HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/2007 Work Session
City of Springfield
Special Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JULY 23, 2007
The City of Springfield Council met in special regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 4:48 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery,
City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the
staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
Mayor Leiken reminded Council that a TEAM Springfield meeting would be held immediately
following tonight's regular meeting. The meeting would be held at the Community Health Center
at 1640 G Street.
He welcomed the TEAM Springfield members in the audience.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available
at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may
not yield their time to others.
1. Annexation of Property Owned by Progress Investment Group and the City of Springfield to
the City of Springfield, Case Number LRP2007-00003.
RESOLUTION NO. 07-37 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT
THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE
THE ANNEXATION BY EXPEDITED PROCESS.
City Planner Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. The Property Owner, Progress
Investment Group L.L.C., has requested annexation of approximately 7.05 acres of property
located at the northwest corner ofInternational Way and Corporate Way, within Springfield's
UF-I0 Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District. The subject territory is described as Assessor's Map
Number 17-03-15-40 TL 500 and 0.05 acre of the International Way/Maple Island Road
roundabout right-of-way adjacent to the site not yet annexed. The land to be annexed is more
accurately described in Attachment 1, Exhibit A, included in the agenda packet.
The applicant requests annexation in order to seek development of a corporate
headquarterslbusiness park, consistent with the standards of the Campus Industrial (CI) zoning
district and the Gateway Refmement Plan. The proposed uses are not permitted in the
Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District, thus annexation is required.
City of Springfield
Council Special Regular Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2007
Page 2
Article 6.030(2) of the Springfield Development Code requires that territories considered for
annexation must be provided with "key urban facilities and services", as defined in Metro Plan
Policies 8.a and b, Page II-C-4. Among these key urban services are water, sewer, storm water
facilities, streets, electricity, parks, fire/emergency services, and schools. Staff fmds, based on
analysis, that key urban services are available to serve the territory, with the exception oflong-
term off-site transportation and long-term off-site stormwater management facilities that are
being provided for in an Annexation Agreement which has been negotiated with City staff and
the applicant (Attachment 3 in the agenda packet), and which was reviewed by the Council on
July 16, 2007.
The City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) and the 2001 Springfield Charter to
initiate annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in
the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land
in the territory proposed to be annexed. According to Lane County Elections, there are no
registered electors currently residing within the territory proposed for annexation. Signatures
from 100 percent of the property owners have been obtained. With Council approval, this
resolution will be forwarded to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission with
a recommendation for an expedited process. If a public hearing is requested on the annexation,
the Boundary Commission will conduct it on October 4,2007.
According to the Lane County Regional Land Information database, the 2006 total assessed value
of the subject property is $436,594. Upon annexation, the property could be developed with
campus industrial uses in accordance with SDC Article 21.
Ms. Pauly said this annexation also included the northern portion of the roundabout. The total
acreage for annexation was 7.1 acres. She referred to the map in the packet showing existing
services related to the subject site. An annexation agreement had been reached. Details on the
agreement include extension of Maple. Island Road to the north.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Mayor Leiken said he assumed the new proposed road outlined on the map had the potential to
continue heading north. He asked if there was a possibility that more road opportunities could be
constructed into that road if the City considered expanding the urban growth boundary in that
area.
Mr. Leahy said there were some arrangements with existing property owners to share a portion of
the cost with the City for such roads.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said this was part of a future road network the City was
looking at constructing in the north Gateway area to provide access.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-37. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
City of Springfield
Council Special Regular Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2007
Page 3
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND
PROGRESS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF
6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Mayor Leiken thanked Progress Investment Group for participating in a continued successful
future for our City.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Resolution for a Ballot Measure Allowing City Council Approval of a Downtown Urban
Renewal Plan and Direction to Staff for a Renewal District Boundary.
RESOLUTION NO. 07-38 - A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE ELECTORS OF
THE CITY A BALLOT MEASURE AUTHORIZING AN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
ALLOCATING TAXES FROM SPRINGFIELD DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES TO THE
SPRINGFIELD DOWNTOWN URBAN REWEW AL DISTRICT PLAN.
Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. Formation of a
downtown urban renewal district requires voter approval, authorizing the Council to allocate
taxes to a downtown urban renewal district. The proposed ballot measure resolution and support
materials were developed by the City Attorney for Council consideration and submission to the
Lane County Elections Department.
Mr. Metzger referred to the memo from the City Recorder with the final ballot title on this item
that was placed at Council places.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-38. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Establishing a downtown urban renewal district required planning and analysis .that was based on
a defmed district boundary. Tax increment revenues were collected from within the district
boundary and were invested within the boundary. At issue was where to draw the boundary for
initial planning purposes knowing that community and partner agency input would further shape
the boundary. Council would approve the fmal boundary as part of the Downtown Urban
Renewal Plan.
At the July 2nd work session, Council directed staff to take steps to place before the voters this fall
the question of whether or not to establish an urban renewal district downtown. Attachment I in
the agenda packet was a resolution prepared by the City Attorney approving a ballot measure and
title for submission to the Lane County Elections Department.
Staff was working on various tasks that must be completed to establish an urban renewal district
in downtown Springfield. Identifying an initial boundary for planning purposes gave staff and the
community a starting point for discussion and analysis. Attachment 2 in the agenda packet
showed three general boundary options including a recommendation from Willamalane
(Attachment 4) to include the Meadow Park area.
City of Springfield
Council Special Regular Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2007
Page 4
Boundary 1 was a compact boundary that defined the area most often associated with the
community perception of downtown, extending east to lOth Street. Boundary 2 included all of
Boundary 1 but extended further east along the Main Street/South A corridor to 16th Street.
Boundary 3 included Boundaries 1 and 2, extending east to 2300 and Main Street.
. Attachment 3 in the agenda packet, the Council Briefmg Memorandum dated July 16, provided
basic information comparing the attributes of each boundary. This analysis lead staff to
recommend Boundary 3, with the Willamalane addition, as a starting place for planning and
community dialog.
The July 2300 meeting with Team Springfield may afford the Council an opportunity to informally
discuss district formation and potential urban renewal projects with agency partners.
Mr. Metzger further explained the pros and cons of each ofthe boundary choices. Staff, for
reasons explained in Attachment 3 page 3, believed the largest boundary gave the opportunity to
collect the largest amount of tax revenue and the largest area to apply moneys in the future. He
explained. The fmancial impacts to the City and the other taxing bodies were minimal.
Councilor Ralston asked Mr. Metzger who would be responsible for improvements or repairs of
Main Street if Boundary 3 was chosen.
Mr. Metzger said Main Street was a State facility and any repairs or improvements would require
participation with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). ODOT may want the City
to take over responsibility for facilities such as South A Street or Main Street in exchange for
making improvements. Tonight's action would just determine the outer boundary of where the
City could pull tax revenue and apply it.
Mr. Towery said there was nothing in the urban renewal plan that would obligate the Springfield
Economic Development Agency (SEDA) to fmance any project. Any project would require
action by the City Council and SEDA.
Mr. Metzger said tonight's action gave staff a starting point. Staff would bring back the Urban
Renewal Plan would come back to Council with the fmal boundary for final approval by Council.
Councilor Ballew said Boundary 1 was logical, extending to 16th was o.k., but she would not want
to expand to 23rd Street, as it was no longer downtown. The intent of urban renewal was to
stimulate development. We would over extend ourselves going out to Boundary 3. She would
support Boundary 1, and could be supportive of Boundary 2.
Councilor Pishioneri said he liked Boundary 3 because of the couplet where South A meets Main
Street. That would allow for future improvement coming into the downtown area. He felt going to
2300 Street was reasonable and he would like to see the corridor going down Main Street even
further. There were a lot of blighted lots and businesses all the way out to 40th Street.
Councilor Ralston said he agreed with Councilor Ballew. He asked to see more information on
the proposal from Willamalane.
Mr. Metzger said staff would be going to the partnering agencies that had a stake in downtown to
ask about boundaries and projects. Early feedback was received from the management team of
City of Springfield
Council Special Regular Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2007
Page 5
Willamalane suggesting the additional boundary that included Meadow Park as a potential for
future investment. The boundary allowed us to create an area within which the URD could collect
revenue and make investments in the future. There may be a point in time that the URD
determined investing in Meadow Park was the right thing to do for the good of downtown. There
was no promise to fund all the projects that Council and SEDA would be considering.
Councilor Ralston said if Council asked staff to go toward Boundary 2, they could add the
Willamalane section at any time.
Mr. Metzger said staff would work on a fmal boundary following direction from Council. Part of
the process was to get input from the partnering agencies to determine whether or not to adjust
the boundaries. Staff would bring back a final boundary for Council's approval.
Councilor Wylie said she would support Boundary 3. This was an opportunity to work with the
whole urbanized community to bring things into line to deal with blight and sprawl.
Councilor Ballew said she would be hard pressed to fmd a publicly owned park as blighted.
Mr. Metzger said the issue was whether or not an investment in a park would address a blight
issue in a neighborhood.
Councilor Wylie said she was referring to Boundary 3, not including the park.
Councilor Woodrow said he agreed with Boundary 3. He understood the reasoning for Boundary
2, but felt that Boundary 3 gave some extra incentives as far as revenue gain and improvements
that could be made. He would like some additional information before including the Willamalane
park.
Councilor Lundberg said one of the best things to help downtown would be dealing with the
traffic, specifically truck traffic. If going to 23rd would allow rerouting of traffic in the future, she
would support Boundary 3 as it could give more flexibility to make Main Street pedestrian
friendly and business friendly. She was supportive of containing it and would want more
information on the Willamalane proposal before approving.
Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Boyatt ifthere had been discussions of transferring jurisdiction of Main
Street from the State to the City. He asked if that was still being considered.
Mr. Boyatt said everything but the freeways could be on the drawing board. Main Street was a
higher level highway than 42nd Street, and not in the best shape. The State was not interested in
dividing up sections of Main Street. If the City considered such a transfer, it should consider the
section from the Hwy 126 intersection to the Springfield bridges, which was significant.
Mayor Leiken said the City needed to consider this because of issues of truck traffic on
downtown Main Street.
Mr. Boyatt said the State, at Springfield's request, designated a portion of Main Street and South
A as a Special Transportation Area (STA). The State was willing to approach the facility in more
of a Main Street way. There could be more flexibility than normal in the downtown area.
City of Springfield
Council Special Regular Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2007
Page 6
Mr. Metzger said in establishing an URD, staff was looking at investment in the long term. He
referred to the chart in the agenda packet which showed the comparison of revenues during the
first year with each boundary. He explained.
Councilor Ballew said she didn't understand the chart.
Mr. Metzger explained the chart and how the figures were calculated. Over time the amount
would build and grow to something that could benefit downtown.
Councilor Ralston asked about the exempt properties.
Mr. Metzger said there were City properties, School District and Willamalane properties that
would not be paying taxes. He noted the concern Council raised about including Willamalane at
this time. That issue could be deferred at this time.
Mayor Leiken asked for an informal vote regarding the boundary. The vote was 4 in favor and 2
() against Boundary 3.
Councilor Ralston asked how this could be put on the ballot without boundaries.
Mr. Metzger explained. He asked why the two Councilors had opposed Boundary 3 so he could
try to address their concerns.
Councilor Ralston said when he thought about downtown, he saw out to 16th Street. Properties
outside that would improve anyway. He was concerned that locking the tax rate in that large of an
area, would take those funds off the tax roles for the General Fund. He felt improvement would
happen further down the road anyway.
Councilor Ballew agreed.
Discussion was held about the funds that would go to the URD.
Councilor Lundberg asked for the impact on our General Fund budget as it related to the three
boundaries.
Mr. Metzger said the plan would indicate those funds and costs. There would be a careful
financial analysis at that time prepared by an outside party.
2. Disposition of the Simpson's Movie Couch.
RESOLUTION NO. 07-39 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DECLARING AS SURPLUS AND DISPOSING OF THE
. "SIMPSONS MOVIE COUCH".
Community Relations Coordinator Niel Laudati presented the staff report on this item. The City
of Springfield received a Simpson Movie Couch as part of "The Movie, Simpsons" Contest. The
contest is concluded and the City no longer needs the couch.
City of Springfield
Council Special Regular Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2007
Page 7
In an effort to stimulate tourism, economic growth and recognition, the City of Springfield
entered into a nationwide "The Movie, Simpsons" contest. As part of the endeavor, the City
received a "Simp sons Movie Couch" for display that was place in the City Hall lobby.
The contest has ended and the couch is no longer needed. It is now considered surplus property to
the City of Springfield and is in the best interest of the city to dispose of the couch in accordance
with Springfield Municipal Code Section 2.714.
It was suggested that the Simpsons Movie Couch be provided to the Springfield Area Chamber of
Commerce/University of Oregon Alumni Association Lane County Chapter to be offered for
auction at the Annual Tailgate Auction scheduled for August 30, 2007. Proceeds from the sale
would be divided equally between (1) Friends of the Springfield Public Library, (2) Springfield
Education Foundation, and (3) Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce Programs and
Scholarships for K-12 Education and University of Oregon Alumni Association Lane County
Chapter.
Mr. Laudati said the Simpson's couch, located in the Springfield City Hall lobby, had been a
favorite spot for citizens to come and have their picture taken. The Chamber had been a great
partner in this investment and auctioning off the couch would help to give benefit back to the
community. The Chamber would take care of transporting the couch to the auction site. He also
noted that there had been two successful food drives benefiting Food for Lane County associated
with this contest.
Adoption by Council of the attached resolution would approve the donation.
Councilor Lundberg said this was a fitting motion for the last motion prior to summer recess
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-39. THE MOTION PASSED BY A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
ADJOURNMENT
. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:24 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Attest:
~
City Rec er