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
.