Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2008 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2008 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, ~25 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 5:34 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Bill Van Vactor, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Pishioneri was absent (excused). I. Planning Commission Interviews. Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. The City received two applications for two vacancies during a one-month recruitment process. Mr. Frank B. Cross resides at 2580 D Street in Springfield and is employed by Marathon Coach located in Coburg, Oregon. Mr. Steve Moe resides at 3698 Franklin Blvd. in Glenwood and is employed by Intercity Engineering located in Glenwood. Mr. Moe has previously served on the Plarming Commission but not since June 5, 2007. The Springfield Planning Commission is a seven-member, volunteer Commission appointed by the City Council. The members serve 4-year terms. Of the seven members, two appointments may live outside the City limits and two appointments may be involved in the Real Estate profession. Positions are "at large" and do not represent specific geographic areas. Currently none of the Planning Commissioners live outside the City limits or work in Real Estate. Council's decision on appointments is scheduled for the Regular Meeting on May 5, 2008. Mr. Mottnoted that Planning Commissioner Terri Leezer's position would be vacant as of January 2009, so they would recruit for her position later this year. Council chose the questions they would ask of each applicant. Mr. Frank Cross and Mr. Steve Moe were interviewed. Mayor Leiken asked the applicants why they were interested in serving on the Planning Commission. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 28, 2008 . Page 2 Councilor Ralston asked what their general understanding was of the relationship between the Planning Commission and the City Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Councilor Ballew noted each candidate's knowledge of planning laws and policies and the purposes they served in Springfield's land use decision making. She asked if there were any changes they felt could improve the planning process in Springfield. Councilor Woodrow asked what roll the applicant thought the Planning Commission should have with the revitalization of downtown. Councilor Lundberg said the State of Oregon was performing the first comprehensive review of the Oregon land use system since adoption of Senate Bill 100 in the 1980's. It's being called "The Big Look". If you had 2 minutes to testify before the statewide task force charged with performing "The Big Look" what would you advise them? Councilor Wylie said many ofthe land use laws applied by the Planning Commission are state or federally mandated. During a Planning Commission hearing how would you reconcile your own personal opinions with the applicant's interests when those interests do not comply with the land use laws? Mayor Leiken asked each of the applicants if they had questions of the Council. They had none. He thanked each applicant for applying. Discussion was held regarding the two applicants. Mr. Grile said Mr. Cross had served well as the Chair of the Planning Commission. Mayor Leiken asked about the Big Look. Mr. Grile said staff had not talked with the Planning Commission about the Big Look. He said staff could do more to prepare the Planning Commission to look ahead. Councilor Lundberg felt it was important that the Planning Commission was educated on the Big Look. Councilor Ballew suggested keeping the Planning Commission up to date on what was pending in the legislature. Mr. Grile said Mr. Cross had helped to structure a number of Big Look type issues at the City's own regulatory framework through work sessions with the Planning Commission and staff. Mayor Leiken asked how much longer Lee Beyer had on the Planning Commission. Mr. Grile said his term would be expiring on October 2,2010. Mayor Leiken felt that Mr. Moe's knowledge and experience would serve the Planning Commission well as Mr. Beyer left the commission. Council consensus was to appoint both Mr. Cross and Mr. Moe to the Planning Commission. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 28, 2008 Page 3 2. EmX 30% Design Resolution - Pioneer Parkway Crossing ofEWEB Path to Rosa Parks Path. Mayor Leiken recused himself from this part of the discussion due to a conflict of interest (the EmX corridor would be built along International Way, where his wife's employer, Liberty Bank, would be building their administrative headquarters). Councilor Lundberg presided over this portion of the meeting. Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett presented the staff report on this item. The EWEB Path terminates on the east side of Pioneer Parkway and path users cross to Rosa Parks Path without formal crossing treatments or protection. LTD is constructing EmX in the median adjacent to Rosa Parks Path thereby increasing the crossing distance for path users. During the Council's consideration of the EmX 30% Design, Council requested information about the context of the paths and their relationship to Pioneer Parkway. The Springfield Bicycle Plan was adopted in 1998 and later incorporated into TransPlan. The Bike Plan identifies the extension of EWEB path west to Laura Street as a Priority III project, i.e. the lowest priority in the plan. Staff conducted a count of bicycles and pedestrians using the EWEB path, the Rosa Parks Path and the sidewalk along the east side of Pioneer Parkway East. Weather conditions during the count was 39 degrees and overcast for the 7:00-8:00 AM period and was 59 degrees and partly sunny for the 3:00-7: 15 PM period. Pioneer Parkway East has an average daily traffic volume of about 5,500 vehicles. The number of pedestrians and bicycles using the paths and sidewalk total 181 for the 5 'l.:I hours counted while the number who crossed Pioneer Parkway East was just 18 people. There were 22 people who used the sidewalk east of Pioneer Parkway to access the EWEB Path who could contribute to additional crossings of Pioneer Parkway. Since it is not likely that great numbers of new crossings will be attracted to this location staff does not recommend the use of a HAWK signal to control the crossing. When not activated, a HAWK signal is blanked out. When the HA WK signal is activated by a pedestrian or cyclist the overhead signal begins flashing yellow and then solid yellow, advising drivers to prepare to stop. The signal then displays a solid red and shows the pedestrian a "Walk" indication. Finally, an alternating flashing red signal indicates that motorists may proceed when safe, after coming to a full stop. The pedestrian is shown a flashing "Don't Walk" with a countdown indicating the time left to cross. The HAWK signal then extinguishes all indications until the next pedestrian or cyclist actuation. Staff does recommend that a formal crossing be established with warning beacons that activate when people are prepared to cross Pioneer Parkway East. When the EWEB Path is extended west the crossing treatment will be reevaluated. Mr. Barnett said the number of crossings was less than he had anticipated. He would no longer recommend the HAWK signal, but would recommend a crossing. He explained. He also noted that the smaller path that ran on the east side of Pioneer Parkway could be enhanced. Councilor Ralston said he would not support a crossing at this location. There was no reason for pedestrians to cross over to the Rosa Parks Path. He didn't want to put any obstacles for the traffic. He would prefer discouraging crossing by putting a barrier at that location. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 28, 2008 Page 4 Councilor Woodrow asked if there were plans for that bike path to go to Laura Street. Mr. Barnett said the bicycle plan identified the path in that area and the route would most likely go that route. Presently, there was some use of that route as a connection to Laura Street. Councilor Woodrow asked if EmX would need an additional crossing at that location if the City put in the crossing. Mr. Barnett said that was correct. The northbound EmX would be in a curbside lane adjacent to Pioneer Parkway. The southbound EmX would be on the far side of Rosa Parks Path. There would need to be some type of crossing there. Councilor Woodrow said he didn't know if he could support the crossing, but felt they needed to look into the future if the bike lane went through. L TD should be aware they may need a crossing at some point. Councilor Ballew asked who was responsible for the maintenance of the EWEB path. Mr. Barnett said Lane County was responsible for the maintenance. There had been discussions to alter that arrangement. WilIamalane had an interest in the path and had tried to get grant funding for that path without success. Councilor Ballew said at some point there could be a need for that crossing. She asked if it would be possible for the City to ask L TD to reserve a certain amount of funds for future use for a crossmg. Mr. Barnett said that could be a consideration, although many of their funds were federal and had time limits. Councilor Ballew said doing it now ensured being able to use funds. Councilor Ralston said he would support improving the smaller path. Councilor Lundberg said the smaller path should be brought up to standard. It was more convenient for those living on the east side because there was no need to cross Pioneer Parkway. She also noted that there was now a safe intersection at Walgreen's for people to cross. The speed limit on Pioneer Parkway East was set at 45 mph and it was easy for vehicles to get to that speed. She would prefer not to encourage crossing at that location. She suggested on all future paths to look at areas that were the safest for pedestrians for crossings. She said her uncle walked that area every day and walked through the roundabout. He had told her that the pedestrian needed to be on the facing side of the traffic when crossing at the roundabout. She suggested giving educational information to public regarding safe crossing. It would make the roundabout more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Barnett said he was looking forward to that area being annexed so the City could do some mitigation with the Police Officers on yielding. That would be an ideal location to emphasize the need to yield when pedestrians are present. The 30% design would be presented to Council at the City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 28, 2008 Page 5 next Council meeting. Council had given direction to make a clear end to the path and crossings were prohibited at Pioneer Parkway between intersections. Councilor Ballew said a specific barrier so people would have to go around it to cross would be best. 3'. Reimbursement Districts. Mayor Leiken rejoined the meeting and presided over the rest of the meeting. Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. As City staff continues development of a broad based capital financing plan, alternative revenue mechanisms are being explored. Currently, the City relies on such things as user fees, systems development charges, local improvement districts and intergovernmental grants and loans to provide revenue streams to support either pay as you go financing or issuance of debt. One revenue mechanism that is not used in Springfield is the reimbursement district, which involves collection of fees from developments which are used to reimburse an original developer who fronts the cost of a major capital improvement. Although the City has used a somewhat similar informal approach in isolated cases, the Council has not codified the process or the standards to be used. Based on the ordinances used by a number of other Oregon cities, staff, in consultation with the City Attorney, has developed a proposed reimbursement district ordinance which would provide a formal structure for creation of these districts when conditions are appropriate. If the Council believes it is appropriate to consider this approach as part of the City's overall funding strategy for capital projects, staff recommends that the draft be reviewed with interested parties and, following that review, presented to Council for formal action. Mr. Goodwin said staff was looking for direction from Council whether or not they should move ahead on an ordinance for Reimbursement Districts. If so, staff needed direction on policy. He reviewed some of the highlights from the council briefing memo located in the agenda packet. He referred to attachment C, which outlined the differences between the Reimbursement District and a Local Improvement District. He explained those differences and some of the advantages and disadvantages of each. Mr. Goodwin distributed a chart showing a Reimbursement District example. Councilor Ballew had contacted Mr. Goodwin earlier this afternoon to request this chart. He reviewed the chart and explained the figures. Residents in the Reimbursement District would not need to pay the assessed amount unless they chose to improve their property. The formula Council would adopt for a particular project would be based on the development and the properties in the improved area. The formula and amount for each property owner would be known before the project was built. The developer would use their own funds up front for the improvements and as people developed, they would pay their proportionate share to the City. Those funds would then be returned to the developer. There could be situations where the payments from the surrounding properties were not enough to cover the entire costs. In those cases, other options could be considered. This option was often used in urban renewal districts. There was additional flexibility in this type of district. Mr. Goodwin referred to pages 2 and 3 of the council briefing memo, which listed the areas where policy input from the Council was needed: City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 28, 2008 Page 6 I. Whether or not we should permit districts to be formed after construction of an improvement had begun. Some cities permitted this, although City staff saw a number of concerns that could complicate such a decision. 2. Whether or not the reimbursement fee should be increased over time, to allow the developer who constructed the improvement to be somewhat insulated from the impact of inflation. 3. Whether or not the fee should diminish over time to reduce the impact on a developing property owner who began to use the improvement only after it was perhaps many years old. Mr. Goodwin said staffs recommendation was not to increase the fee or decrease the fee over time to allow for inflation or depreciation. Councilor Ralston said it was a great idea and made a lot more sense for undeveloped property and possibly some large redevelopment. He was less supportive of it in a residential area. This could give a kick start and incentives for a developer to start a project. He felt it was a good idea. He said he was not comfortable with creating a district after construction of a development had started. It seemed that would be changing the rules after the fact. He also didn't feel the fees should be increased or decreased over time. Mr. Goodwin said Councilor Ralston was correct regarding residential areas. Councilor Wylie asked how a benefit was determined. Mr. Goodwin said Council could set that up when creating a district. Councilor Woodrow asked if the formula for payments would come out later. Mr. Goodwin said it would be presented to Council when the district was created. Councilor Woodrow asked how this would be enforced if no lien was imposed. Mr. Goodwin said collection was enforced when a property owner came in with a development application seeking to develop their property. They could not get development approval without paying the fee. A financing mechanism had not yet been determined to address full payment or partial payment at that time. Mr. Grimaldi said the City would want to be careful implementing a financing mechanism. Councilor Woodrow said he could see a situation where a commercial development was put in next to a residential area. Mr. Goodwin said the adjacent residents would only be required to pay if they chose to make improvements on their property. Mayor Leiken said Ross Murray did something similar to this in Junction City. He explained. He also noted that there were a l6t of Reimbursement Districts in Portland Metro. This was a creative tool, but would not be for everyone. If improvements were made on a road, the residents that were already there should not have to pay. The developer would recover that cost regardless. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 28, 2008 Page 7 He agreed with Councilor Ralston about Item #2 (page 2 ofthe CBM). He said that could be interpreted differently by different people. This should be kept simple for now. Public Works Director Dan Brown said this was done in Springfield in a number of places in the late 1970's. At that time, they were more informal and were known as third party agreements. He gave an example on South 67th Place. City Engineer Ken V ogeney said that was done more today on reserve strips. He explained. Councilor Lundberg asked if this type of program would apply to any ofthe development done in the last few years. Mr. Goodwin said this would apply to a large scale development in Glenwood and in Jasper Natron. Both were areas where substantial infrastructure was needed and the City would find it very beneficial for a developer to step forward to pay the up front infrastructure costs. Small subdivisions would not work as well with this type of district. Councilor Ballew said this was another tool we could use, but it could be a deterrent to improvements for those around the district. She also noted that it could create an accounting bureaucracy to track the payments. She said it seemed contrary to what the City did now when streets were improved. Mr. Goodwin said a Local Improvement District and Reimbursement District could overlap. The reimbursement fee charged could not be any greater than the amount the City could exact at the time of development. Councilor Ballew said it could also be a hindrance to a developer that didn't have the funding to pay up front costs. Mr. Goodwin said the developer could still recover some of the costs when they sold their lots, plus getting reimbursed as development occurred. Mayor Leiken said this may not be beneficial with current market conditions, but it was another tool. Council asked staff to look at what the City did well, and looking at options and being creative was one of those things. This may not be for everyone, but made sense in the long run. Councilor Lundberg summarized. She said Council agreed to move forward with the ordinance. Councilor Ballew said she would like ~o see more specifics and how it affected individuals. Mr. Grimaldi asked Council if they wanted that information when they discussed the ordinance or when a project came forward. Councilor Ballew said she would like more information when they discussed the ordinance. Mr. Goodwin said many of the details would depend on the individual project. Councilor Lundberg said Council would like staff to set a fee and not move it up or down over time. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 28, 2008 Page 8 Councilor Wylie was concerned with the impact on surrounding homeowners. Councilor Woodrow said the surrounding homes wouldn't need to pay unless they went to improve their own property. Mr. Goodwin said there could be both a Reimbursement District and a Local Improvement District for installation of sidewalks. For the major systems, the Reimbursement District would be effective only following property development. Councilor Ralston said he would like to see language that addressed administrative costs. Councilor Ballew asked why twenty years was chosen for the length of the district. Mr. Goodwin said some districts ran anywhere from ten to sixty years. Staff felt twenty years was long enough, but not too long. Councilor Ballew said sometimes payment schedules were easier if longer term. Mr. Goodwin explained how financing could be extended. Mayor Leiken suggested contacting other cities that had done this to get their input. Mr. Grimaldi s<;lid staff could prepare some policy guidelines regarding how to use this district which might address some of Council's questions. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Attest: Am~~ City Recorder