HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2014 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY APRIL 28, 2014
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday April 28, 2014 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith and Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. NEDCO Downtown Mobile Food Vendor Program.
Housing Programs Analyst, Kevin Ko, presented the staff report on this item. Council discussed this
topic during its March 24, 2014 work session. NEDCO's Downtown Mobile Food Vendor Program
covers only activities occurring on its property and on City owned streets, sidewalks, rights -of -ways
and public open spaces within the Downtown Food Vendor Program Zone. It does not cover activities
occurring on privately owned property, or on properties outside of the identified zone.
Staff has worked with NEDCO staff to address concerns raised by Council at its March 14, 2014 work
session. The revised guidelines were included in the Council agenda packet. Council had also
instructed NEDCO and city staff to reach out to the downtown businesses to find out their thoughts on
the program and how it might impact them. NEDCO staff was available to answer any questions about
the outreach.
Councilor Woodrow asked for a definition of the word 'compatibility' as used in the document.
Mr. Ko said it is a broad term to make sure the vendor cart blended into the fabric of downtown
Councilor Woodrow referred to the section regarding applications, appeals and grievances. She asked
what process would be used and who would hear the appeal or grievance.
Mr. Ko said staff worked with the City Attorney to draft this language. Because NEDCO will be in
charge of the program, they will hear the appeals and grievances. NEDCO has an appeal process
already in place for all of their programs and that same process will be used for this program. NEDCO
would have the final say on the grievances.
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said NEDCO has a process in place. When an entity issues a
permit, they are required to provide an opportunity to be heard through a process such as an appeal.
NEDCO is delegated to issue the permits and will hear the grievances. More information can be
included in the guidelines.
Councilor Woodrow said she would like additional language in the guidelines letting people know that
NEDCO has a process and it will go through their process. She said the language on availability for
the season and on a monthly basis was confusing.
Dave Johnson, Food Hub Operations Supervisor from NEDCO, said they break the year into two
seasons. Vendors apply to be considered for participation in the program for a specific season. That
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 28, 2014
Page 2
application fee mirrored the process for the Farmers' Market. Once they are accepted to participate,
there is a weekly fee for setting up.
Councilor Woodrow said she likes the revisions
Councilor Moore said she understands that people can appeal a decision, but she asked if an impartial
party could be involved if needed.
Ms. Smith said the appeal would end with NEDCO because they are running the program. For City
business permits, appeals go to the City Manager. It is permissible under the law to have it with the
same entity as long as there is a process in place.
Councilor Moore said she is trying to understand the agreement with NEDCO on behalf of the City.
She asked for an example of other agencies the City had this type of agreement with.
Ms. Smith said the ordinance allows the City to delegate to another non - profit to run the Food Cart
Program. That entity, in this situation NEDCO, has the ability to issue permits and monitor and
enforce the program. The vendors are still responsible for State and Local laws. Complaints will also
go to NEDCO through their formal process. The City did a lot of cooperation with other agencies such
as with WAGS and the Spay and Neuter Program and with St. Vincent DePaul for the homeless
camping program. They are currently working on an agreement between the City of Springfield and
NEDCO to outline the responsibilities of each party.
Mr. Grimaldi said certain aspects of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) agreement
are similar.
Councilor Moore asked why the vendors need to make records available to the City of Springfield for
audit upon request.
Mr. Ko said because the City had given NEDCO Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds. They need to make sure the Program and vendors are eligible and in compliance.
Councilor VanGordon asked about the cap of 25 food carts in the downtown area.
Mr. Ko said they had set the maximum fairly high. That will not be published in guidelines, but in the
IGA between the City and NEDCO. An adjustment can be made if Council preferred. The original
maximum being considered was ten, but if they end up with a pod at NEDCO and a pod in the City
Plaza, they would exceed that number.
Councilor VanGordon said they can see how it goes and adjust the numbers later if needed. He asked
about the feedback during the one -on -one meetings with PlankTown and the Washburne Cafe.
Mr. Johnson said NEDCO's Downtown Manager, Jim McCugh; attended the meeting with Jeff and
Marilou Heriot from the Washbume Cafe. That meeting was very constructive and positive. They did
have concerns, but there was a solution to each of their concerns that was insightful and could be built
into the framework of the program. On a number of occasions they expressed the support of NEDCO,
but did have concerns about how businesses might be impacted with frontage and visibility. He met
with Erica, one of the managing partners at PlankTown, and had a very positive meeting. They have
had experience with the food cart program in Eugene and how they interact with other businesses and
are very supportive and excited to see food carts in Springfield. Erica expressed ideas of how they
could collaboratively work together as businesses.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 28, 2014
Page 3
Councilor VanGordon asked for examples of feedback that was incorporated into the guidelines
Mr. Johnson said most were related to things Council had already brought up during their last work
session. One piece that was brought up by the owners of the Washburne Cafe was the fee schedule and
concern about this being a subsidy. The fee structure is set up to tie micro- business development work
to the vendor program. They are working hard to connect brand new businesses with this program and
match the economics of the program with the economics of those new businesses. The fees set in
Springfield are slightly lower than those in Eugene for this program. The fees were not changed based
on the conversation with the Washbume owners, but could be addressed if it continued to be concern.
Councilor VanGordon asked if they were planning a check -in with businesses after a period of time,
perhaps six months.
Mr. Johnson said that was not part of the meeting. Mr. McHugh will likely be in regular contact with
those businesses.
Councilor Brew said he is happy with how the guidelines turned out. It is a new program and the fees
are reasonable. They need to give it a chance to get going and then review it in a year to see if changes
need to be made. He didn't expect 25 carts and feels it will be self - regulating and based on the
economy. He is fine having that cap.
Councilor Wylie referred to the vending zone definitions. She asked if special permits are needed if an
event takes place outside of this area.
Mr. Ko said they would still get the special event permit for areas outside of downtown.
Councilor Brew referred to the appeal process and noted that nothing will preclude people from
coming to Council to express their concerns.
Mayor Lundberg said the Council will still hear if things are going wrong, so she wants to have as
smooth a process as possible. She is not interested in pursuing vendor locations on Main Street and
South A. The brick and mortar businesses have signs and can put out tables and chairs. Adding food
vendors with tables and chairs will cause congestion and block the view of the existing businesses.
The City is also preparing the parking program with new signs and striping. Placing vendors in those
spots would not go over well. She would prefer putting some vendors in the plaza area where they can
be close together. She would like to have a communication report after the summer season with
concerns and feedback from the brick and mortar establishments. That will allow adjustments to the
program to be made before the next season.
Mr. Ko asked if a report in September would be appropriate.
Mayor Lundberg said that will be a good check -in time. She asked if they are only allowing food
vendors that go through the incubator program at SPROUT, or if it will be open to established food
carts as well.
Mr. Johnson said it can be either.
2. Local and Regional Wastewater, and Local Stormwater User Fees for Fiscal Year 2014 -15.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 28, 2014
Page 4
Senior Finance Analyst, Katherine Bishop, presented the staff report on this item. Each year, staff
presents proposed user fee rates for local wastewater and stormwater programs to Council. These fees
are established to provide adequate revenue to fund operations and maintenance, capital improvement
programs, and the debt service payments and bond covenant requirements for the City of Springfield.
In addition to the local user fees, MWMC develops regional user fees to support the Regional
Wastewater Programs.
Regional Wastewater User Fees
On March 14, 2014, staff presented a preliminary FY 14 -15 Budget and Capital Program based on a
3.5% user fee rate increase to the MWMC. On April 11, 2014, the MWMC adopted the FY 14 -15
regional user fees following a public hearing. The 3.5% rate increase in FY 14 -15 will increase the
typical residential customer's monthly bill $0.82 (assuming 5,000 gallons of wastewater treated).
Stormwater and Local Wastewater User Fees
Last year, Council approved a 4% stormwater rate change, with a rate forecast including 4% in FY 14-
15 and annually over the four year forecast. Additionally, Council also approved a 4% rate change last
year for wastewater, with,a rate forecast including 3% in FY 14 -15 and tapering to a 2% rate change
within the four year forecast. Staff has prepared two rate scenarios for Council consideration. When
combining local wastewater and stormwater user fees and considering a typical residential customer's
monthly bill options include:
Proposed Option 1 includes a 3.4% user fee rate increase in FY 14 -15 resulting in a $1.12 increase
monthly combined, which include a local wastewater increase at $.062 and stormwater at $0.50
monthly.
Scenario Option 2 includes a 3.0% user fee rate increase in FY 14 -15 resulting in a $1.00 increase
monthly combined, which includes a local wastewater increase at $0.52 and stormwater at $0.48
monthly.
Ms. Bishop said the public hearing on this item is scheduled for May 5.
Ms. Bishop said the fees are tied to both Council Goals (Provide financially responsible and
innovative government services; and Maintain and improve infrastructure and facilities) and' Revenue
Goals (Provide adequate operations and maintenance; Fund the adopted Capital Improvements
Program; Maintain debt coverage requirements; and Maintain fiscal health and favorable credit rating).
Ms. Bishop reviewed the proposed rate increases and the two options being presented. In FY 12 -13
Council provided policy direction to staff to try, over the next 5 -7 years, to lower the level of rate
changes to an inflationary level, which is reflected in the five -year rate forecast.
Councilor Moore said these are the local charges only, yet the regional component is also on the
Springfield Utility Board bill.
Ms. Bishop said the bill is based on individual usage. She discussed the increase in the regional fee
and the combination of both the local and regional fees. The regional fees are set by the Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC).
Councilor VanGordon asked what changed between Options 1 and 2.
Ms. Bishop said she will discuss that shortly. She discussed local wastewater services and the timeline
since the 2008 Wastewater Master Plan was adopted up to the current rates being proposed.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 28, 2014
Page 5
Councilor Moore asked about the term of the revenue bonds
Ms. Bishop said the bonds were 20 year bonds. They anticipate the revenue bond funding in
wastewater will be spent down or expended within the next year. It has been well invested and will
continue to be invested. She reviewed last year's rates and projections over the next four years. She
noted a chart showing the comparison. The average was $42.61 - Springfield is slightly higher and
Eugene is lower.
Councilor Brew referred to the FY 14/15 projections and noted the difference between the chart on
page 5 and the chart on page 3. He asked what happened between last year's forecast and what they
are seeing this year.
Ms. Bishop said the bottom part of the chart shows a combination of wastewater rand stormwater.
Councilor Moore asked about the 3% right -of -way fee.
Ms. Bishop said the fee is 3% of the total user fees. This fee is to pay for the privilege of having the
pipelines in the street or right -of -way. Those funds go to the street maintenance fund. The revenues are
set to meet the requirements of the local expenditures for local wastewater and stormwater. One of the
expenditures is a right -of -way fee. It is common for other utilities such as fiber, water lines and
telephone lines that use the right -of -way to pay a fee.
Councilor Moore said she understood part of the stormwater fee was going towards cleaning the
streets. She asked if that money only came from the stormwater fee rather than the right -of -way fee.
Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said because street sweeping cleans the streets
and also clears debris from the stormwater system, the cost is split between the street fund and
stormwater fund.
Ms. Bishop referred to past year increases and noted that Eugene did not have a rate increase for local
services last year. The factors that drive the rate increases are the revenue bond and debt service
payments, the adopted FYI 5-19 CIP which identified 24 projects, capital funding plan assumptions,
and inflation. In prior years, they planned for a future revenue bond issuance in the longer term
forecast for $17M, and then reduced to $10M due to the lower cost for large projects and more
competitive bids. Last year, they removed any future revenue bond issuance from the 5 -year plan.
They are looking to transfer a greater amount of capital funds from the operating budget to capital to
work towards establishing pay -as- you -go financing. With that type of financing, there would not be
the added financing costs associated with interest or coverage requirements. They may find small
loans for large future projects, but they do not want to overlap debt.
Councilor Moore asked if the McVay Highway sewer is already covered in these funds.
Ms. Bishop said yes it is. She referred to a slide showing projects completed since 2009 which had
been paid for with the revenue bond.
Councilor Brew said the Jasper Trunk Line was planned, they were anticipating a lot higher level of
development and that the improvement SDC's would pick up a large portion of the cost. Since they
moved it forward when there was not a lot of development, he would like to have a discussion about
how development would pick up the cost once it happened. He asked if that information could be
included in a future Communication Packet.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 28, 2014
Page 6
Ms. Bishop referred to a chart showing the average monthly residential wastewater volume. She
explained it further. The city's wastewater billing was based on billing unit, which is about 748
gallons.
Councilor Brew said he had asked if they might want to consider a flat rate for wastewater, similar to
what they do for stormwater.
Ms. Bishop said that topic is scheduled for a work session on May 27. Of the communities compared
to Springfield in the presentation, one has a flat wastewater rate. All of the others have a volumetric
chart. The one with the flat fee is Gresham. Gresham has newer pipes in the ground, do not have an
aging infrastructure, and have not grown. When there is new development, it usually pays its share. In
2009, Gresham looked at going to volumetric fee similar to Springfield's, but didn't have the software
component to implement that type of fee. They are looking at it again as a meter - driven charge is very
defensible.
Mr. Stouder said when they discuss this on May 27, they will discuss some of the considerations of
using a flat fee rather than a volumetric fee. He noted some of the other cities on the comparison chart
and that many of them with lower user fees had higher SDCs to make up some of the balance.
Ms. Bishop referred to the proposed FY 14/15 wastewater rates and the forecast. Added to the chart is
the capital transfer which totaled about $9.7M over the next five years as they work towards a pay -as-
you-go fund. The proposed rates deliver essential services such as scheduled maintenance of the
wastewater pipe system, maintenance of pump stations, manhole inspection and repair, and high
priority rehabilitation projects. She discussed local stormwater services and the timeline from 2008
when the Stormwater Master Plan was adopted to present. The forecast and comparison for
stormwater rates were reviewed.
Councilor Woodrow asked about the chart of the different cities and the stormwater bill. She asked
why Springfield and Eugene are at the high end compared with everyone except Portland.
Ms. Bishop said a lot of it has to do with permit requirements, which are stronger and more specific
depending on population. Cities with populations of 50,000 or greater have more requirements than
smaller communities. Portland has even more requirements due to their population.
Mr. Stouder said there is some economy of scale for Eugene. Also, because much of Springfield's
water goes into the ground, we have more requirements.
Ms. Bishop said the rate factors for stormwater are debt service coverage, the CIP, and ongoing
operations and maintenance. She referred to a slide showing some of the capital improvement projects
that had been completed since 2010, and those that are scheduled in the future. Staff looked at how
they could lower the increase without adversely affecting future years. She reviewed the proposed
rates for FYI 4115. The proposed stormwater rate and forecast will provide the following essential
services: implementation of Storm Water Management Plan; inspection and cleaning; maintenance of
water quality facilities; maintenance of public and private bioswales; and high priority capital
improvement projects.
Councilor Ralston asked about Options 1 and 2 and if they both have the same end result
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 28, 2014
Page 7
Ms. Bishop said in terms of rates, they are about the same, but the fund transfer amount is impacted.
Option 2 also includes a slight spending down of reserves to deliver the lower overall transfer amount.
The requirements of the stormwater fund are not fully funded through user fees.
Councilor Ralston said over five years, Option 2 saves ratepayers only .2 1, but the trade -off is cutting
into reserves. Option 1 is his preference.
Mayor Lundberg they are also going to have bigger discussions about flat rates and pay -as- you -go
financing. The City did go ahead with the Jasper Trunk line with the anticipation of a lot of
development which didn't occur. On the other hand, construction costs were now low so it is a trade-
off. Council will also be discussing Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (M WMC) in
a few weeks.
Councilor Moore said the rate increase was based on a percentage increase and the more a person
used, the higher the increase. The City will take in more money as usage increased with population
growth. She is inclined to look at the lower rate of Option 2. It is a small savings, but adds up.
Councilor Woodrow said based on current information, she is inclined to go with Option 1. That small
amount will create better financial health to make improvements to the facilities. She didn't use much
water, so will be interested to see the difference it actually makes.
Councilor Brew said he also supports Option 1. He referred to the flat fee and the point that some
households use very little and some use a lot, but noted that the same can be said for wastewater,
which is charged a flat fee.
Councilor VanGordon said he also agrees with Option 1 as it seems more a sustainable path to get
where they want. He appreciated that staff had worked to keep the decreases to a low percentage.
Councilor Wylie said she agreed with Councilor VanGordon.
Mayor Lundberg said there is a much deeper issue regarding the rate structure due to the age and
condition of our wastewater system. There are many systems that leaked a lot which contributes to our
need for bigger and better facilities and lines. They needed to face those issues and have those
conversations at some point. She is okay with either option.
Ms. Bishop said MWMC approved some additional consultant services in the regional program to
begin seeping and planning for a private lateral program in both Eugene and Springfield that will
benefit the local communities. That work is just in the approval process.
The majority of the Council supported Option 1.
3. Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Study: Analysis of Serviceability and Estimated Costs to Provide
Urban Levels of City Services to Five Potential UGB Expansion Areas (Metro Plan Amendment
File No. LRP 2009 - 00014).
Principal Planner, Linda Pauly and Development and Public Works Director, Len Goodwin, presented
the staff report on this item. This is the first of a series of Council work sessions to discuss potential
UGB expansion areas and options for growth.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 28, 2014
Page 8
• This Session - UGB Study Areas Serviceability and Cost Analysis
• May 5, 2014 - Session 2 Council Discussion and Public Involvement/Stakeholder Input 2008-
2014
• May 12, 2014 - Session 3 Council Discussion
At the March 18, 2013 Work Session, the Council received high level comparative cost estimates to
serve five UGB study areas. At Council's request, Springfield engineering, transportation and finance
staff prepared more detailed cost of infrastructure estimates, including itemized project lists. These
estimates are in 2014 dollars and are likely to be exceeded at the actual time of project and /or land
development. The cost estimates to extend services to each area are high so it is likely that most types
of development in any new area will require a mix of public and private investment to build the
necessary infrastructure.
The serviceability and cost analysis are provided to assist the Council as they evaluate pros, cons and
potential financial impacts of growth.
Mr. Goodwin said this is Council's opportunity to look at the proposals that have been generated for
various expansions for the UGB and consider what makes the most sense for the City of Springfield. It
is important that the Council has the flexibility and opportunity to focus on what serves the interest of
the City. Once they do that, it is staff s obligation to find a way to make that proposal effective
consistent with the law and the many land use rules. The objective is for the Council to let staff know
as a policy decision where and by how much they want to expand the UGB.
Ms. Pauly said this packet provides information regarding costs associated to the City if they expand
the UGB in the different areas. Several other staff are in the audience to answer questions. Staff took a
closer look at each of the five study areas to consider how urban services might be provided to those
areas. To be included in the UGB, land needs to be serviceable. Under the law, serviceable means
"The City or County has determined that public facilities and transportation facilities currently have
adequate capacity for development planned in the service area where the site is located, or can be
upgraded to have adequate capacity within the twenty-year planning period ". The engineers have a
strong inclination to find a way to make that happen. They started the process by asking the
engineering and transportation staff to identify which projects would be needed to serve these areas
looking at City wastewater, stormwater and transportation systems to these areas. Those descriptions
by study areas are included in the attachments of the agenda packet. The next step was to estimate
probable costs for each of the projects. Maps were created showing where the needed projects for the
five areas would need to be located in relation to other things already going on in the City. Some of
the projects are already in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP), Public Facilities Plan or
Capital Improvement Program (CEP) to serve land already inside the UGB. For the purpose of this
analysis, they assumed the entire study area would be brought in and require services. Partial areas
within each study areas could be brought in, but the estimates are based on the full areas. Staff
gathered information last summer regarding Police and Fire services. That information is included in
the agenda packet.
Mayor Lundberg asked about the number of acres needed.
Ms. Pauly said that information is not in this packet. The information tonight is just raw data on the
costs to serve each of the service areas.
Mr. Grimaldi said tonight staff is sharing information with the Council. After reviewing, Council can
ask for additional information that staff can bring to future work sessions on this topic. Once they have
all of the information, they can provide feedback regarding their choices.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 28, 2014
Page 9
Ms. Pauly said next week, Council will receive the public input organized by study area
Mr. Goodwin said the Commercial Industrial Buildable Land (CIBL) study suggests a need for 614
acres; however that assumption was based on a number of policy decisions which came out of the
citizen advisory committee. Those policy determinations and decisions can be changed by the Council.
If they do change them, it will lead to a different result. When Council completes their conversations,
staff will go back to check policy assumptions in the CIBL to make sure they are consistent with
Council discussions and review them technically. The Council could decide a different number of
acres are needed.
Councilor Brew said he found this information very helpful. He referred to the North Gateway area
and that the internal circulation and utilities are left off assuming that will be the responsibility of the
developer. Some things are already in City plans, some things are SDC eligible and some are not, and
some things "the developer may pay for. He would like a better picture of the net costs to the City.
Councilor Ralston asked if the costs to develop each area included the whole area. They may end up
choosing parts of the different sites rather than areas as a whole. With the figures presented,
Mahogany Lane is the most expensive.
Ms. Pauly said the figures are for the full area
Councilor Ralston asked if they could break down the costs by segments of each area so they would
know which sections are the most expensive and which are the most feasible.
Mr. Goodwin said the less they develop of a particular area, the less it would cost.
Councilor Ralston said he likes the Seavey Loop area and how it is situated with the City. Earlier he
thought it would be the most expensive area to develop, but it is not.
Councilor Woodrow said she liked to look at each piece and ask why they want it and what it will be
used for. Areas close and with access to I -5 are better suited for light industrial and commercial.
Mahogany Lane is outside the flood plain, but is furthest from 1 -5 so she wasn't sure why they would
want to annex that area. Both Seavey Loop and Mahogany Lane are outside the flood plain, but
Seavey Loop is closer to 1 -5. Public safety access is important, and although there are concerns with
the Seavey Loop area, the Goshen Fire Department is in that area and there could be an arrangement
with them to serve that area. Police service may be a concern. She didn't see them taking just one
areas, but rather pieces of several areas. There are pieces that are exceptional for Springfield in each
area.
Councilor VanGordon asked if the public safety cost estimates can be put on the same page with
infrastructure estimates for future discussions. He noted the partnerships that are needed in the Seavey
Loop area and asked what other agencies will be available to partner with in that area. He agreed that
the solution is notjust in one area. Once they determined the parcel size, he would like to see the most
expensive pieces. He wants to look at it from an economic standpoint. Seavey Loop is interesting to
him and he would like more information about this area so he can weigh each area equally and decide
why something should be taken off or why it should stay. He would like more information about the
policy options would be helpful. The areas furthest to the west are the most appealing to him
economically due to their close proximity to 1 -5.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 28, 2014
Page 10
Councilor Brew said he agreed. He would like information to begin servicing each of the areas. He
likes Seavey Loop for the same reasons noted, and also because they have one owner who is very
interested, but it is far from everything else. The point of the UGB is to fill in gaps so we aren't
sprawling. He likes the North Highway 126/52 "d Street area because there is already industrial
development there and it is directly off Highway 126. He would like to look at part of that area.
Councilor Moore asked if the expansion area needs to be adjacent to the existing UGB.
Ms. Pauly said it is not clearly defined in the statute, so they have interpreted `adjacent' to be pretty
close to. If they are going to annex property, they need to be contiguous.
Assistant City Attorney Lauren King said the law required it is adjacent, but not abutting. There are
other things that make Seavey Loop a higher priority such as land type.
Councilor Moore agreed with the proximity to I -5 on the west side being better suited for
development. In the distant future, they could perhaps eventually connect Jasper to 1 -5. She asked if
North Gateway was agricultural land. Yes. She asked if they could see the number of acres per section
on the maps for future discussions.
Mayor Lundberg said had been an advocate of Seavey Loop and North Gateway because they are on I-
5, with her third choice on Highway 126/52 "d Street. Things will develop off 52nd Street, and she
doesn't want to see anyone move because they didn't expand the UGB to an area. They need to
choose carefully which parcels are added to the UGB for that reason. They were not able to get
anyone interested in developing in the Jasper Natron area because of how far away it is from
everything. Any of these areas will have multiple issues because of the rivers, but they do have
interested parties in some of the areas.
Councilor Ralston said he wanted to know where the 50 -acre parcels are located.
Mayor Lundberg said she wants to make sure they know where redevelopment sites are located. They
need clarity about acreage for larger parcels. When Gateway was first developed, it was very
expensive and difficult to see the potential. North Gateway and Seavey Loop have the most potential
for development.
Councilor Wylie asked about zoning in the study areas.
Ms. Pauly said they had existing County zoning. Most had Exclusive Farm Use zoning, with the
exception of Seavey Loop which has a myriad of zonings. Springfield would need to zone the
properties under Springfield zoning if it is brought into our UGB.
Councilor Wylie asked if they proposed the zoning at this point.
Ms. Pauly said staff proposed an urban holding area as a plan designation, with the companion zoning
of Agriculture Zone. Draft code language has been drafted for that change. That will permit the uses
already allowed under County zoning until the land is annexed into the City. Some areas, such as the
Seavey Loop area, will require more work regarding zoning.
Councilor Wylie asked which areas they are looking at for the 50 -acre site for light industrial versus
residential and commercial.
Sites were pointed out to Councilor Wylie on the map for some of those sites
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 28, 2014
Page I 1
Ms. Pauly said Council selected a list of target industries for Springfield based on our strengths and
weaknesses and data. They are looking at sites for those types of uses. Some of the uses can be built
on redevelopment sites, but others required large pieces of land.
Councilor Moore asked about other areas that are in the current UGB, why they were chosen and for
what purpose.
Ms. Pauly said those areas were in the original UGB expansion and had a mix of zoning. The UGB
also needs to include park land and public facilities.
Councilor Ralston said the northeast comer of the Mill Race flowed down to South 28 Street where a
lot of industry was located. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) bought land in that area and wanted it
added to the UGB.
Mr. Goodwin said a large part of this area was owned by Knife River, but SUB recently acquired it.
Mr. Grimaldi said SUB would consider appropriate development on that site.
Ms. Pauly said letters from Willamalane and SUB would be included in next week's packet.
Staff was recommending they include park land in this UGB expansion since the study showed a 300
acre deficit in park land.
Ms. Pauly said next week she will bring paper maps for the table and also send them electronically.
Councilor Brew clarified that park land didn't have to be in the UGB.
Ms. Pauly said that is correct. Willamalane is requesting that their park lands be added to the UGB.
Mr. Grimaldi noted that they like to annex the parks so they can have law enforcement services.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Minutes Recorder —Amy Sowa
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
{cIC ZR4(ap
Amy Sowa
City Recorder