Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/04/1999 Work Session . . . , #. MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD . MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1999 The city of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 4, 1999, at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Maine presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Maine, Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Leiken, Lundberg and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Tim Harold, Senior Management Analyst Rosie Pryor, City Recorder Julie Wilson and members of the staff. 1. System Development Charge (SDC) Update procesJ. City Engineer Al Peroutka and Management Analyst Eileen Stein presented the staff report on this issue. The city's SDC ordinance and methodology is in need of updating to reflect changes in case law, legislative activity, inflation and other factors. The scope of work, prepared by the engineering consulting firm of CH2m Hill, outlines the work to be done and process used to update the SDC ordinance. The list of issues for SDC Update provides an overview of the issues needing to be addressed in the update effort. For example, the Dolan Supreme Court ruling and subsequent takings rulings affect how much right-of-way and infrastructure can be asked of developers and how much we need to pay for with SDC funds. This will have an effect on SDC rates. Staff wants to consider whether to develop a reimbursement component to our SDC (the Transportation SDC, particularly), so that some capital maintenance projects can be funded with SDC revenues. Additionally, there has been recent controversy regarding the peak hour (4 to 6 p.m.) traffic generation basis for calculation of the Transportation SDC and the resulting effect oil restaurant activity in the downtown area. These are examples of issues to be addressed during the update. The three SDCs imposed by the city (transportation, local sanitary sewer and stormwater) will be examined in the update process. CH2m Hill's proposal outlines the update process. A modest public involvement process is assumed involving the formation of an advisory committee to meet at various times over a six to nine month period. The advisory committee will provide recommendations on issues that are policy related. Staff requests a Council liaison be appointed to work with the advisory committee. A staff team will examine other administrative issues with the assistance of CH2m Hill. Mr. Erick Rothstein of CH2m Hill and Ms. Deborah Galardi of Galardi Consulting will be the principal consultants for the work. CH2M Hill and Galardi both have extensive experience working with Oregon communities establishing and updating SDCs. CH2M Hill and Galardi are currently working with the city of Eugene to update its SDCs. Mr. Rothstein also worked with the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) to update the regional sanitary sewer SDC. The SDC update process will begin in late October and is expected to be completed by July 2000. The contracted consultant work on the project will cost $69,990, based on the proposed scope. The costs will be paid out of the $75,000 in SDC administrative funds, which was budgeted for this project. . . . ; Work Session Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Peroutka said he and Ms. Stein were co-managing this project. He explained that a full update has not been conducted since 1991, when the new SDC system was implemented, as mandated by legislature. He said staff could get through this process in a nine-month period. He was targeting July 2000. He discussed a number of issues that have built up over the years, which he wanted to review. He also wanted to provide a general update on unit cost, project list review, and other issues. Mr. Peroutka reviewed a wall chart, which included the following: 1. The scope of work for SDC update. 2. List of issues to be addressed. 3. Public involvement process and CAC representation. Mr. Peroutka said if the council is ready, it can appoint a member to the CAC. Mayor Maine said she would see who, among council, was interested and formally appoint someone in the future. She said there was interest among the council. Mr. Peroutka discussed the list of issues for SDC update. This information was included in the staff report, Attachment A. Mr. Peroutka answered questions from council regarding the list of issues. Councilor Simmons asked what happens if a person pays an SDC and then closes the business. If someone else owns the building, how do those things get factored into the process. Mr. Peroutka said as they go through the review process, some of these things will need CAC and Council guidance to answer these questions. Councilor Simmons raised issues related to long term financing (bancrofting) . of SDCs. Mr. Peroutka said a review of what other cities are doing will provide comparables and staff will be able to see what alternative might work best for our community and factor this into this process. Mr. Peroutka explained that there are no county SDCs (outside the city limits) but we do charge an SDC for transportation and drainage outside the city, but within the UGB. He said this is being done in conjunction with an agreement with Lane County. He said we need to review our ordinances to ensure everything is in place. Mayor Maine requested that the CAC meetings be publicized to the entire council, not just the council member appointed to the committee. Ms. Stein reviewed the scope of work for the consultant and the public process. Items reviewed included: 1. Internal working session to decide: . Policy versus administrative matters . Establish guidelines for CAC role in decision making . Establish CAC selection process 2. Six CAe meetings anticipated. . . . j Work Session Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 3 3. CAC members will be solicited from the following areas: · City council (1) . Planning Commission (1) . Developers (2) · Chamber of Commerce (1) · Home Builders Association (1) . Citizens at Large (2) Ms. Stein said the above items were just a starting point and staff was open to any other input council might have. Council discussed the possibility of better balancing the composition of the CAC membership. It might be possible to take one of the developers and suggest it be a non-property owner tenant. This would provide perspective as to who would pay the SDC's (the tenant or the landlord). It might also be helpful to solicit Springfield residents, to the extent possible. This might provide a better citizen perspective. It might also be possible to increase the citizen at-large to three members rather than two. Council agreed to the recommended change in membership composition. Ms. Stein further discussed the SDC update and scope of work. Items discussed included the following: 1. Develop and implement a public involvement strategy. 2. Value the systems and estimate future capital costs. 3. Review the system operation and capacity planning criteria. 4. Calculate unit costs of capacity. 5. Define applicable fee units and develop SDC schedules. 6. Review existing policies and procedures. 7. Provide draft and final reports. 8. Participate in presentations. Councilor Ballew discussed use of depreciation for a tax write-off and associated costs. Mayor Maine referenced comments made by staff regarding the possibility of looking at legislation that has occurred. She said now is when most of the new legislation is being developed and wondered if there was a need to pay particular attention to anything that is coming up. She was not aware of any legislation but wanted to raise the issue and thought it might be a good question to ask at this time. Ms. Stein said the best thing to do is look at what did not pass during the last session. Staff would consider that. Mayor Maine discussed CH2m Hill and noted that they were well qualified. She said the fact that they were located locally was a plus. She hoped that they consider and take into account council goals, Springfield Tomorrow results, what ever is necessary, to get a feel for the culture of our community. She said it is an important part of the process. Mayor Maine suggested the project manager give one of the council members a call to discuss these issues. She said policy implications are something we don't want to have incorrectly interpreted. Councilor Lundberg commented that there were 2,000 signatures against the project. She asked how they overcame this and asked for clarification. . . . .. Work Session Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 4 Mayor Maine asked council members to let her know if they had interest in participating on the committee. Councilor Simmons discussed trip generation and the applicability ofSDC's, who pays and who is exempt. Mr. Peroutka said if council directed more expeditious work on any particular issue, to let staff know. Council preferred a comprehensive study. Ms. Stein discussed the recruitment process that will be used for committee participation. Ms. Stein said we don't have a normally scheduled recruitment so they will conduct a special recruitment for this committee. 2. House Bill 2082 Bonding Program Projects. City Engineer Al Peroutka presented the staff report on this issue. ODOT has requested our region prioritize a project list for the supplemental Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to be funded by the $600 million bond program outlined in House Bill 2082. Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) staff will be providing a recommended regional project list for discussion at the October 14, 1999 MPC meeting. Currently, ODOT is seeking input from local jurisdictions as part of the development of the supplemental STIP. This supplemental STIP is being developed in response to the anticipated $600 million bond which could be available with the passing of the gas tax bill, House Bill 2082, in the last legislature. During the September 9, 1999, MPC meeting, Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and ODOT staff presented information on the House Bill 2082 bonding program, project selection criteria and a preliminary proposed project list developed by ODOT staff. MPC representatives directed the TPC staff to review MPC's previous STlP priority list submitted to ODOT in November 1998 and Trans Plan projects to develop a list of priority projects for funding consideration. This list of priority projects will be presented and discussed during the October 14, 1999 MPC meeting. OTC is scheduled to adopt the supplemental Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) by Decem ber 1999. Staff has developed a proposed project list for Springfield and is seeking direction from the council. Mr. Peroutka explained the issue at hand was what ODOT was calling the supplemental STIP for planning projects with money that would be available if the gas tax increase, passed during the last legislative session, survives referendum attempts. He said ODOT would receive a certain percentage from the gas tax increase. He discussed the $600 million bond program funding. Mr. Peroutka discussed the split of money by region, according to the set forth formulas (miles of road, population, etc). Work Session Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 5 . Mr. Peroutka said when the legislation was being developed, ODOT was asked to come up with a package of projects they could use the funding for. ODOT had about four hours to come up with a list, which is Attachment D of the staff report. Mr. Peroutka discussed the Coburg Road Interchange ramp and signal improvement (Beltline) project, which was estimated at $550,000. Mr. Peroutka said ODOT was looking for more public and local input on what priorities are for the projects. Mr. Peroutka explained that ODOT would like to have four or five major projects out of Region 2 to take forward in the process. He explained they had to go through a "scope" procedure and have the projects more clearly defined along with accurate cost for the project. ODOT said the projects should be larger projects, not funded through the normal STlP process. He said since there is not much money in the STIP process, some of the projects being suggested (Attachment A of the staffreport) are fairly reasonable. Mr. Peroutka said he believes one of the main criteria ODOT may consider is that the proposed projects be solid projects, projects that will not be bogged down for environmental reasons or controversial projects. Mr. Peroutka acknowledged the political aspects related to the list of projects. . Councilor Simmons referenced Attachment A of the staff report. He referenced the column, which listed the amount requested for STIP funding. He said this is a non-event until the election either passes or fails. Mr. Peroutka said ODOT was attempting to be prepared, should it pass. Mayor Maine said as it stands today, it is approved. The gas tax is enacted. Councilor Simmons discussed the fact that a referendum is out there. Mr. Peroutka reviewed Attachment B of the staff report. Information reviewed included the approved project selection criteria for ODOT in order to implement HE 2082. Criteria number four states project completion must be possible within six years. Mr. Peroutka reviewed Attachment A of the staff report. He referenced priority number four, the Eugene-Springfield Highway project. Mr. Peroutka said the amount of funding was currently listed as $3 million, and staff was recommending it be increased to $15 million. Mr. Peroutka said this will go to MPC on October 14, 1999. The issue at this time is to seek council direction on priority changes, if appropriate. Councilor Leiken discussed priority project number five, the interchange at Glenwood. He asked for clarification on the reconfiguring ofthe interchange to address weaving issues. He also discussed reconfiguring the interchange at 1-5 and Franklin Blvd., where it comes into Glenwood. He discussed the need for better aesthetics. Transportation Planning Engineer Masood Mirza discussed the interchange and provided information regarding on/off ramps. He said the project was in the conceptual stage, therefore, a better project description is not yet available. Councilor Leiken said the project description is vague as to what is being required of the developers. . Councilor Lundberg asked if the priorities were actually listed in priority order. Staff responded that they were in staff priority order. Councilor Lundberg discussed Pioneer Parkway and Q Street Work Session Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 6 . interchange. She said this issue comes up in at least half the discussions she has with residents in her ward. She would like to see this moved up on the priority list. Mr. Peroutka discussed the priority list and associated criteria information. Councilor Lundberg discussed 42nd Street and traffic control issues. She said traffic is not well controlled and usually backed up at 1-105 and 42nd Streets. Mr. Peroutka eXplained why the smaller projects were listed lower on the priority list and larger projects were moved higher on the list. He reminded council of the need to be able to meet the criteria of completing projects within the time period required. Councilor Hatfield provided comments on what he thought the order of priorities should be. Councilor Ballew said we have been lobbying for sometime on our number one project and it is falling down on the list. Mayor Maine was glad to see the McVay Highway project listed. Council agreed to reverse the order of project numbers five and six. . Mr. Barnett discussed the Franklin interchange issue. Management Analyst Cynthia Pappas discussed the recent receipt of a Transportation Growth Management grant. An ODOT corridor study was currently in the works, therefore, it was premature to decide further on this issue at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson ~M~ aureen M. Maine Mayor Attest: ~ .