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