Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-09 SEDA Meeting Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD MONDAY,MAY 9,2005 The Springfield Economic Development Agency met in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room,225 Fifth Street, Springfield,Oregon, on Monday,May 9, 2005 at 7:05 p.m.,with Board Member John Woodrow calling the meeting to order. A FI bNDANCE Present were Board M,,e�tubers Anne Ballew, Sid Leiken,Bill Dwyer,Christine Lundberg,John Woodrow and-Faye Swart. Also present were Community Development Manager John Tamulonis and City Recorder Amy Sowa. Board Chair Tammy Fitch and Board Member Faye Stewart were absent(excused). APPROVAL MINUTES a. Minutes of April 25,2005. IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER LEIKEN TO APPROVE THE APRIL 25,2005 SEDA MINUTES. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(2 ABSENT AND 1 ABSTENTION- DWYER). COMMUNICATIONS a. Business from the Audience b. Correspondence c. Business from the Staff • Update Glenwood Renewal Advisory Committee(GRAC)Meetings. Mr. Tamulonis said there was a two hour and fifteen minute GRAC meeting held Tuesday,May 3,2005. The committee would meet again on Tuesday,May 10 and again on May 23 together with the SEDA Board. He said the GRAC would most likely have recommendations to bring to the joint meeting regarding housing and other development issues. A lot of discussion was held at their May 3 meeting regarding the housing issues and programs and residential areas south of Franklin Boulevard and west of the McVay Highway. REPORT OF CHAIR REPORT OF COMMITTEES OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS a. Transportation Planning Update in Glenwood. Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes May 9,2005 Page 2 Transportation Manager Nick Amis presented the staff report on this item. Transportation planning for major road facilities in the Glenwood area is needed in order for the Springfield City Council, SEDA,and the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT)to determine costs, impacts,phasing,and type and location for improvements to Franklin Boulevard and rebuilding the I-5/Franldin interchange. At an October 2004 Work Session,the City Council reviewed a staff proposal for conducting a transportation planning project for Franklin Boulevard that included McVay Highway and the Franklin/McVay intersection. Council was supportive of the planning project. The plan was also adopted in the Springfield 2006-09 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The focus of the plan will be for Council, SEDA,and ODOT to approve a planned cross-section that includes costs and phasing strategies for the Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway sections,and decide on an interchange form for the McVay/Franklin intersection. The state right of way along Franklin Boulevard is about 70 feet which is basically the pavement between the existing curbs; this is very little to work with given the improvements that are needed on the highway. Consequently,property impacts and costs will be major issues if the road is widened to accommodate improved intersections,bike lanes,bus rapid transit and a landscaped boulevard design. In addition, since Franklin Boulevard is a state highway,ODOT will have definite design and policy requirements. ODOT is also beginning a systems planning process for an I-5/Franklin interchange that will assess interchange forms, locations,costs and phasing that,depending on the outcome of the process, culminates with TransPlan and Regional Transportation Plan(RTP)amendments. After these plan amendments,the project advances into a National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)process with a likely Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). ODOT has initiated a metro area technical team that will meet over the next year to review and evaluate possible interchange forms and location issues. Cost,ODOT policies,and an interchange location are likely to be significant issues for the project. Mr.Amis referred to a map outlining Franklin Boulevard and the McVay Highway. He described the improvements to be made on Franklin Boulevard. The costs or the impacts of those improvements were not yet known. He discussed a bus corridor in that area that Lane Transit District(LTD)was considering. As a state highway,Franklin Boulevard had state design standards. There was a lot of work ahead with a lot of public involvement. Staff would like to hire one consultant to work on this project as well as projects in Gateway. Cost and phasing of this project need to be determined. To get that information,this project would need to go before the state in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program(STIP)procress. That would begin locally,then go to the Lane County Board of Commissioners and then to the state. Staff would be coming back to the City Council and possibly the SEDA Board for approval to move forward. Mr.Arnis said the other project in that area was ODOT's systems planning process for the I- 5/Franklin interchange. City staff, along with ODOT staff,would bring that to the City Council on May 16,2005 for an update on that process. Mr. Arris referred to the map and the area for the study which would determine how an interchange could fit in with the new bridge that would be built in the future. There were a lot of ideas regarding interchange forms,cost and how it could he phased. ODOT would come back to the metro jurisdictions once the study was complete and ask if the project they come up with would be something that could be in the TransPlan. He said with both planning projects,there was risk involved. Franklin Boulevard would need community involvement because a lot of businesses would be impacted. In regards to the interchange,the risk would be the cost and how to get that cost into the regional transportation plan budget. There would also be ODOT state policies that may be implemented. Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes May 9,2005 Page 3 This would be discussed with the Springfield City Council on May 16. These two projects would bring benefit to Glenwood,but also a lot of angst and cost. Board Member Dwyer said whatever was done would likely impact the access and the state highway' access standards. Business displacement would be an issue because many businesses are close to the street right now. There would not be room for a wider street,bike paths, etc. without wholesale displacement. He said SEDA would need to identify those that would be impacted before figuring out costs and moving forward. He discussed the right-of-way with the wider streets,bike paths, etc. and the importance of determining which side to take it from to offer the least amount of impact. Another concern regarding the Franklin Boulevard interchange would be the state standards for interchanges in terms of distance. It would need to be determined how those objections could be overcome before going too far in the study. He said we would need to know if those access standards could be waived. He said what was currently there was not acceptable. He referred to the danger of the power poles along Franklin Boulevard to vehicles traveling that road. He said consideration needed to be made regarding the cost of moving those power poles and the right-of-ways needed to move them. He said there was still a lot of work to be done. Mr. Arnis agreed. Board Member Lundberg asked if any of the work regarding right-of-way needed and businesses impacted was done during the Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)process. Mr.Arnis said when the transit authority did their environmental assessment,they did look at some of those issues. LTD would like to be involved in the planning process. Board Member Lundberg said in part of the BRT process the location of the stations was discussed. She asked if that work could be part of something usable for this project. Board Member Dwyer said it would not be usable. Mr.Tamulonis said that would not be a decision for the SEDA Board if those things were needed in that area. The SEDA Board could be involved in correcting some of the issues. He gave examples regarding landscaping or relocation of businesses. Tonight's discussion was to keep the SEDA Board informed about the projects coming in the future and how the SEDA Board could assist. It would be the role of the City Council and ODOT to make the decisions regarding what the roads would look like. The urban renewal agency could help with implementing some of those changes. Board Member Lundberg asked if there was an idea of the cost for the new interchange. Mr.Arnis said the I-5Beltline and West Eugene Parkway(WEP)have price tags attached to them. The I-5/Franklin project and Beltline Highway could use part of the state planning money. Those are the only projects this area could afford in the budget. These would be metro decisions. He referred to the presentation ODOT would give to council during their work session on May 16. The state would look at SEDA to see what kind of funding there might be from this board. The state would look more and more at local jurisdictions to provide more funding for state highway projects. Board Member Leiken referred to ODOT's proposal to ask local jurisdictions to assist in payment for these projects. He confirmed with Mr. Arnis that the timeframe for completion of the permanent bridge was 2012. Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes May 9,2005 Page 4 Mr.Arris said that was correct. By 2008,ODOT would want the environmental process completed. Mayor Leiken said building the interchange by that year would be unlikely. He said there were other organizations along the Franklin corridor that would like to see that interchange built,such as the University of Oregon. Board Member Dwyer said constructing an interchange would take a federal earmark and would require a United Front effort. He said it could be possible that some of the funding that was designated from the WEP could move to the interchange project instead. He said the interchange was important. The problem could be solved without the WEP. He suggested meeting with Eugene about priorities. Board Member Ballew said there was no guarantee that if the WEP wasn't built,the funding would stay in the area. She noted that both cities agree that the I-5/Franklin off ramps would be a positive project for both communities. Board Member Dwyer said it was important to look at the objections first. Mr.Arris said there was a lot of community support for this interchange. Mr.Tamulonis referred to a map that showed properties SEDA was considering obtaining from the state which could assist with that interchange. He asked Mr.Arnis about the footprint for the interchange. Mr.Arnis discussed the area involved and some of the options for the footprint for the off ramps. Mr.Tamulonis said an earlier configuration showed a large area for on and off ramps. He asked if they had options that would be smaller. Mr.Arnis said that was correct. The phasing would be the most important part. Board Member Dwyer discussed an idea of constructing a monorail through the center of Franklin Boulevard with one monorail on the top and one on the bottom. He discussed the issue with diesel and the option of a monorail using electricity rather than diesel. This type of design would not impact the businesses along the highway. Board Member Pishioneri said he researched monorails. The cost for an EmX system would run about$4.3M/linear mile and the cost for a monorail would be about$115M to $200M/linear mile. Board Member Lundberg said she recalled that no one was interested in making more lanes for buses along the Franklin corridor. Board Member Dwyer discussed the power of eminent domain and that the county,city or LTD could authorize eminent domain. Mr. Arnis referred to the map and McVay Highway. He discussed options for improvements to Franklin Boulevard. b. City/SEDA Relationship and Adjunct Staffing. Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes May 9,2005 Page 5 Mr. Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item. SEDA is an independent agency under state laws with an interest in having general and specific functions done through an agreement with the City of Springfield.The character and extent of the relationship would be delineated in an intergovernmental agreement between the two organizations. Discussion will introduce major issues, listed below,and seek general direction for drafting a full agreement for SEDA to consider proposing to the city: 1. Purpose and Intent 2. Boundaries and Limitations 3. City as Administrative Agent with General and Specific Functions a. Contract Staff(CMO,DSD,PW,Finance) b.Materials and Services c.Programs d.Accounting i. Revenues and Expenditures ii. Budgeting e.Intergovernmental Projects (SUB,Willamalane,Lane County,etc.) 4. SEDA Obligations a.Funding b.Initial Expenses 5. Grants,Loans,Bonds 6. Contracts(Services: Audit,Property Consulting,Planning,Engineering, etc.) 7. Liability,Indemnification and Hold Harmless 8. Insurance 9. Effective Date and Term 10.Dissolution 11.Disagreements and Arbitration 12.Attorney Fees 13.Amendments and Termination 14.Confidentiality 15. Assignment/Subcontract 16. Severability 17.Remedies 18.Entire Agreement Mr. Tamulonis said it would be about a month before staff could bring back a draft agreement between the city and SEDA. He reviewed some of the items listed above to be considered for inclusion in such an agreement. More details on the budget would be brought back to the Budget Committee meeting on May 17, 2005. Board Member Ballew said there should be a contract compliance provision. Mr. Tamulonis said he would include that in the agreement. He said the list was modeled after other agreements the city had with outside agencies. He noted that he and the SEDA attorney were also consulting with other urban renewal agencies regarding their agreements with their cities. Board Member Dwyer suggested that the relationship be'at will' and there are no golden parachutes for severing the relationship. He explained. Board Member Woodrow asked if a policy manual was needed to protect SEDA if they were to discharge an independent contractor. Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes May 9,2005 Page 6 Board Member Dwyer said that could be part of the Request for Proposal(RFP)and also clear in the contract regarding severing the contract. He said it may limit the amount of response because some people don't want to sign something with that provision. Mr.Tamulonis said he would check with legal staff to see what might work best. There would be limitations on the contract side,but the relationship between the city and SEDA would be different. There was something included about dissolution, disagreements, arbitration and attorney fees associated with disagreement. He said he would check with Joe Leahy to see what he would recommend. Board Member Woodrow asked when the urban renewal district would receive revenues. Mr.Tamulonis said he understood arrangements were being made now to transfer funds into the city between the county tax assessor and the city. Mr. Duey said the year would begin on July 1,2005 and the taxes would come in during November or December,2005. He said the budget proposed by the SEDA Board was requesting a loan from the city which would be income immediately available to the SEDA Board. Mr.Tamulonis said it would be a formal resolution from the SEDA Board requesting those funds from the city at some point in the future. Board Member Pishioneri asked if SEDA could purchase a percentage of a full time employee (FTE) from the city. Mr.Tamulonis said that could be part of the arrangement between the city and the urban renewal agency. He said time would be tracked to determine the amount of staff possibly needed. He said typical consulting pay costs were higher due to overhead and insurance costs. The ratio was usually three to one in terms of total cost to the pay of the staff person. Costs for a city employee may not be that high. Board Member Dwyer said it was important to define the scope of work. Mr.Tamulonis said three members of the GRAC were present in the audience and two members of the Budget Committee. The next SEDA Board meeting was scheduled for May 23. Board Member Dwyer said he would not be able to attend that meeting due to his surgery. RESOLUTIONS ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 pm. Minutes Recorder—Amy Sowa Christine Lundberg Secretary