Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/2008 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2008 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie (via conference phone at 6:24pm), Ballew, Ralston, and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Pishioneri was absent (excused). 1. Unimproved Street Conditions Report. Public Works Director Dan Brown gave a brief history of the City's policy on maintaining and upgrading streets throughout the City. Funding for streets had always been scarce; therefore, Council had made it a priority to maintain streets that had been constructed to City standards. Council policies in Springfield had historically prevented staff from constructing asphalt mats, overlaying or doing other preservation activities on the asphalt mats except under rare circumstances. The Springfield City Council had consistently made it a goal to promote improvement of the remaining 30 miles of unimproved streets. Public Works had seen very few street improvement petitions come forward over the last 15 years. Many property owners resisted being assessed for street improvements, yet expected their street to be preserved. Council's official policy had been to direct preservation resources to maintain the improved street system, whereby owners had paid for the improvement to urban standards and the City committed to perpetually maintaining them. Mr. Brown said most of the City's unimproved asphalt mat streets were 40 to 50 years old and in rough condition. Maintenance work performed on these streets was done to address immediate road hazards and was much less extensive than activities invested to maintain improved streets. Mr. Brown noted that often the amount spent on the maintenance of the unimproved and gravel streets was the same as what was spent on the improved streets. More was needed however if the City was to keep these streets from completely disintegrating. We more frequently received feedback from residents living on unimproved streets that believed the City should provide more maintenance on their street because they "pay the same at the pump as anyone else." Mr. Brown said staff was here to ask Council if they would like to consider changing the long- standing prohibition against doing overlays on asphalt mat streets. If Council were to change the policy, it would do nothing to hurry people along to submit petitions to improve their streets. An advantage of doing the overlay was that it could make the money and time spent on those roads more effective and more appreciated. He referred to the three options staff outlined for Council: City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 17, 2008 Page 2 ~ Do nothing. ~ Change the policy to allow preservation overlays on unimproved streets. ~ Refer the issue to the Mayor's Street Preservation Task Force. Mr. Brown said that if Council were to change the policy to allow overlays, staff estimated that $30,000-$50,000 pulled out of the overlay fund would enable the program to be implemented. He explained one of the issues with that option. Maintenance Manager Brian Conlon continued with the presentation. He discussed the issues involved in citizen complaints regarding the unimproved streets and their deteriorating condition. The primary activity of the maintenance division was pothole patching and that would continue unless more extensive work was done. Ten miles of the unimproved streets in Springfield was made up of minor arterial and collector streets. Both Olympic Street and Commercial were unimproved. Mr. Conlon discussed the skin patching that maintenance had been using over the last ten years. He noted that Mr. Brown had encouraged him to put an article in the American Public Works Association (APW A) newsletter about this procedure to share with other cities. The PW Maintenance Division had the equipment and experience to do thin-lift asphalt overlays that performed surprisingly well for many years. Staff estimated that they could do thin-lift asphalt overlays for about $60K per mile on the average unimproved street. The current 5-year CIP had approximately $400K programmed annually for pavement preservation maintenance. Ifthe City Council were to change the policy to allow for pavement preservation on unimproved streets, a budget level of $30K to $50K would help to begin addressing unimproved pavement failures. Councilor Ballew said it seemed to be a question of equity. It seemed that the unimproved streets were already getting morf< funding than improved. Before she would change the policy, she would like to see more analysis of what was currently being spent per mile on maintenance for improved and unimproved streets. She noted the value to residents of improving their streets. Councilor Ralston asked about the cost per mile of the thin-lay asphalt. He referred to some of the photos of streets that had received the thin-lift overlay and asked how much of that was done. Mr. Brown said not much because it was not in accordance with Council policy. Maintenance staff was concerned because they would go out and patch a lot of potholes, then go back and patch the patches. Those repairs didn't last, the road became very bumpy, and there was little satisfaction for the residents, motorists and City staff. The thin-lift overlay would be much more effective and staff wouldn't have to continually go back to patch. In the end, it could cost less than current practice. Staff could work up some cost comparison data on that for Council. Councilor Ballew said she would also like to see the cost benefit. Councilor Woodrow said he would like to see a cost analysis to see what it cost staff per mile over a period of time for pot hole patching versus thin-lift overlay. Leaving the unimproved !streets the way they were would not get those citizens to petition to get their street improved any faster than if they applied the thin-lift overlay. He would like to refer this to the Street Preservation Task Force for their feedback. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 17, 2008 Page 3 Councilor Lundberg agreed. Looking at the map, the streets were varied and in different parts of town. She asked if there could be a logical progression of which streets to address first. Some may be in a depressed area and would need CDBG funds. She asked staff to categorize the streets and have the Task Force look at it first and address the funding issue. She liked the idea of overlaying if it preserved the street longer. Councilor Ralston said he had noticed the difference on the road going into FarWest Steel which had received thin-lift overlay. He felt it was more cost effective in the long run and would have a more positive response. Councilor Ballew said at that cost, staff could only do one mile a year. Mayor Leiken agreed that the Task Force was the best group to look at this. He appreciated staff looking at this from a different perspective. Maintenance of our streets was crucial and this issue would coincide with the work of the Task Force. He thought it would make a lot of sense, after Council had made a fmal determination on this issue, to send an article to the public about the overlay process and why it could benefit communities. He said he appreciated staff bringing this forward. Mr. Brown thanked Council for asking staffto bring a map showing the location of the unimproved streets in Springfield. Councilor Lundberg asked if it was possible to get a smaller (11 x 17) version of the map to get to Council in a Communication Packet. Mr. Brown said they could provide that for Council. Councilor Ralston asked if all the streets on the map were in City limits. Mr. Brown explained the color coding and noted which streets were in the City and which were in the urban growth boundary (UGB). Councilor Wylie joined the meeting by conference phone (6:24 p.m.) 2. Franklin Boulevard Study Update. Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt presented the staff report on this item. The Council has placed a priority on realizing the redevelopment potential ofthe Glenwood Riverfront area. It is generally understood that attracting higher density, high quality, mixed-use Riverfront redevelopment depends in large part on an associated overhaul of Franklin Boulevard. The adopted 2004 Glenwood Riverfront Plan includes placeholder concepts for Franklin Boulevard and the Franklin/McVay intersection. These concepts tend to isolate the Riverfront Opportunity Area from Franklin Boulevard, as well as propose a 'double one way couplet' of four traffic signals to address the travel demand on the Franklin/McVay intersection. The current Franklin Study refines the original concepts 1;>y bringing the edge of the Riverfront Area onto Franklin Boulevard using modem multi-way boulevard design, and by replacing the four signal "square about", with a modern two lane roundabout at McVay/Franklin. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 17, 2008 Page 4 The next step in the process of project refinement planning is to go to the Planning Commission then the City Council this Spring to amend the Glenwood Refinement Plan and TransPlan to reflect the evolution of design. It is important to understand that actual design will be further refined with subsequent project development steps like NEP A evaluation, detailed traffic analysis, more refined project cost estimates, and value engineering. Attachment A - DRAFT Franklin Boulevard Study Concept Report provides a good summary of the 10 month refinement planning process. Attachment B - Franklin Boulevard Study PowerPoint Materials, is a slide presentation ofthe planning process and the design concepts being forwarded. Attachment C is a strip map of the Franklin Boulevard Study Hybrid Concept. Mr. Boyatt noted that Council members had seen this presentation as SEDA Bo~rd members a week ago. He said he would go through it more quickly tonight, but also try to address some of the questions brought up during the SEDA meeting. He asked if Council had any pressing issues they would like to start with. Councilor Ralston said the plan looked great, but he questioned where the money would come from. A lot of businesses would be affected. He referred to the roundabout site and the businesses that would affect. Without significant development and funds, this project was not practical. The City needed a plan for relocating or compensating businesses. Mr. Boyatt said he would address the issue of the roundabout as he went through the slides. He would also discuss where the funds would come from. Councilor Ballew asked if the Franklin Boulevard study was in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Mr. Boyatt said studies were not required to be constrained or in the local plan. A project for Franklin Boulevard was in both plans and a concept for a piece of that project was in the Glenwood Refinement Plan. Councilor Ballew asked if any Federal Plans needed to be amended for this project. Mr. Boyatt said there was a placeholder project in the Federal plan. The amendments would provide further definition and clarity around the concept and the process. Mr. Boyatt discussed the project overview, which included Franklin Boulevard (improvements from I-5 to the Springfield bridges), McVay Highway (improvements from Franklin Boulevard to the railroad trestle) and the intersection of Franklin and McVay. Hereviewed the decision process. The stakeholder advisory committee and project management team would make a recommendation to the Planning Commission who would then make a recommendation to the City Council for a decision. This process would be broken down into smaller pieces. He displayed the project timeline and said they were close to being on time with this project. He discussed the project purpose, which was to promote the implementation of the City's land use plans and community development goals for the Glenwood community and provide for safety and convenience of those walking, biking, driving, using transit and delivering freight. , City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 17, 2008 Page 5 Mr. Boyatt referred to a design in the agenda packet (attachment B, page 6) which was currently in the adopted plans. This design showed the four signal, double one-way couplet. He compared that design with the proposed roundabout design. He referred to several photos of multi-way boulevards in other cities. Councilor Ralston said the thinner the better as far as a multi-way was concerned. He also felt that in looking at the proposal, developing to the south was the better model. He explained. Mr. Boyatt said staff had followed Council's guidance and tried to work with the north right-of- way line to the south. They also had put a wider footprint on the map as a starting point. Through value engineering and other processes, they could reduce that footprint. Councilor Ballew asked if the north side would still be impacted to a degree. Mr. Boyatt said it was inevitable there would be some impact on the north side, especially in those areas where there was a curvature in the roadway. He provided examples. The strategy now was to have enough of a concept to roll it out as redevelopment occurred. The placement of the first pieces of infrastructure developed would be the guide of subsequent segments. There was some potential to move things to the north if warranted by existing businesses. It was important to have flexibility within the parameters to make the best fit possible. Councilor Ballew said the project would also be based on development and the value of properties. Mr. Boyatt said that was correct. That same situation had been experienced in the Gateway area. He said an intensive design charette process was conducted last summer and alternatives were developed. A team of City staff, consultants and the advisory committee brought nine possibilities to the Council in September. Part of the evaluation framework included cost, natural environment, community values and economic development and transportation performance. The criteria that mattered in the evaluation was cost, property impacts, business acquisitions, separating through and local traffic, and establishing a comfortable pedestrian environment. He referred to the Evaluation Summary chart in attachment B, page 19, which showed ratings for cost, community values, and transportation performance. Councilor Ballew asked about 14th Street and noted that if they were starting from scratch, that would be the straightest route. Mr. Boyatt said the alignment of 14th Street was rejected due to its massive cost and numerous challenges. The stakeholder committee had developed a draft recommendation, a concept which was a hybrid of pure arterial, pure multi-way, and part arterials and multi-way. He noted that the three people that appeared at the SEDA meeting had received notifications to the open houses. Staff would continue to provide additional outreach. He described the differences in the sections. He distributed a document showing the Multiway Boulevard Urban Design Concepts. He also showed a picture of the proposed roundabout compared to the four way signalized intersection. Traffic engineering and value engineering had not been done, so there were still a lot of unknowns. Those types of studies would need to be done before moving ahead. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 17, 2008 Page 6 Mr. Boyatt said the stakeholders and staff believed this recommendation supported the Riverfront Plan and would support Glenwood revitalization. It was a proactive plan for Franklin Boulevard and they wanted to do it as right as possible. Staff was looking for guidance from Council on whether to move forward on this or not. The next steps of moving forward would be to give the project more definition in TransPlan and the Glenwood Refinement Plan. There was probably merit in development services and transportation staff preparing a work plan on how to do that. It was time for the TransPlan to be updated and the Glenwood Refinement Plan was' coming up for review soon. They needed time to determine how to blend those elements together to be efficient. They would also talk as a group about how to reach out more to the property owners and businesses that were most impacted by the project and find out their specific concerns. Mayor Leiken recommended looking at old maps of the original alignment of Gateway. Going with the original alignment plan could have been more efficient than what was going on now in that area. The City was at that type of crossroads again. He agreed that they needed to have the communication in place with the property and business owners. Councilor Ballew said Eugene, Lane County and the State of Oregon .all needed to be involved in this process as they all had stake in Franklin Boulevard. Mr. Boyatt said he was confident they could get to agreement. What existed on the ground today, limited what could be done in the future. Those obstacles needed to be thoughtfully considered. They would be partnering with Eugene on enhancing the multi-way design. Eugene had jurisdiction of Franklin Boulevard on the west side ofI-5. Springfield was talking with ODOT about taking over jurisdiction on the east side. Councilor Ralston said it would be prudent to amend the TransPlan. It would take significant development or redevelopment dollars to be able to move forward with any of this project. Councilor Wylie said she thought it was good staff work. Planning was so necessary to do because the City would want to act on the development goals and the planning needed to be done ahead oftime. It encouraged her to see the City making progress on this plan. She would like to see more access to the people that lived or worked along Franklin Boulevard. She was pleased with the direction the City was going. Mr. Boyatt said he would move fo"rward to the next steps. 3. Yard Debris Pickup. Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. Sanipac proposes to offer a subscription based yard debris pickup program beginning May 1, 2008. If Council believes the parameters proposed by Sanipac are appropriate, staffwill complete negotiations and reduce the terms to a formal agreement to be executed by the City Manager. When Sanipac presented its annual report to Council on October 22,2007, one of the principal issues for discussion was the potential for offering a yard debris collection program to Springfield residents. Residents of Eugene have had such a program for several years, and the City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 17, 2008 Page 7 absence of such a program has, for the past two years, been the principal reason for customer service requests to the City. Council has considered this issue in the past and has been unwilling to require a universal program, as is the case in Eugene, expressing the belief that it would not be supported by a majority of Springfield customers. Council did direct that if a subscription based program could be developed at a reasonable charge, it would consider at least a pilot effort to help gauge support for the program. City staff and Sanipac have met several times and developed a proposal for a subscription based program which could be available for $4.75 a month, a figure that compares favorably with Eugene's rate of $3.20 a month, particularly when you consider that rate has not been changed since 2001. The major features of the program are described in Attachment A. Sanipac believes that the program can be self-sustaining if at least 2,500 customers (slightly under 20 percent of the customer base) participate, although the program would more confidently be self-sustaining at a participation rate of about 3,500 customers. This program would run for two years, at which time both the City and Sanipac would evaluate whether it was being effective at reducing the level of trash transported to the landfill, as well as meeting customer satisfaction goals. Mr. Goodwin said if Council was comfortable with the yard debris subscription program, Sanipac would move forward with advertising and starting the program. He noted that Sanipac was looking at a rate increase, the first since 2003. The yard debris program didn't have anything to do with rate increase. The yard debris program could reduce the number of large garbage cans and increase the number of smaller cans. That was good news because it meant less waste going to the landfill. Councilor Ralston said he was o.k. with it as long as people wanted to subscribe. Councilor Ballew asked that Council get a report on the program every six months or a year. Mr. Goodwin said the qty expected Sanipac to report back every quarter. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:04 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Attest: Am~~ City Recorder