some of the projects highlighted in the Plan. Maps showed proposed
neighborhood park projects, proposed community park projects, proposed natural area park projects,
proposed multi -use path and trail projects, proposed special use park projects, proposed sports park
projects, proposed community recreation or support facility projects, and proposed park and recreation
projects. She gave an overview of those projects.
Ms. Gershow said the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was developed with cost estimate and
revenue projections for the 20 years of the plan, broken out into two ten -year phases. A third phase
was unfunded. She referred to summaries in the power point of Phase 1 which showed the distribution
of park projects and the cost of those projects, and how they projected to fund those projects. Phase 1
would go from 2012 to 2021.
Ms. Gershow referred to summaries in the power point of Phase 2 which showed the distribution of
park projects and the cost of those projects, and how they projected to fund those projects. Phase 2
would go from 2022 to 2031. If the General Obligation bonds were not passed, some of the projects
would not be done.
Ms. Gershow spoke regarding Chapter 6, the last chapter in the Plan: Performance Measures. These
measures were linked to their Plan goals and helped evaluate their Plan implementation. She explained
how they would evaluate their goals using the performance measures. Their next steps were to collect
baseline data and set specific performance measure goals.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 8
Ms. Gershow said the next steps overall included plan revision and finalization, the October 10 Board
meeting and public hearing, submission of a Refinement Plan application and joint adoption by the
City and County by early 2013.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if this Plan was based on the bond measure passing.
Ms. Gershow said a portion of the funding of Phase 1 was dependent on the General Obligation bond
passing. The Plan would be their Plan regardless of whether the bond measure passed or not. If the
bond measure passed, they could fund $20M worth of projects that came from the Plan.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the percentage of costs for projects would remain static if the bond did
not pass, or would they reallocate the funding.
Mr. Keefer said if that occurred, they would look at their priorities and determined along with their
Board what projects were most important. They would also look at opportunities that may come
forward that would allow them to do some projects. They would need to re- evaluate based on all of the
input. They would have the same plan, but a different implementation schedule.
Ms. Gershow said the priorities were based on their Needs Assessment findings. From those priorities
came the bond measure list. They were still their top priorities, but if the bond didn't pass, they would
move forward much more slowly. They didn't have a specific plan if the bond didn't pass. The Plan
was a roadmap and provided flexibility to implement based on the funding levels.
Councilor Pishioneri said there was also an assumption for a $1 OM Bond for Phase 2. He asked if the
$20M bond would be paid off by 2022 when Phase 2 was scheduled to start.
Ms. Gershow said it would be half paid off.
Councilor Pishioneri said that would mean one would be on top of the other. He asked if they had
looked at compression.
Mr. Keefer said compression wasn't affected by General Obligation bonds.
Councilor Pishioneri asked what the $20M bond would cost a homeowner.
Mr. Keefer said it was .34/$1000 which was about $51 per year on a $150,000 assessed value home. It
was difficult to say what the cost would be for a second bond in 2021, but at today's rate would be
about .17/$1000.
Ms. Gershow said page 83 of the Plan listed current day assumptions on the Phase 2 $ l OM bond
measure. Assuming today's realities, it would be another $24 annually. For the ten years that Phase 1
and Phase 2 were being repaid, the total would be about $72 annually.
Councilor Woodrow asked if they determined the funds needed before they did the Needs Assessment
or the other way around.
Ms. Gershow said they did the Needs Assessment before the money. The recommendations from the
assessment were more vast than what was shown on the map. The CIP was helping them to prioritize.
Councilor Woodrow asked how they planned to prioritize the list.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 9
Ms. Gershow said their prioritizing plan was their CIP which was in Chapter 5 of the Plan. Phase 1
was a list of nearly $40M in projects and was a 10 year list. They had some projects that were just
acquisition which would wait until Phase 2 to be developed, some were development and some
rehabilitation. They also did an annual update of their five -year CIP based on their actual budget.
Councilor Woodrow said their priorities would be based on affordability.
Ms. Gershow said partially it would be what could be funded through their budget. They may also
receive grants for certain projects that could help determine which could be done first.
Mr. Keefer said they had set their priorities based on what the community wanted. As they put
together the priorities, they first looked at those. If the GO bonds didn't pass, they would need to re-
evaluate where the resources came from. Some things may be delayed or some things may go forward
if an opportunity presented itself through a grant or donation. They would continue to look for
opportunities and partnerships to make things happen. The bond measure allowed them to kick -start
this at a time when they could afford to do it. Without the bond measure, they would look at what they
could accomplish in the first 10 years within the resources they had. They would work with their
Board and staff on the CIP within their budget. They had gone through an internal process with
Willamalane staff and the Board to discuss the community needs and how to fit it into the Plan.
Councilor Woodrow said she was pleased to see the comments from the community about Dorris
Ranch.
Councilor Moore asked about the current financial status of Willamalane. She asked if there was a
large carryover or cash balance.
Mr. Keefer said Willamalane had a continual 5 -year rolling financial plan. The Board had set a target
of maintaining 12% of general taxes received as a balance. Those funds were rotated through each
year. As they forecasted their revenues and expenses, they were always maintaining that 5 -year plan.
They had the ability within the Plan to fund the improvements, but that would remove funds for
maintenance. They did not want to sacrifice maintenance and upkeep of the current parks just to add
another park.
Councilor Moore said she appreciated Willamalane and the beautiful parks. She asked how many FTE
were employed by Willamalane.
Mr. Keefer said they had about 150 FTE, with over 300 on staff including seasonal workers and part-
time staff.
Councilor Moore said she was happy to see community gardens as something that was in their plan.
There was a lot of interest for that in this area.
Mr. Keefer said that was one of the changes from 2002 to 2010 in terms of what people wanted. They
were addressing what the people in the community wanted.
Councilor Ralston said he knew as a result of several new schools, Springfield had lost at least 3 fields
and none had been replaced. The School District had not addressed that and he asked if Willamalane
addressed it in their Plan. He did note something about two new fields at 32nd Street, but wanted to
know if there were plans for baseball fields. Babe Ruth teams did not have a home field in Springfield.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 10
Mr. Keefer said in the 32nd Street proposal, the plan was to make that field more than a rectangular
sports field to allow for Little League and girls' softball level games, similar to what was at the
University of Oregon with the artificial turf fields and portable pitchers' mounds. They planned to
look at that very seriously as they developed the two new fields with the bond measure to get more
Springfield kids playing in Springfield. He had offered to Babe Ruth and others the ability to use
Meadow Park. He would encourage them to come talk about their needs and how Willamalane could
help address those needs. Willamalane didn't have the space to build a complex such as in Eugene, but
they were more than willing to help provide what they needed.
Councilor Ralston noted Little League needs were different than Babe Ruth. He said he recently
visited a park he had never seen before on the hill south of downtown.
It was noted that was Willamette Heights.
Councilor VanGordon asked if some things were dropped off their list from the needs assessment or if
everything was included.
Ms. Gershow said not all were on the list. The Needs Assessment in the Plan outlined all of the input
from citizens. They were not able to put in every recommendation.
Councilor VanGordon said he was excited about individual projects, but all of them carne to a large
amount of money. He asked if they planned on raising their portion of SDCs.
Mr. Keefer said they evaluated the SDCs on an annual basis based on the cost of land, the cost of
construction and whether or not Willamalane had debt, as they had a debt service credit to maintain.
They were at their maximum now after several years of working with the HomeBuilders' Association
(HBA).
Councilor VanGordon asked about the cost recovery triangle in the Plan. He noted the cost for the
Extension Service to rent Willamalane's space and asked what portion of the cost recover triangle
those rental fees fit.
Mr. Keefer said non - profits were charged less than for -profit groups. For -profit groups were charged
200% of Willamalane's direct costs. Cost recovery was based on who was benefitting.
Councilor VanGordon said when looking at the performance measures, which he felt were good
measurable elements, he wished there was a financial element as well. He would like to see them
examine their costs to make the organization run more efficiently. There was a balance between
providing the services and cost control and he felt that was a missing piece. In his view, the perfect
plan would be for everything to be done while keeping the cost per participant under inflation.
Mr. Keefer said almost all of the projects were not costing the general user. Going to the park was
free. Compared to other agencies or communities, Willamalane's cost of doing business related to
what they charged was at or below average. The Willamalane Board wanted to keep it affordable.
Ms. Gershow referred to Councilor VanGordon's comment regarding the total cost of projects of
$90M. She clarified that $34M were in an unfunded Phase 3 list. What they had calculated that they
could fund based on assumptions such as the bond measures, was a $40M phase and a $30M phase.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 11
They felt the projects in Phase 3 were important so they wanted to keep them in the Plan in case
opportunities arose.
Councilor VanGordon said the realistic portion of the plan was more like $60M over twenty years.
Ms. Gershow said that was correct. Phase 3 projects may get done if there was an opportunity or if
projects fell off Phase 1 or Phase 2.
Councilor Moore said the City and LTD had cut back services. She asked if Willamalane's budget had
been affected by the economy and if they had laid off employees.
Mr. Keefer said they had been fortunate not to cut back and had actually seen record numbers at their
pools and in their programs because people were staying at home and needed a place to play. The
recreation revenue side had increased, along with seniors and middle school programs. In their five -
year budget plan, they had underestimated the growth of assessed value and overestimated their
expenses which had allowed them to stay within budget. He also noted that Willamalane was not a
PERS employer so they could remain more static regarding retirement which made a big difference.
Councilor Moore asked if Willamalane employees were union.
Mr. Keefer said about 55 FTE were union.
Ms. Gershow referred to their revenue forecast and said their SDC fund was significantly down, but
they had known it would be so had budgeted appropriately.
Councilor Pishioneri said it looked like they had 148 FTE in 2008. He asked what their average
income was for an average home.
Mr. Keefer said their tax rate was $2 per $1000.
Mr. Grimaldi said the City's tax rate was about $4 per $1000.
Mayor Lundberg said she was happy to see Willamalane was the entity that would teach our children
to appreciate the outdoors and rivers and nature. She spoke of her experience helping with Guy Lee
Elementary and the outdoor creek they would take the students to visit. It was important to keep that
sense of wonderment. Parks were important, as were natural areas for biking and walking. Although
there was no daily fee.. Springfield was paying for those amenities through taxes. She was happy to see
those recreational activities and the beauty around us were important to the community as a whole.
She thanked Mr. Keefer and Ms. Gershow for their time.
Mr. Keefer acknowledged the great job Ms. Gershow had done on this Plan. They were looking to the
future.
Councilor Wylie said it was tough to be a visionary in tight times.
4. Options for Deliberation and Action on the Proposed Lane County Sponsored Metro Plan
Boundary Amendment.
Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. Lane County has initiated a
Metro Plan Boundary amendment that would co- locate the Metro Plan boundary with Springfield's
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 12
Urban Growth Boundary. This action also would result in placing the boundary of the Lane County
Rural Comprehensive Plan in the same location. The proposal as submitted raised a number of
questions, but most seriously, the risk presented to the long term protection of Springfield's drinking
water.
Mr. Mott noted that the last time the City Council had met on this topic was during a joint meeting
with the City of Eugene and Lane County in March 2012. Both Planning Commissions had reviewed
this and passed along their recommendations. Based on testimony heard by the Planning Commissions
and during the Joint Elected Officials (JEO) meeting in March there was concern about simply
adopting or not adopting Lane County's original proposal.
A subcommittee of elected officials from Springfield and Lane County met on several occasions
during the summer to discuss potential solutions to the two principal issues associated with this
proposal: governance and drinking water protection. The subcommittee agreed that these issues were
not so oppositional that a compromise couldn't be struck and in the end recommended a modification
to the proposed boundary accompanied by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) identifying
additional actions each jurisdiction would undertake to further the objectives of their partner. Although
the first option below is not reflective of the efforts of the subcommittee it does represent a choice in
the event the second option is not supported by Council.
1. Take no action.
2. Propose and immediately adopt a new Metro Plan boundary as depicted on Map l; conclude
the current, ongoing UGB expansion proposal for employment lands; County initiates process
to adopt Springfield's Drinking Water Protection Plan where applicable in the Rural
Comprehensive Plan; initiate UGB expansion for well field areas remaining with the Metro
Plan boundary. Both of these latter actions to be specified within a Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Springfield and Lane County.
Mr. Mott said basically this would attach the Metro Plan boundary to the UGB everywhere except in
those locations where Springfield Utility Board's (SUB) most sensitive time of travel zones existed in
support of the wellfields in those locations. Staff also met with SUB over the summer to determine a
true distinction in those time of travel zones. The primary concern of staff from SUB involved the
areas in the one and two -year time of travel zones. That didn't mean the other longer time of travel
zone areas weren't important, but without exception the one and two -year time of travel zones were
critically important. From these meetings came a recommendation that were shown on the map
included in the agenda packet as Attachment 2. The map highlighted areas with one and two -year time
of travel zones that were currently in the Metro Plan boundary, but outside the UGB. The
recommended proposal modified the County's original proposal by about 2100 acres, bringing the
total of 8100 acres to about 6000 acres. All of the 6000 acres would be incorporated into the Lane
County Rural Comprehensive Plan and would be subject to policies and regulations through the Lane
County Code. The areas in yellow would be retained in the Metro Plan boundaries and would subject
to the same standards and policies that applied today. The other element proposed was that the City
would pursue expansion of the UGB for those areas highlighted. Details of that action and a reciprocal
action on the part of Lane County Board of Commissioners (LCBC) to adopt Springfield's Drinking
Water Plan would be detailed in the MOU. Those details hadn't been completely finished in part
because they wanted to get input from Council. There was as LCBC meeting on Wednesday for a third
reading on the proposal. If Council made a decision tonight, Mr. Mott would relay that to the LCBC
during their meeting on Wednesday.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 13
Councilor Ralston said he was still not happy with what was proposed. He didn't want to relinquish
any decision making role. Everything north of Springfield up to the McKenzie River was more
Springfield than Lane County. If development occurred, he wanted Springfield to be responsible for
that, not Lane County. He had circled areas he thought should be included.
Mr. Mott said in looking at Councilor Ralston's map, it looked like he was suggesting they preserve
the areas between the rivers.
Councilor Ralston said those were natural boundaries.
Councilor Pishioneri said his concern was that this action regarding the alternative was significant and
he felt they needed public input.
Mr. Grimaldi said it would come through the normal land use process. Tonight, staff was trying to
gauge which direction Council would like to go.
Councilor Pishioneri said the two options were far from each other. When SUB did their presentation,
there were still questions that were unanswered. He felt he needed those facts to base his decision.
Mayor Lundberg said there was a process where they would first start with something then move it
through the public process.
Mr. Mott said the County initiated the proposal in 2011, then had meetings based on their proposal not
to leave anything outside the UGB within the Metro Plan boundary, but to bring the Metro Plan
boundary to the UGB. That went through a public process. The questions generated at the City
Council meeting with SUB were responded to in a Council Briefing Memorandum. This proposal had
not been subject to a public hearing, unless it was looked upon in the context that it was less than
requested to preserve nearly 2100 acres in the Metro Plan for joint governance for the specific reason
of drinking eater protection. The other 6000 acres didn't have much relationship with drinking water
protection. The Metro Plan Boundary had been conceived in the 1960's and acknowledged by the
State in 1982 as a legitimate public interest for Eugene, Springfield and Lane County to jointly
administer that area between the UGB and Metro Plan boundary. Up until the County initiated this
request, the City Council had never mentioned any issues with respect to that boundary or the
administration of that area and the City had never experienced any issues in that area.
Councilor Pishioneri said last year discussion was held regarding the Natron area and stormwater
runoff and how it was affected by the Metro Plan boundary.
Mr. Mott said there was an amendment to Springfield's Public Facilities Plan that was discussed by
the update of the Stormwater Master Plan which required co- adoption by the County. It did take some
time to complete that action.
Councilor Wylie said she liked Councilor Ralston's suggestion about the boundary between the two
rivers. She felt councils now and in the future would be under pressure by development that would
affect our drinking water. We needed to be extremely careful to protect our water and it should remain
under Springfield's guidance. She would be very reluctant to pass that authority on to another entity.
Mr. Grimaldi said what was before them was stronger than what was in place today. If we could keep
the one and two -year time of travel zones in the UGB, Springfield would be the sole participant in
decision making. Currently, it was a shared responsibility. Mayor Lundberg and Councilor Moore had
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 14
significant discussions and evaluation about the impact of this proposal. One of the topics of
discussion was what type of development could occur in the areas that would be outside City
jurisdiction. There were not a lot of things that could happen in those other areas that would have a
negative impact on City residents with the exception of development that could affect our wellheads.
They felt the two -year time of travel zones was adequate protection.
Mr. Mott said the Metro Plan was unique and one -of -a -kind in the State. The land outside
Springfield's UGB but within the Metro Plan Boundary had to comply with provisions for us to
contain for resource land. It was all zoned farm, forest - agriculture or forest use with a few minor
exceptions of rural residential. The City of Springfield, like all other cities, did not have resource lands
inside the UGB. If this property went into the Rural Comprehensive Plan, it would retain farm and
forest zoned. The law applied because of the soil classification and productivity of that land. There
were statewide prescriptions on lot size and uses. In looking at the 8000 acres in that area, if 7000
were resource acres, the difference of what happened under the Metro Plan and what happened in the
Rural Comprehensive Plan would be a handful of new dwellings. There could be some intensification
in the farm and forest land that would be permitted, and a minute increase in the conditionally
permitted uses that might not be a very good match on this land. That could happen under the Metro
Plan as it was now. The County administered that area and the City was only involved if someone
proposed a plan on that property.
Councilor Moore said it was interesting meeting with the County. This was a larger area than they had
last talked about bringing into the UGB. She asked how possible it was for expansion of the UGB for
water protection.
Mr. Mott said they had evaluated a lot of land outside of the UGB for possible expansion, first for
residential which was now not needed. The subsequent action was the Commercial and Industrial
Buildable Land (CIBL) and Goal 9 analysis. Through that process it was determined the City needed
640 acres. Some of the highlighted areas coincided with sites needed for employment expansion that
the Planning Commission was recommending. It was important not to confuse the ongoing process
with what may come of this. It was staff s strongest recommendation that the CIBL process continue
and go before the JEO as soon as possible so they could conclude that business. If they pursued this
agreement (MOU) and it included expanding the UGB to protect the water, that would be a separate
follow -up project. He did not know if the water protection expansion would be something that would
be approved as it had not been done before. The highlighted areas on the map had wellheads and one
and two -year time of travel zones and were outside our current UGB.
Councilor Moore clarified that the areas under consideration for industrial expansion were not
outlined.
Mr. Mott said they were not, but a significant portion highlighted in the Gateway area was included in
both. There was nothing in the northeast Thurston area subject to any recommendation for evaluation
for employment purposes. All of that area highlighted was for water only.
Councilor Moore said what we were proposing was in response to the County's proposal and letting
them know whether or not the City was interested in continuing discussions with them about the water
protection.
Mr. Mott said tonight's discussion was formally making public the discussions held this summer.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 15
Mayor Lundberg said it was valid argument to note that this originated in the 1960's and adopted in
the 1980's. It was time to look at this to see if it was still valid today. The Metro Plan had been useful
and awful at the same time. She reminded Council that Eugene had a voice in the Metro Plan. Through
these discussions, they were trying to figure out how to let the County accomplish what they wanted
and also to keep our water protected. She noted the example of Weyerhaeuser ponds which had strict
mechanisms to make sure that water was not in the wellhead system. If we could continue the
conversation and have some control over those areas, the City had mechanisms to protect our water.
This is a compromise position with the County from where they started. She did speak to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) director who was supportive of an UGB
expansion for water protection, but it would be a long road.
Councilor Moore said when she first got involved in these discussions, she was at the same place as
Councilor Ralston. She now felt this agreement covered what was important to the City and also
addressed the County's concerns. She appreciated hearing from the rest of the Council.
Councilor VanGordon said he was comfortable with the MOU as it seemed to address SUB's concerns
regarding the time of travel zones. He asked how far out in years the overlay protection plan would
remain in place through this MOU.
Mr. Mott said they would ask the County to adopt the same Drinking Water Plan the City adopted. It
identified protection for up to 25 year time of travel zones and the types of materials that were
regulated. Beyond that were other requirements which were primarily set up for urban uses and
settings, not heavy industrial. Most of the 25 year time of travel zones were between the rivers.
Another aspect was that SUB had surface water rights to the McKenzie River. At some point, they
would exercise that and construct a facility on the McKenzie River. They were not sure where that
would be located, but if the City had influence of activities, that could complement where they would
place the facility.
Councilor VanGordon said it seemed Springfield was getting stronger drinking water protection and
clarified who was responsible for what.
Councilor Ralston asked who had the decision making authority under the current Metro Plan
Boundary between the City's UGB and Metro Plan Boundary.
Mr. Mott said County had 100% of administrative authority.
Councilor Ralston said he didn't like that they had 100% control over things that affected the City.
Mr. Mott said there wouldn't be a way to increase City's influence the way it was set up today. The
only way the City would have that authority would be if the County was not willing to grant additional
authority, it would have to be under our land use authority which started and stopped at our UGB.
Councilor Ralston said he would agree to have joint decision making authority in the areas he circled
on his map. He felt that was reasonable. The County wanted to do this in order to pass measures. He
did note that what was being presented was clearly better than the original proposal.
Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said the challenge was that the County was
concerned about dual control. They were willing to cede control to the City by encouraging expansion
of the UGB in some areas. They found that preferable than having joint control which caused
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 24, 2012
Page 16
confusion, especially for the citizens, for the land authority. Councilor Ralston's suggestion was
appropriate to consider, but it was possible that could frustrate it further at the County level.
Mayor Lundberg asked if Councilor Ralston was comfortable if it went forward as proposed.
Councilor Ralston said it was better than what they currently had, but he didn't want to lose control.
Councilor Moore said they currently had joint decision making with Eugene and Lane County.
Mr. Goodwin said for uses or plans that were not consistent with the Metro Plan, it took three
jurisdictions to make a decision.
Mr. Mott said if someone came in for something already allowed it was under Lane County's control.
Mayor Lundberg asked staff to move forward with the option presented.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
r�
Amy Sow
City Recor er