HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2014 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2014
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 24, 2014 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also
present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary
Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Soma and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused)
1. Budget Committee Interviews
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. Applicants were being sought to
represent Wards 3 and 4 where former committee members resigned. The recruitment for this vacancy
opened January 28, 2014 and closed February 7, 2014. Two candidates applied for Ward 3 and one
applied for Ward 4. The appointee for both Ward 3 and Ward 4 would serve a one year term that
would expire December 31, 2014.
The Council was requested to interview three applicants. The fourth applicant, Donald Durland, was
ill and not able to attend the interview. Both of the ward positions had unsuccessfully advertised for
candidates previously. Applications were taken past the advertised deadline due to inclement weather.
Budget Committee appointments were scheduled to be ratified at the Regular Session Meeting on
March 3, 2014.
The Mayor and Council chose the questions they would ask of each of the applicants
1. Why are you interested in serving on the Budget Committee? (Mayor Lundberg)
2. Often times the members of the Budget Committee have different opinions on how the
citizens' money should be spent. What is your experience with working as a member of a
diverse group and helping to ensure that all opinions are heard and considered? (Councilor
Brew)
3. One of the purposes of the Budget Committee is to get the citizens of Springfield involved in
setting priorities for the City. Do you have any suggestions on how the City could raise the
interest of your friends or co- workers in City government? (Councilor Moore)
4. Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become a
Budget Committee member. (Councilor Ralston)
5. Describe your familiarity with the City's budget. (Councilor Woodrow)
6. What would be some of the ways you would look to control costs and still be responsive to the
service expectations of our citizens? (Councilor VanGordon)
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page 2
The Mayor and Council introduced themselves to each candidate and interviewed the three applicants:
Michael Herron; Jeff Thompson; and Gabrielle Guidero.
Mr. Herron wanted to let the Council know that he would be moving to Eugene for four months and
would then move back into Ward 3.
The Mayor and Council discussed the qualifications of each applicant and noted that all three were
well qualified. Discussion was held regarding Mr. Thompson's seat on the Willamalane Budget
Committee and Mr. Herron's move out of town for a period of the year. They chose to appoint Jeff
Thompson to the Ward 3 position of the Budget Committee; and Gabrielle Guidero to the Ward 4
position of the Budget Committee. Staff would make sure to let all of the applicants know this was a
one -year position and the position would be open again next year.
2. Franklin NEPA (Project) Update and Direction.
Community Development Manager Tom Boyatt, Principal Engineer Kristi Krueger and Senior Planner
David Reeser presented the staff report on this item. The City's consultant, URS Corp., had
substantially completed Phase 2 work including refined intersection design, realignment of the facility
to match existing center line, and draft environmental baseline reports. Staff presented the modified
single line design concept and the associated Project footprint for Council review and direction in
preparation for meeting with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) to seek guidance for NEPA classification. The Project goal was to gain
concurrence that the Project may proceed under the Categorical Exclusion (CE) process.
Based on the information presented in the suite of draft environmental baseline reports, as well as staff
and Lane Transit District (LTD) input, the City's consultant had prepared a revised Project design
concept. The latest draft design iteration mitigated environmental impacts to the full extent possible
without compromising the Project's intended purpose to modernize Franklin Blvd. for all modes of
travel and to contribute to successful redevelopment of the Glenwood riverfront area.
Design concepts for Franklin Blvd. were considered in the 2002 Glenwood Specific Area Plan effort,
revised in 2008 as a result of the Franklin Blvd. Study, and incorporated into the Glenwood
Refinement Plan update. More recently, staff and URS Corporation has been working through an
iterative environmental impacts /design refinement process to develop a draft design to take to FHWA
in pursuit of federal concurrence for a Categorical Exclusion (CE). This latest work effort was
approved by Council in April 2013, with an update provided to Council via communication packet in
October 2013.
Input from the general public, businesses, property owners, and other stakeholders had been an
important part of getting to this point in the Project. Most recently, City and consultant staff met face
to face with potentially impacted business and property owners within the Project Area to gather
employment information and to establish personal communication between the City and these
interested parties. Additional outreach would begin in earnest following this Council check -in.
Mr. Boyatt reviewed Attachment 2 of the agenda packet which outlined the annotated history of this
project. The City had been approved for a $6M grant from the FHWA with a $3.5M match for Phase
construction. It was not uncommon for a large visionary project to go through these steps until the
timing is right. Staff had gone through the environmental information gathering and iterations of the
sketch design to minimize environmental impacts and bring forward the kind of project that would
work well for Glenwood and the City.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page 3
Councilor Brew congratulated Mr. Boyatt's team for this project and keeping their eye on the result.
Ms. Krueger distributed a map of the project area. She described the Categorical Exclusion process
and how staff is trying to prove that the project was not significantly impacting everything in the area.
If they were unable to prove that, they would be required to do an Environmental Assessment (EA)
and Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Staff would be meeting with the FHWA in March to
determine the chances of getting a CE. It would then take about six months to finish the CE phase. If
they were not able to do the CE, they would need to proceed with the EA which could take up to a
year. If they were then required to do an EIS, staff would need to start over to determine new ideas for
the design that would not significantly impact the area.
Ms. Krueger referred to the maps in the agenda packet. In the earlier design, most of the impacts were
on the south side. They were told that leaving it that way would require them to do an EA since they
were not impacting everyone equally. Staff went back to even up the impacts on both sides to avoid
having to do an EA. She described each iteration and explained how each helped to lessen impacts to
property and environment. This area had huge potential for development so the City didn't want to
constrain themselves to affect development and right -of -way needs. She described the analysis details
of the entire corridor. One property was known as a historic property making any impacts to that
property prohibited. She discussed the final iteration. If Council approved, staff would meet with the
FHWA to see if they could go forward with CE. If not, the work staff had done could be applied to an
EA.
Councilor Brew asked if there was leeway for the unexpected if this was approved
Ms. Krueger said they did. She explained that the area noted (the `envelope') was slightly bigger than
what was needed which would allow for some minor adjustments. The roundabouts, however, were
noted at the right size.
Councilor Ralston asked if they would be proposing what was shown on Attachment 4 of the agenda
packet.
Ms. Krueger said they would like to proceed with this `envelope'. The cross sections shown were
preferred, but could be changed as long as they remained within the envelope.
Councilor Ralston said he liked the first iteration from 2008. He didn't like the median down the
middle with landscaping and felt it was wasted space. The option from 2008 had transit running down
the middle and was not wasted space. All the other options appeared to be 16' wider.
Ms. Krueger said they hadn't changed the width, but had moved it slightly. Stormwater management
was needed in that area and the median spaces were good locations for stormwater facilities.
Councilor Ralston referred to the iteration dated January 2014 and asked about a street that had
originally been shown going through a property.
Ms. Krueger said the development of the riverfront would be based on development that occurred. The
City would not be putting in those streets, but the intersections were placed so they aligned with the
Glenwood Refinement Plan street network.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page 4
Councilor Woodrow said the roundabouts not only saved space, but helped equalize the impacts. She
asked if it was possible to set up the 16' median to reclaim the water to use as irrigation for landscape
and vegetation in the area.
Ms. Krueger said that was something staff could certainly explore.
Councilor Moore referred to the bike and pedestrian lanes and asked if those could be changed so they
were not next to the traffic.
Ms. Krueger said there were different ideas of what could be done with the bike lanes. They hoped to
build the riverfront path, which would keep them completely separated. They also needed commuter
bike lanes that were as straight as possible, which was what they were trying to achieve. They did
make the 'space wider than a normal bike lane to help protect the bike lanes from the traffic. There was
enough space to provide a protective barrier. The roundabouts did reduce the speed through that area,
but allowed people to get through much quicker.
Councilor Moore said a protected bike lane would be her preference.
Councilor VanGordon asked for clarification on the bus lanes.
Ms. Krueger said staff had been working with Lane Transit District (LTD). There were stations at the
roundabouts with exclusive lanes at the entrance of the roundabout. The buses were in mixed traffic
between roundabouts. There was room if they needed exclusive lanes in the future. LTD was
supportive of the concept.
Councilor VanGordon asked if there was a concern about capacity in the roundabouts if there were no
traffic lights on either side of the roundabout.
Ms. Krueger said they would actually have better flow with roundabouts only rather than having
signals leading into the roundabout.
Councilor VanGordon said people would need to get used to the fact that they would be moving
through Glenwood at a slower speed, but more smoothly and timely.
Mr. Boyatt said traffic studies were now analyzing travel times per corridor.
Councilor VanGordon said once the `envelope' was approved, the design could change slightly.
Ms. Krueger said staff had done what they could to reduce impacts and still include all of the elements
wanted. Because properties were so close to the right -of -way, there would be unavoidable impacts.
The new design had reduced the impacts overall, including residential impacts.
Councilor VanGordon said the maps show the reduction in impacts.
Councilor Brew said he would like to understand the flow of bikes, cars and buses through the
roundabout.
Councilor Woodrow said the efficiency of roundabouts was discussed at a recent conference she
attended on Thursday about Connecting Communities.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page 5
Councilor Ralston referred to the January 2014 map and the parking noted. Ms. Krueger noted that the
map showed incorrect parking on one side. It should show angled parking.
Discussion was held regarding the spelling of McVay Highway and if the name could be changed
Mr. Reesor said there had been many years of work put into this project to get to this point. Included
in that work, had been a lot of public outreach to date. Public outreach had also been done through
other projects in Glenwood, such as the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the 2008 Franklin Boulevard
Study. City staff worked with the consultant team through Cogito to develop a public outreach plan.
The public outreach plan would be presented for approval before the Planning Commission serving as
the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) in March. One of the most important objectives of this
stage of public outreach was face -to -face outreach to businesses along the corridor and project area in
order to keep people informed through each phase, including timelines and potential impacts. It was
also important to relay the City's willingness and desire to work with businesses on minimizing
impacts, and possible relocation. Mr. Reesor had the opportunity in October 2013 to work with the
consultant and go door -to -door to meet with all the business owners in the study area which included
the Franklin Boulevard corridor and areas to the south. The initial point was to collect employment
data, but it also allowed them to introduce themselves to the owners and let them know how they
could stay involved. An interested parties list is being maintained by staff. Those on the list would
receive updates on the project. Another important component of the outreach plan was to reach Title 6
populations - seniors, disabled, lower income, etc. They would continue to use every avenue to reach
all people, notjust through electronic media, but also in face -to -face conversations. Open houses
would also be held.
Councilor Woodrow asked how they were planning for disabled and ADA accessibility.
Mr. Reeser said currently they were just looking at the `envelope' of the project. As they got more into
the design, they would be working with people to discuss their needs. Part of that would include safe
crossings in the roundabouts and an adequate number of safe crossings. They wanted to incorporate a
lot of street lighting in the design. As they met with different groups, they would ask them to share
their specific needs.
Councilor Woodrow asked if they could create a crossing where people could push a button that would
allow them more time to cross.
Ms. Krueger said they would look at those types of things once they heard from the public. The
current situation on Franklin Boulevard was very difficult for pedestrians, so they wanted to address
that in the design. Any concerns or issues that came forward would be addressed during the design.
Mr. Boyatt said once staff got to that point and started developing a design, they would bring the
design phases to Council for approval.
Mayor Lundberg congratulated them in looking at the `envelope'. She noted that this was the first
phase. She asked if anyone had seen these drawings.
Mr. Reesor said people had seen past iteration from 2008, but staff will not present this version to the
public until they have Council approval. Starting tomorrow, staff would send letters to business and
property owners and begin calling businesses that are directly impacted. They would also set up face -
to -face discussions with those affected and bring the map.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page 6
Mr. Boyatt said they didn't want to represent a concept publicly that did not have Council support.
Version 1 had been public since 2008 and the new iteration minimized impacts from that version.
Ms. Krueger said as part of the process, they had done an analysis on business displacement and a plan
of what the City could do to assist businesses beyond federal requirements. Community Development
Manager John Tamulonis had been a big part of that process. Some businesses may not be displaced,
but could be remodeled to accommodate the redesign. There are many possibilities. Staff wanted to be
transparent with the businesses and property owners and help them from the beginning.
Mayor Lundberg said she had great faith in Springfield's ability. There were a lot of impacts that
would affect these businesses and Council will hear from a lot of people. The City needs to be
accommodating, bend over backwards to help people, and think outside the box to help people see the
vision. The Council was accepting that process and knew there would be people upset and concerned
by the changes. She was counting on how staff managed this and came up with creative solutions. It is
very important that the Mayor and Council are kept very close to the information, either in person or
in Communication Packets. The City had many projects that had potential for conflict with the public.
Mr. Boyatt said those values, such as how they treated people and the quality of communication, were
at the top of staffs list. If they were going to change and improve, there would be impacts. In 2007 -08
when looking at the Franklin study and people saw lines over buildings and businesses, staff had
assured people that it would be at least five years before anything was done. The five years had
passed, and they were still in the early stages of pulling funds together for this project. People were
going to want to know how long before they were impacted. There was a lot of development interest
on the north side of Franklin in the Phase 1 construction segment. Staff had been communicating with
those developers as they had put their plans together, and were doing what they could to bring project
delivery of the Franklin facility into alignment with the timeline for redevelopment.
Mayor Lundberg said the City had done many projects such as transportation and development in
Gateway, putting in two EmX routes so she had faith they could do this as well. They needed to be
extremely sensitive to those in that area. She appreciated the hard work being done. Council supported
staff using the 2014 iteration for their public outreach.
3. Franklin Boulevard — McVay Highway Jurisdictional Transfer.
Community Development Manager Tom Boyatt presented the staff report on this item. ODOT had
proposed to transfer Franklin Blvd. between the I -5 right of way on the west end and McVay Highway
on the east end, along with McVay Highway from its intersection with Franklin Boulevard south to the
bridge going over the railroad tracks. The transfer of this approximately 1.8 miles of roadway
included all existing right of way and transportation facilities within that right of way. The Springfield
bridges over the Willamette would remain in ODOT ownership.
There was no set formula for what constituted a fair exchange, and generally these deals were made
based on what each side in the negotiation perceived they could afford and the particular benefits of
owning the facility. The state was motivated to transfer a state facility because of the reduction in
future costs to maintain and improve the roadway in question. Springfield saw an interest in receiving
money to operate and maintain the facility, as well as a desirable benefit in terms of design flexibility
for future improvements, and/or operational flexibility that may not be allowed by the state's policies
and standards today.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page 7
In this particular case ODOT was offering $3.2 million to the City to take jurisdiction of
Franklin/McVay in Glenwood as noted above. Staff had asked for $3.4 million, $1.7 million for
Franklin and the same for McVay. ODOT responded with $3 million, and eventually offered to split
the difference. ODOT had also committed to lending strong support to any requests for state or
federal funding to improve the corridor. Support of this kind could not be underestimated in the
scramble for scarce funding, as the City recently experienced with the $6 million placed in the Draft
2015 -2018 STIP. Estimated annual cost to maintain the roadways was $100,000, and once the facility
was improved that cost would change with increases due to the addition of functional drainage
systems and improved landscaping and likely partial offsets from an improved travel facility. The
increase in maintenance costs would depend on what was ultimately built. Pending construction of
Phase II, staff would recommend that the money be set aside in a reserve to leverage contributions to
Phase 1I construction costs and for extraordinary maintenance.
Following Council direction, the state and the City may finalize the transfer agreement (IGA), which
would then come back to Council in regular session for final approval.
Councilor Ralston asked if the City would use the funds from ODOT for redevelopment.
Mr. Boyatt said the proposal was to bank the money, subsidize the maintenance as little as possible,
and keep the rest in reserve for a grant match for Phase 2 construction of Franklin. Another possibility
would be to use some of the banked money to complete Phase 1. The agreement had included
language that ODOT would support the City's requests for federal or state funding.
Councilor Woodrow said she thought we came to a fair deal. It was nice to have ODOT work with the
City in a way that supported both the City and ODOT. We had a good relationship with ODOT.
Mr. Boyatt said it would help with several other projects as well. He would check into the possibility
of changing the name of the McVay Highway.
Mayor thanked Mr. Boyatt and Mr. Goodwin for their work on this. She asked him to thank ODOT as
well.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m.
Minutes Recorder —Amy Sowa
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
Amy Sowa
City Recorder