Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24/2000 Work Session " . MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, APRIL 24,2000. The Springfield City Council met in Work Session at Springfield City Hall, Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, on Monday, April 24, 2000, at 5:31 p.rn. with Mayor Weathers presiding. ATTENDANCE Present: Mayor Weathers, and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Leiken, Lundberg and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Tim Harold, Senior Management Rosie Pryor, City Recorder Kim Krebs, AIC Development Services Director John Tamulonis, Public Works Director Dan Brown, Finance Director Bob Duey, and members of the staff. 1. Gateway Urban Services and Traffic Capacity Analysis. . Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett was present for the staff report. He began by saying the purpose of this work session was to provide follow-up information from the previous work session that was held in June 1999. At that time, staff briefed the council on proposed actions to mitigate existing and future Gateway area traffic issues. The report suggested several steps including: voluntary transportation demand management; access management measures; and making system improvements. The report also discussed how future land use decisions impact current traffic capacity analyses and transportation planning. Mr. Barnett said in response to the previous presentation, council directed staff to conduct additional analyses looking at the impact on level of service (LOS) that would be caused by re- zoning the 180-acre Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Open Space, for golf course development. Sixty-three acres of flood constrained land were also deleted from each scenario. The council also requested that each land use scenario include more detailed cost estimates for system improvements as well as a cost/revenue analysis. He said the Development Services Department contracted with the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) to perform a cost/revenue urban services analysis of three different land use scenarios, 1) MDR at 16 units per acre; 2) Low Density Residential (LDR) at 5.5 units per acre; 3) and a part and open space/LDR at 2.6 units per acre. Mr. Barnett said the Economic Development Manager interviewed property owners in the study area. These interviews identified landowners' expectations regarding the development type, intensity, and timing. This analysis used the year 2005 as the point at which all expected landowners planned to complete their projects. Current landowners planned development represents very nearly full build out of all vacant land in the study area. It is important to note this "build out" projection does not match the 20-year projection used in the LCOG report. . Mr. Barnett referred to page three of the Council Briefing Memorandum (Attachment A) and explained the Development Scenario Descriptions. He said four development scenarios were used to analyze traffic conditions under the various land use designations. The descriptions and assumptions are as follows: ., City of Springfield City Council Work Session - April 24, 2000 Page 2 . Base Case: This scenario accounts for traffic volumes derived from traffic counts recorded at the subject intersections in 1998, adds traffic volumes attributed to development projects that were already approved or about to be approved in June 1999, and adds background traffic growth through the year 2005 to account for general growth in the community. He pointed out the list of development projects approved or about to be approved in June 1999 that were listed in the briefing memorandum. Base Case plus No Development ofMDR Land: This scenario includes Base Case conditions and adds traffic volumes from development of all lands in the study area in accordance with land owner expectations as reported to the Economic Development Manager, except for the MDR land. Mr. Barnett said all MDR land east of Game Farm Road is assumed to have no development of any type. Base Case plus LDR or golf Course Development ofMDR Land: this scenario includes Base Case conditions and adds traffic volumes from development of all lands in the study area in accordance with land owner expectations as reported to the Economic Development Manager, except for the MDR land. All MDR land east of Game Farm Road is assumed to have LDR development or Golf Course development with a mix of golf course use, single family and multi- family residential use with traffic volumes equal to LDR volumes. . Base Case plus Development ofMDR Land: This scenario includes Base Case conditions and adds traffic volumes from development of all lands in the study area in accordance with land owner expectations as reported to the Economic Development Manager. All MDR land east of Game Farm Road is assumed to have MDR development. Mr. Barnett said at council's direction, stafflooked at Alternative Circulation Ideas and referred to Attachment A page 4, and eXplained each of the alternatives. He also referred to Attachment A Page 5 Safety/Accident Analysis, and provided some explanation of the analysis. In reviewing the development scenarios listed on Attachment A page 9, Mr. Barnett provided an overview and said council could review on their own but was able to respond to any questions. Mayor Weathers asked what the waiting time measured was at signalized intersections for the different LOS. Transportation Planning Engineer Masood Mirza responded by saying LOS A) 5 seconds, LOS B) 5 - 15 seconds, LOS C) 15 - 25 seconds, LOS D) 25 - 40 seconds, and LOS E) 40 - 60 seconds, and greater than 60 seconds is failing. Mr. Barnett said these seconds are the average delay per vehicle, which were measured at a peak hour, which generally falls sometime between 4 and 6 p.m. He said there were consecutive 15-minute segments that were measured for a total of 60 minutes. Mayor Weathers reminded staff it would be very important to work with the schools for the cross walk monitoring, and wondered if the LOS was examined at other times other than peak? Mr. Barnett said in the first round of the LOS analysis, it was looked at morning, noon and night periods in 1998. He provided the results ofthe analysis. Public Works Director Dan Brown suggested it might be workable to have a special phase in for school release time, or timing the pedestrian signals so it is set not respond each time the pedestrian button is pushed, but at controlled intervals. There was further discussion on possible solutions regarding release times of schools and children versus keeping the traffic flowing. . City of Springfield City Council Work Session - April 24, 2000 Page 3 . Mr. Barnett summarized the Game Farm Road/Pioneer Parkway Extension analysis. He said they were not factored into the analysis or costs, however, they figure into the overall Gateway traffic circulation picture and it is difficult to have a comprehensive discussion without considering them. He provided an explanation of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts in each of the Base Case Scenarios. AIC Development Services Director John Tamulonis referred to the March 30 memorandum from Julie Warncke, Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), (Attachment B), regarding the Gateway Revenue and cost analysis. He provided a brief overview of the analysis. He also provided an additional handout describing the acreage, population revenues and costs for each of the scenanos. Councilor Leiken asked if there was enough time to do a study on the traffic impact in each of the options. Mr. Tamulonis said the traffic impacts have been included in Mr. Barnetts' study in the attachments, but they have not done a cash flow analysis to make sure the revenues and costs are matching up. There was discussion between council and Mr. Tamulonis about the differences in MDR, LDR, and the golf scenario. . Mr. Tamulonis said there are some errors on Attachment B page 15 under the Results paragraph. The corrections are development under the MDR scenario would result in the highest revenue cost ratio at 1.25 instead of 1.42; and, the LOR scenario would result in the slightly lower revenue/cost ratio of 1.09, instead of 1.30. Mr. Barnett summarized the Observations and Conclusions (Attachment A, page 6). He said together, the Urban Services and Traffic System Improvements analyses enable staff to make the following observations and conclusions about the future of development and traffic circulation the Gateway area. 1) Most of the road system improvements are needed to accommodate existing and future background traffic growth; 2) The LOS at Gateway/Beltline intersection is "F" no matter what is done; 3) The council may want to consider other factors besides revenue and cost; 4) The council may want to budget conservatively; 5) The council may want to give input on Game Farm Road design; and 6) The council may want to initiate planning for the extension of Pioneer Parkway. Mr. Barnett said in terms of the cost ratio, they do not account for any ofthe costs associated with the transportation improvements. He said LCOG assumed when the TransPlan list ofprojects and that would be sufficient for all scenarios. He said, that is not the case by reviewing all the materials in more detail. Councilor Fitch asked if they should be included in TransPlan to be considered. Mr. Barnett responded yes, however, TransPlan does not include all improvements, and TransPlan will have to be amended to include these projects, otherwise they cannot be built. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the TransPlan amendment process, and traffic issues. . Mr. Barnett said when council discusses all of the issues; he cautioned them that cost should not be the deciding factor. He said there are improvements that are necessary just to handle existing traffic, plus the projected growth that has no development relationship. City of Springfield City Council Work Session - April 24, 2000 Page 4 . Councilor Fitch asked where the funding would come from. Mr. Barnett said the funds could come from System Development Charges (SDC) one location. Management Analyst II Eileen Stein responded saying there is a CIP placeholder for the Gateway Traffic Improvements. It was funded at $200,000. annually with a total of 1 million over a five-year period, and then in addition to that there is approximately 1 million in unappropriated funds. Mayor Weathers asked about resolving the issue of flood constrained land and wondered if some re-zoning would be required. She questioned why is there action required on this. Planning Manager Greg Mott said that during the residential land study, there was a question raised by the homebuilders about the validity of keeping flood-constrained land on inventory, because of the potential uncertainty. He said this issue would be brought to council, with suggested options for them to consider. There was discussion regarding nodal development and what the requirements are. Mr. Mott said you cannot impose transportation limitations on residential development, however, you can encourage, but cannot force them. Mayor Weathers said it might be important at this time to look at the Pioneer Parkway development, and said this may be the time to look at the possibility of partnering with the county. By consensus council agreed to expand this discussion, but thought it would be helpful to see a time1ine to phase in each of the projects, and asked Mr. Mott to provide that information. . Mr. Mott reminded council about the TransPlan Joint Work Session that is scheduled for July 12th, and said there will be number of issues discussed at that meeting which will include the project list, financing, the amendment process, TDM, and nodal development. City Manager Mike Kelly said staff has done a nice job framing the issues, and said staff would return to council in the late summer to further report on this topic and hopefully bring it to some conclusion. 2. Discussion of Post Measure 50 Taxation and Assessment Policy. Finance Director Bob Duey was present for the staff report. He began by introducing Jim Gangle, Lane County Tax Assessor. Mr. Duey said at council's invitation, Mr. Gangle agreed to attend this meeting to discuss how Lane County manages the taxation and assessment program since the passage of Measure 50 and the implementation of the County's new computer system. . Mr. Duey said prior to the passage of Ballot Measure 50, the State of Oregon operated primarily on a dollar based levy system for local property taxes, with municipalities having voter approval for a specified dollar amount of the levy. Ballot Measure 50 has changed the Oregon taxing system and effective July 1, 1997, Springfield now operates on a rate-based system for its operating levies. The State of Oregon assigned a new permanent rate for operating levies of $4.7403 to the City of Springfield. Measure 50 did not change the method oflevying taxes for bonded debt and this remains a separate dollar based levy. Lane County has provided a revised assessed valuation for the Springfield taxing code of$1,882,180,884, beginning July 1, 1997. As of July 1, 1999, the rate remained at $4.7403 and the assessed valuation for the City has grown by City of Springfield City Council Work Session - April24, 2000 Page 5 . 13%. Measure 50 allows the increased assessed valuation of an individual tax lot not be more than 3% in any year, with the exception of added value to a lot through improvements. Mayor Weathers welcomed Mr. Gangle, and thanked him for attending. Mr. Gangle provided a handout titled, "Value Components by Account for 1999". He said some of the information included should be considered in draft form. In referring to the handout, he provided a brief accounting of each of the items listed, and provided an explanation of what a changed property ratio. He explained how the assessed value is determined. Mr. Duey asked where the real market value number comes from. Mr. Gangle said the numbers are calculated multiple ways, that any new construction is actually appraised at 100%;and other properties with no building permits or activity are either recalculated or are determined by taking last years values and adjusted. He said industrial land values would have limited re-appraisal countywide. Councilor Ballew asked how the numbers are determined if construction was going to take place over a period of years. Mr. Gangle said the county appraises the property on January 1 of each year, and that is how the property is taxed for that current year. The property is then appraised again on the next January 1. The information is not taken from the building permit values, but based on a specific formula the county has developed. . Mr. Gangle said commercial building can be exempt for up to two years for construction, and the exemption is by application only. He said as property is sold, the assessed value of a property is determined by looking at what the property value was assessed at the previous year, and adding 3%, however, there are a few exceptions. He said the county does not have the expertise to determine the assessed value on industrial property valued greater than 1 million, such as Sony, and relies on the Department of Revenue to perform the appraisals. The meeting was concluded with a discussion of the new computer system the county installed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Kim Krebs '1u.()JJA oo~ .1iJt~~_ Maureen M. Weathers, Mayor ATTEST: ~.~ City Recorder .